In my Defense: Amicus...

[jomar]

OLI72

It seems to me you dont know how tests are normed.

You create representative cohorts, give them a battery of questions, and save all the questions EVERYONE in the cohort gets right. This includes young, old, male, female, black, white, rich, poor, etc.

The WESCHLER ADULT INTELLIGENCE SCALE uses something like 13 cohorts to get a test that is almost bias free. The test measures how well people solve logical, math, verbal, and memory tasks. The generally accepted definition for intelligence is "ITS WHAT YOU USE WHEN YOU HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT TO DO."

Psychologists did an experiment involving the claim that the WAIS is biased against blacks. A panel of college asshats and blacks examined the test questions and identified several they believed were biased against blacks. Then the psychologists gave a 'test' to a black/white control group, and almost everyone answered the 'biased' questions correctly.

Generally. Get it? G? Anyway, while the test does measure some discreet tasks, on the whole it is highly correlated to academic success, for sure, and measures some overall construct of intelligence, g. The more the better for you for solving the problems and situations life throws at you. Like figuring out your phone bill, for one.

Certainly, IQ tests do not measure emotional stability, motivation, social skills and other things that can impair success in life. Or creativity - smart people are generally more creative, but above 120 IQ other factors emerge for more or less. Party factoid.

At any rate, I always assume that when someone who is usually somewhat witty in their insults, or consistent, or at least in bounds, does a 180 and goes over the top, well, I assume they'll have a headache when they next wake up.

 

[tickledkitty]

Generally. Get it? G? Anyway, while the test does measure some discreet tasks, on the whole it is highly correlated to academic success, for sure, and measures some overall construct of intelligence, g. The more the better for you for solving the problems and situations life throws at you. Like figuring out your phone bill, for one.

Certainly, IQ tests do not measure emotional stability, motivation, social skills and other things that can impair success in life. Or creativity - smart people are generally more creative, but above 120 IQ other factors emerge for more or less. Party factoid.

At any rate, I always assume that when someone who is usually somewhat witty in their insults, or consistent, or at least in bounds, does a 180 and goes over the top, well, I assume they'll have a headache when they next wake up.

Mmmm...I love it when you get all intellekshual.

 

[jomar]

Mmmm...I love it when you get all intellekshual.

Hey TK!

 

[Corylea]

Alfred Binet developed the first IQ test in France, in 1905. The purpose of the test was to find children who were having difficulty in school -- for whatever reason -- so that they could be given extra help.

The IQ test was originally supposed to help people who were doing badly in school because of poverty or disturbed parents or personal illness or whatever. Binet must be rolling in his grave, so see the test that he designed to help underprivileged children being used to hinder them.


I learned to give IQ tests when I was in training to be a psychologist. We were told that the pattern of subscores was the most interesting and useful information that the test could give us, because the summary number -- the IQ -- was not a terribly reliable indicator of anything besides ability to do well in school.

 

[sr71plt]

How many here actually know what their IQ is? I certainly don't. Whenever I've had a success, I just sort of think "fooled them again" and march on. And what relationship does this have to common sense?

Seems a bit silly for Internet alts to be comparing claimed IQs, doesn't it?

 

[Corylea]

How many here actually know what their IQ is? I certainly don't.

I'll never know my IQ, because I'm the person who gives the IQ tests -- I can't be tested, because I already know the answers. I'm just as happy not knowing -- if it were lower than my life would tend to indicate, it might undermine my confidence, and if it were higher than my life would tend to indicate, I'd worry that I wasn't living up to my potential. I think it's far better to just live.

Seems a bit silly for Internet alts to be comparing claimed IQs, doesn't it?

Yes.

 

[sr71plt]

I'll never know my IQ, because I'm the person who gives the IQ tests -- I can't be tested, because I already know the answers. I'm just as happy not knowing -- if it were lower than my life would tend to indicate, it might undermine my confidence, and if it were higher than my life would tend to indicate, I'd worry that I wasn't living up to my potential. I think it's far better to just live.

Raises the question of whether the IQ rating changes depending on day/feeling/changing attention span of the subject (don't know--wonder--not asserting anything or intending to take it anywhere). And/or if there is a range of scores involved to compensate for that?

I've taken the Meyers-Briggs three times, for instance, and come out a radically different person each time because how I responded on the test was affected by what sort of manager I had to be at the particular time to get the problems in my office solved.

 

[Corylea]

Raises the question of whether the IQ rating changes depending on day/feeling/changing attention span of the subject (don't know--wonder--not asserting anything or intending to take it anywhere). And/or if there is a range of scores involved to compensate for that?

I've taken the Meyers-Briggs three times, for instance, and come out a radically different person each time because how I responded on the test was affected by what sort of manager I had to be at the particular time to get the problems in my office solved.

The Meyers-Briggs is supposed to measure personality, which does fluctuate somewhat with the situation and fluctuates more for some people (what Mark Snyder calls High Self-Monitors) than it does for others. The IQ test is a lot more concrete, so it's not supposed to fluctuate, but it does. There have been some studies where they've given minority students an ego-boost or an ego-deflation before taking the test, and surprise, surprise -- they do better than usual when given the boost and worse than usual when given the deflation. Who the examiner is also makes a big difference; if the examiner is intimidating and disapproving, it's a lot harder to concentrate than if the examiner is smiling and encouraging. Then there are the folks who are so stupid as to give IQ tests to people who don't speak much English and try to draw conclusions from the results. Uh, guys? The conclusion you can draw is that they don't speak much English, but we knew that going in.

 

[sr71plt]

The Meyers-Briggs is supposed to measure personality, which does fluctuate somewhat with the situation and fluctuates more for some people (what Mark Snyder calls High Self-Monitors) than it does for others. The IQ test is a lot more concrete, so it's not supposed to fluctuate, but it does. There have been some studies where they've given minority students an ego-boost or an ego-deflation before taking the test, and surprise, surprise -- they do better than usual when given the boost and worse than usual when given the deflation. Who the examiner is also makes a big difference; if the examiner is intimidating and disapproving, it's a lot harder to concentrate than if the examiner is smiling and encouraging. Then there are the folks who are so stupid as to give IQ tests to people who don't speak much English and try to draw conclusions from the results. Uh, guys? The conclusion you can draw is that they don't speak much English, but we knew that going in.

Thanks. Very interesting.

 

[jomar]

Raises the question of whether the IQ rating changes depending on day/feeling/changing attention span of the subject (don't know--wonder--not asserting anything or intending to take it anywhere). And/or if there is a range of scores involved to compensate for that?

...

Day to day performance certainly changes. Though like any test, there's only one way to do well - answer the questions correctly. But there are numerous ways to do poorly that have nothing to do with knowing the answers or not (anxiety, lack of sleep, your house just burned down, etc).

I can't imagine a range of compensating scores, other than the usual statistical confidence interval bands. Maybe Corylea knows.

ETA: It's probably part of a psychologist's job to assess how depressed an IQ score is due to what factors.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JOMAR

True. IQ correlates well with academic success and how well youre able to solve puzzles. Its not a measure of talent or skill or other traits that influence performance success.

If I were screening applicants to train as pediatric heart surgeons, I'd use the old GATB (General Aptitude Test Battery), because its results are normed from competent pediatric heart surgeons. GATB measures a lot more than thinking/intelligence because competent performance involves a variety of traits working together.

My eye-hand coordination is awful (1st percentile), and my ability to visually process objects in space scores at the 96th percentile. I can process a 2 dimensional plan into a 3 dimensional shape quicker than I can say it. So, geometry is effortless for me. So, I'm an awful dentist and a competent architect/engineer. I can imagine how a gemstone should be cut, but can never cut one.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I would think you people would have learned by now that the only way to deal with this person is to ignore him and stop rising to his ridiculous baits. He's not credible, he's not knowledgeable, he's not even rational and he certainly cannot be reasoned with, so why you even encourage him to post is a mystery to me. He's sociopathic and entirely malevolent and he merely feeds off other's bile. Why do you seek to engage with him? Do you think you're going to change that thing he calls a mind?

Really. Go down to the bus station and shout into the urinals if you miss talking to him. The results are the same and you'll have more respect for yourself afterwards.

As to his ridiculous statistical racial arguments, someone tell the holder of those honorary doctorates that at one time the statistics showed that pretty much 100% of all blacks were slaves, but that doesn't mean they were destined to be slaves throughout all of history. The idea is to build the fuiture, not live in the past. Oh wait, he's a conservative, isn't he? He doesn't believe in the future.

As for IQ, his own IQ is all the demonstration we need as to the reliability (or desirability) of that particular metric. If I had a dog with Amicus's IQ I'd shave his ass and teach him to walk backwards.

 

[Oli72]

OLI72

It seems to me you dont know how tests are normed.

It seems to me this has precious little to do with my points.

You create representative cohorts, give them a battery of questions, and save all the questions EVERYONE in the cohort gets right. This includes young, old, male, female, black, white, rich, poor, etc.

A cohort is still a cohort, and as representative as you'd like it to be, still is not the population. Chosing a representative cohort might be the best manageable solution, but a crutch is still a crutch, no matter how well-constructed it is. If one doesn't keep in mind the limitations of what one does, it's a pretty surefire way to come to bogus conclusions.

The generally accepted definition for intelligence is "ITS WHAT YOU USE WHEN YOU HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT TO DO."

Accepted by whom? You? If I look at academic literature, there's a whole lot of attempts at defining intelligence, not all of which see eye-to-eye with each other.

 

[Pure]

note to jbj

jbjThe WESCHLER ADULT INTELLIGENCE SCALE uses something like 13 cohorts to get a test that is almost bias free. The test measures how well people solve logical, math, verbal, and memory tasks. The generally accepted definition for intelligence is "ITS WHAT YOU USE WHEN YOU HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT TO DO."

to which you add

jbjTrue. IQ correlates well with academic success and how well youre able to solve puzzles. Its not a measure of talent or skill or other traits that influence performance success.

If I were screening applicants to train as pediatric heart surgeons, I'd use the old GATB (General Aptitude Test Battery), because its results are normed from competent pediatric heart surgeons. GATB measures a lot more than thinking/intelligence because competent performance involves a variety of traits working together.

well, there you have it. for any given performance there are likely tests that are better predictors. life's main tasks are often specifically defined tasks, such as evaluate defendants mental status in relation to standing trial. or performing installation of the radio of a car on an assembly line. or routing phonecalls to the correct person.

hence it would be highly foolish for any employer to use an IQ test.

IS THERE some "general ability" underlying the specific ones above?
Show me the evidence. Is "fluid intelligence" this general ability?

For example, IF the company wanted someone, a jack of all trades, who could deal with electrical outages in the building AND a mulitmillion dollars lawsuits, should they look for *high IQ* (or, high 'fluid intelligence'). In a job requiring multiple talents, say, Pres of the US, would you look for "general ability". NO.

How would the 'great presidents' like Teddy Roosevelt, test? TOP of IQ scale,? no.
---

Does IQ predict academic success? VERY modestly. From the figures i recall, for some cohort, the Master's Degree's averages 125 and the PHDs 135. Supposing that's correct, EVEN IF you have a bunch of PHD applicants and their IQ scores, that would be silly to use as a primary measure.

There are 140s, 150s and higher walking about, and NOT the least suited to doing PhD work and getting their degree; or for university teaching.

I have observed hundreds of persons working for and getting PhDs and their 'basic intelligence' [fluid intelligence] is,. i'd say, a MINOR factor in success. why? for the reasons you give. passing courses and writing a document to suit a committee is a specific performance. SOCIAL skills are involved. you piss off the committee, you don't pass. IQ 120 who does NOT piss off the committee, but kowtows to it, passes.

sheer persistence is the one quality i'd single out. with slightly above average IQ and lots of persistence and some wisdom and skill in proceeding and you'll have a PhD eventually.

further no college relies primarily on IQ tests. at the BEST colleges, let's say, Harvard, looking at SAT combined scores is rougly the same as looking at IQ scores. What does one see. One sees a bell curve. For the sake of argument, given 1600 possible, the peak is at, lets say 1350. What does that show. There was NO simple sellection of the high IQ folks, else the total would be higher. In the US one could get a cohort with combined scores ofver 1500. Why not. Why take someone who's combined schore is BELOW the schol norm. eg 1250. *Because they may well succeed. Same as above: Special talents and persistence. To which i would add, 'creativity,' UN measured on alleged "intelligence" or IQ tests.

in sum, IQ is not some mysterious ability to "solve a problem for which one has no guidelines", as you suggest. indeed i'd like to see your evidence of the success of high IQ persons on tasks with no clear guidelines on how to proceed, IOW, NOT the usual math problems. "fluid intelligence" is an abstraction: there is no reason to base IQ on alleged measures of it alone. to admit "crystallized intelligence' as a second type, is an improvement, but it concedes that there is, in fact, complexity. What does it mean to be greatly higher on one than the other? Which is more "intelligent" overall, and all in all? The question has no answer.

there is no demonstrable, single "g" or general factor, underlying problem solving in the wide sense, from math to spatial relations, to 'pattern perception'. the alleged 'extractions' of such a factor may all be questioned in terms of being the best analysis.

i hold with a number of psychologists that there are 3 or 5 or 10 or 20 or 200 components of "intelligence"; the choice is arbitrary. Five or Ten seems like a reasonable number. there is a nice summary at

http://courses.ttu.edu/humandevelopment/Oct31.htm

Guildford's theory of 3 components; Thurstone, 7 primary abilities; and Gardner 8 'intelligences', including for example, musical; Horn, several.

the conclusion of many who study the topic is a tautology: What is IQ as measured by the Wechsler? Is is that which Weschler measures. Wechsler IQ is your outcome on the Wechler IQ test.

In particular, the WEIGHT given to the components mentioned above, e.g. math ability, is ARBITRARILY set by Wechsler. there is no other way to do it. IQ is "that which tests labelled 'IQ TEST' measure."

since there are no general correlations with job performance, the norm for the races, on IQ tests are irrelevant for reasons you've given: to hire a bus driver, a hs science teacher, or a newspaper reporter, or a heart surgeon, you do NOT need and won't benefit from giving an IQ test. that the statistical 'average Black person" has a difference on X IQ test is utterly irrelevant

 

[Corylea]

He's not credible, he's not knowledgeable, he's not even rational and he certainly cannot be reasoned with, so why you even encourage him to post is a mystery to me. He's sociopathic and entirely malevolent and he merely feeds off other's bile. Why do you seek to engage with him? Do you think you're going to change that thing he calls a mind?

Really. Go down to the bus station and shout into the urinals if you miss talking to him. The results are the same and you'll have more respect for yourself afterwards.

Don't hold back, Doc; let your hair down and tell us what you think.

Have I told you yet today that you're adorable? You're cute when you're dyspeptic.

As for IQ, his own IQ is all the demonstration we need as to the reliability (or desirability) of that particular metric. If I had a dog with Amicus's IQ I'd shave his ass and teach him to walk backwards.

Personally, I'm not engaging with Amicus. There are a lot of myths and misinformation out there about IQ tests -- said misinformation often repeated by otherwise rational and intelligent people who simply don't know any better -- and I thought I'd try to dispel a little of it, given that I had to learn this stuff in school. I'm too lazy for the long version; luckily there are posters who don't mind slogging through all the details. *smile*

 

[Emerald_Dragon]

You folks remain averse to facts, even when I provide the links for you.

Not that that surprises me.

Amicus...

Statistics can be skewed in favor of what ever you would like. Statistics are also not a stand alone reason for condeming people.

I think that it is odd that in a country where freedom (of everything) still requires 'scapegoats' and the old 'I am better than them because...

You can't judge one person based on the 'judgement' of statistics and bias. There are always exceptions.

Up here it is the Native American's that are looked down on rather than African Americans (probably because there aren't that many). I can quote statistics at you right and left at how they are "inferior" to the rest of us.

That doesn't change the fact that due to the actions of many people throughtout history the average Native American starts out life with serious handicaps. They often have to climb out of the hole that has been dug for them by society. They have further to go to get to the basics like education and being able to support a family. It isn't particularly surprising that many of them don't make it.



You are entitled to your opinion. I consider your opinion to be for the most part racist and narrowminded.

I don't however enjoy 'listening' to you and others spouting off their opinions that make them sound incredibly stupid when you obviously have a decent IQ and education.

Maybe you are just in it for the attention. I don't know. You have the right to express your opinion. We have the right to disagree with you.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

OLI72

I cant name one scientist who norms a test using the entire population.

Your point was: Intelligence tests dont capture African intellectual peculiarities. Not true!

"ITS WHAT YOU USE WHEN YOU HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT TO DO." Is a quote from Jean Piaget.

http://williamcalvin.com/bk8/index.htm

PURE

The GATB included an intelligence test.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZR...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA47,M1

 

[Selena_Kitt]

The Meyers-Briggs is supposed to measure personality...

Now there's an interesting test. Whatcha think Ami is, Cory?

 

[Corylea]

Now there's an interesting test. Whatcha think Ami is, Cory?

Well, we have Doc's diagnosis of the man ... far be it from me to disagree with Doc.

But if I had to guess ... I'd say S, because I don't see a whole lotta intuition. J, because he seems to think of P as nasty looseness. He might be E, since he seems to spend a lot of time here, in spite of not being exactly welcomed with open arms. And his belief system is rigid enough that I'd guess him to be a T. So, I guess I'd say ESTJ. What do you think he is?

And hey, Selena, what are you? Depending on my mood, I can be INFP or INTP.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://open-site.org/Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Psychiatric_Disorders/Personality

Myers-Briggs isnt a 'real' personality test. Its a personality preference survey. That is, the test determines what you prefer to be (or think you are) rather than what you are.

Real personality tests are normed on sick puppies just like YOU! And when you pick the same answers that sick puppies pick, voila!, there's a good chance youre a sick fuck, too.

The legitimate personality tests will illustrate how your sickness expresses itself. For example, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory highlights relevant factors like alcohol abuse, low anxiety, and novelty seeking behavior for folks who get wasted every weekend, frolic naked in the fountain at the zoo, and get arrested.

 

[Corylea]

Myers-Briggs isnt a 'real' personality test. Its a personality preference survey. That is, the test determines what you prefer to be rather than what you are.

It's true that it isn't a real test in the sense that its reliability and validity are questionable. Then again, some people still use the Rorschach, and it's about as good as tarot cards.

My understanding of the theory behind the MBTI (besides the Jungian stuff, of course) is that people will think that whatever they are is the best, so while they'll be choosing what they want to be, the fact that they're choosing it means that they really are that. Thinkers will value thinking, feelers will value feeling, and so on. Personally, I'm not so sure, but that's how they get around the whole preference thing.

Real personality tests are normed on sick puppies just like YOU! And when you pick the same answers that sick puppies pick, voila!, there's a good chance youre a sicko, too.

*laugh* Certainly that's how the MMPI works, but it was never intended to be used as a personality test for people at large; it was supposed to be a diagnostic tool for people who were suspected to be sick already.

An awful lot of tests get misused. The MMPI was never designed for employers to give it to prospective employees, but some places actually use it.

Cory, varies between INFP and INTP

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

CORYLEA

I'm INTP, too.

Several years ago I worked for a community mental health center. My supervisor and I hated each other. Then the staff went on a retreat where all of us took the Myers-Briggs. Norma and I were the only INTPs, and the revelation ruined our fun. Its not possible for two people to be more different. Chevy Chase's harangue about his boss is kinda my impression of Norma.

http://www.moviewavs.com/php/sounds...mas_Vacation&quote=myboss.txt&file=myboss.wav

It makes sense to norm the MMPI with sick freaks, because freakiness is what youre looking for. But, as you know, permutations and combinations of the scores deflate a lot of the cosmetic pathology. And experiences like psychotherapy often inflate the LIE scale and psychopathological deviance scale.

 

[jomar]

...
IS THERE some "general ability" underlying the specific ones above?
Show me the evidence. Is "fluid intelligence" this general ability?

...

there is no demonstrable, single "g" or general factor, underlying problem solving in the wide sense, from math to spatial relations, to 'pattern perception'. the alleged 'extractions' of such a factor may all be questioned in terms of being the best analysis.

i hold with a number of psychologists that there are 3 or 5 or 10 or 20 or 200 components of "intelligence"; the choice is arbitrary. Five or Ten seems like a reasonable number. there is a nice summary at

http://courses.ttu.edu/humandevelopment/Oct31.htm

Guildford's theory of 3 components; Thurstone, 7 primary abilities; and Gardner 8 'intelligences', including for example, musical; Horn, several.

...

Admittadly, from Wiki, though they cite (highlights mine):

Challenges to g

In 1981, the late Stephen Jay Gould, a paleontologist, voiced his objections to the concept of g, as well as intelligence testing in general, in his controversial book The Mismeasure of Man. In 1985, the British philosopher Philip Kitcher wrote that "Many scientists are now convinced that there is no single measure of intellectual ability" and that "it is useful to continue to expose the myth of "general intelligence". Some researchers in artificial intelligence have argued that the science of mental ability can be thought of as "computationalism" and is "either silly or pointless," noting, "Mental ability tests measure differences in tasks that will soon be performed for all of us by computational agents."[22] And intelligence theorist Howard Gardner also has written that he does not believe "that there is a single general talent, whether it be called intelligence, creativity or 'g'." In 2005, Wendy Johnson and Thomas Bouchard investigated the structure of mental ability by administering 42 diverse tests of mental ability to 436 adults. The tests included "different uses" (generation of novel uses for specified objects), "object assembly" (reassembly of cut-up figures), "verbal—proverbs" (interpretation of proverbs) and "mechanical ability" (identification of mechanical principles and tools); factor analysis found a clear single higher order factor, g. In their report, published in the journal Intelligence, the study authors conclude:

In combination with our earlier findings regarding the consistency of general intelligence factors across test batteries, our results point unequivocally to the existence of a general intelligence factor contributing substantively to all aspects of intelligence.[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_intelligence_factor

 

[Pure]

note to jomar

In 2005, Wendy Johnson and Thomas Bouchard investigated the structure of mental ability by administering 42 diverse tests of mental ability to 436 adults. The tests included "different uses" (generation of novel uses for specified objects), "object assembly" (reassembly of cut-up figures), "verbal—proverbs" (interpretation of proverbs) and "mechanical ability" (identification of mechanical principles and tools); factor analysis found a clear single higher order factor, g. In their report, published in the journal Intelligence, the study authors conclude:

In combination with our earlier findings regarding the consistency of general intelligence factors across test batteries, our results point unequivocally to the existence of a general intelligence factor contributing substantively to all aspects of intelligence.[23]

that conclusion is rather weak, "substantively". NOT substantially. "Sustantively" could mean 20%.

my posting made a number of arguments, independent of this alleged feat of factor analysis. factor analysis is a mathematical procedure whose outcome has no necessary scientific utility. wherever two scores have some correlation, even a mild one, "factor" analysis can "find", i.e. grind out, a "common factor" and (the program's user can) allege it to be "underlying". For example, test results for IQ and of physical attactiveness, as a pair; or results for height and attractiveness. The computer can grind out a "common factor" in both cases. In that limited sense, the factor "exists";-- same sense as in the quotation you give.

the problem is what [usefully] to "call" the factor (what it is), and how it integrates, if at all, with scientific theory. in the above cases, i can CALL it 'General Cosmic Meritoriousness' but that doesn't make it so. and GCM has no connection with the entities(proven constructs) in such relevant sciences as anthropology, brain sciences, etc. so the "existence" is of no consequence; it's rather like the "existence" if any, of leprechauns.

the failure of "g" to tie in with the constructs of biology is discussed by partridge at
http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?10.060

the other basic point is that success in all known occupations cannot be well predicted using IQ tests, as JBJ concedes, re pediatric surgeons.

further, since this is an authors' forum, achievements in writing cannot be well predicted with IQ tests, since the creativity component is not measured.

SO EVEN IF a mathematical procedure seemingly indicates a "general intelligence super-factor", the utility of that measure is almost zilch.

and we can go further: it follows that any major reliance on IQ to assess potential in job or in artistic endeavor is unsound and unfair.
===


this same conclusion is buried in the paragraph you yourself cite:

the British philosopher Philip Kitcher wrote that "Many scientists are now convinced that there is no single measure of intellectual ability" and that "it is useful to continue to expose the myth of "general intelligence". Some researchers in artificial intelligence have argued that the science of mental ability can be thought of as "computationalism" and is "either silly or pointless,"

 

[amicus]

I am quite certain that if our estimable colleagues, as represented by most of the last two pages here, set their minds to it, they could obfuscate any measurement of any aspect of reality.

Were they but to apply their logic and reason and education and expertise to the average height of each gender, they could prove, by pure logic, and many, many erudite references, that both male and female are essentially equal in height, and probably weight and most likely upper body strength, because that would be both the socially and politically correct opinion to have and express.

This driving quest for absolute equality is truly humorous if one stands apart and questions the motivations for such intense devotion.

Most humans are rather ugly in physical appearance. They are gawky, lumpy, over-weight, mis-shapen and not appealing. We put our pretty ones on stage and gawk at them as movie stars, actors and actresses, take pictures and create statues of them.(You doubt me, open your eyes and look the next time you shop for your Broccoli)

The socially correct are horrified over that and, from time to time, labor to convince us the ugly is beautiful. I smile until the pendulum swings back and 'Twiggy', is in style again.

It is quite the same with racial and ethnic groupings; according to our fervid believers, every race, every ethnic group must be exactly the same, equal in all ways, with none superior or inferior in any way. After all, we are all and only, humans.

Many have poor vision their entire lives, but they are not 'blind as a bat', a social no-no, they are 'visually challenged', and not to be hindered in terms of equal treatment. (but they won't give them pilot's licenses).

There is a science fiction quality to this blindness that has been virtually unspoken for a half century...one day, with gene manipulation and selected procreation, they will create the absolute, 'average' human being, coffee mocha in skin color, of optimum height and weight and preferred eye color and gender, or hell, maybe no gender, as that in itself is an intolerable difference, "boys have penis's, girls have vagina's." Oh, and of course, they will breed for a non-disruptive level of intelligence, after all, we don't need any Stephen Hawkings or Albert Einsteins in our perfect social society of the future, now do we? We need to concentrate on that 'average' intelligence that is easily malleable.

So, do continue right along, dismissing the century and a half long scientific endeavor to measure intelligence and performance in a standardized test procedure, and do indeed continue ostracizing any who dare to suggest that there might actually be innate differences based on ethnicity, race and gender, that is possibly beneficial to comprehending the true nature of the species.

The left, the social apologists, as I keep pointing out, are most similar to their fundamentalist brethren in that their belief must not be challenged. By God there is a God and we will burn you at the stake if you dare disagree.

You are now free to keep your head in the sand.

Amicus...