You need to refer back to what is IQ? what does IQ check? For example you can say that IQ is only checking the left side of the brain functions. We now know that IQ is only one kind of intelligent and there are many different intelligence - for example - emotional intelligence. So IQ only measures one aspect of our lives. Might be that men are more logic than women but women are better in logistics or other things. I wouldn't go to work places etc', as work places in need for different kind of intelligence..
https://blog.adioma.com/9-types-of-intelligence-infographic/
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I've been telling people that for decades, after seeing something about "9 kinds of intelligence" in the Los Angeles Times, I think, when I was young. 1983 might fit the time frame of my memory. Thanks for not only making a great point but also letting me finally know the origin of the idea.
I am blogging about this mainly to test tolerance for speech here and want to make sure that you know that, @limma.
I think that the truth is somewhere in the middle. When I was a boy, it was all about ranking. "So and so is smarter than so and so." "He is a retard." "He is gifted." Total competition. Pecking order.
Then society became too extreme the other way. It became all about sensitivity and motivation and avoiding making anyone feel bad. The whole "9 kinds of intelligence" meme emerged as part of that. Everything became about cooperation and tolerance, with competition, ranking, pecking order completely banned from thought.
It seems to me that the "9 kinds of intelligence" meme contains an element of dishonesty in that it redefines the meaning of the word "intelligent" to mean something so broad that no one is left out, no one ends up at the wrong end of the pecking order.
As I've expressed elsewhere, I think that life is intended to be essentially cooperative for women and essentially competitive for men. If so, then silencing the original meaning of "intelligence" oppresses men by suppressing the ranking and pecking order competition that is essential to men living to their full potential as men.
I agree partly with it. Yes, I agree that "society became too extreme the other way". Looking at the bigger picture - sometimes that is the only way change can happen - you go from one extreme, to the other, to get to the middle in the end.
Another thought about IQ tests and the gender differences - You must know that although there are biological differences between girls/boys men/women - we are social creatures and there is also gender expectation and education that affects us. For example - if a boy is expected to be good at math because he is a boy- his parents will encourage him from young age to do so, they will give him more support etc'. If a girl is not expected to be good at math because she is a girl, - she will get less support etc'. Yes, there is a level of intelligence we all born with, but also, as the brain is a like a mussel - it also depends on how much we exercise the mussel and how the surroundings give us the opportunity to do so. This is another reason why I think the gender difference in IQ tests not really say much about the real potential. This goes back to - equal opportunities and the importance of it in society.
I am reading the refereed article and am 1/3 into it (20 pages of 60). This particular article reviews studies of mean IQ difference across race but not gender. One of the three unrefereed articles claims that there is a gender effect, but it did not cite a source and I haven't yet looked into it.
For race, the refereed article looks at two competing views: nature+nurture versus nurture-only. "Nature-only" isn't in the competition; everyone agrees that nurture plays a role. The question is whether nature (genetics) plays a significant role (say 50%) or no role (0%) the Black/White difference.
All of the studies reviewed by the survey article allow for nurture (parenting style, nutrition, etc.) For example, just now I was reading about how a study looked at adopted children who were all half Black and were adopted and raised by two White parents, some of whom thought mistakenly that their adopted child's biological parents were both Black. No statistically significant difference in IQ outcomes was found, which was interpreted as evidence that lower parenting expectations (the child is 100% Black so he's going to be a dumb-ass no matter what we do) does not explain the lower IQ outcomes.
My guess is that you are going to find articles and researches that contradict each other. In the question of Nature+Nurture or Nature only - I feel that nurture can change but Nature is stronger - I would say 70% - 30% for nature. This is from my own experience. However it means that there are still 30% that can make a big different. Very interesting topic.
This topic might become the focus of my blogging for a while. I see a variety of benefits from exploring this, ranging from developing tolerance for speech to exposing how saturated our thinking is by government propoganda to what-if policy questions. If what is being suggested is true, it also means that white males are the true oppressed group, which is shocking! Basically, if the hypothesis is true, it will overturn the world view that dominates Western culture, and who knows where that would lead.
BTW, your idea that nature (genetics, not environment) is 70% responsible for sub-Sahara African IQ being around 80 (which is very low) would be viewed as racist by the PC crowd. The counterclaim is that it's all environment; genetics plays no role.
I don't really see how you got to your first conclusions - "white men true oppressed group". Even if it is true that western white man statistically have higher IQ than the rest of the groups, we are going back to what is IQ - do you believe that people it higher IQ are better than other people? what about all the other intelligence? Also why do we need someone to be the dominate? and if anyone is still dominating the world right now, financially and in other ways - it is the western white men! oppressed ?? sorry, I really lost you on this one..
As for the second part - I am pro freedom of speech (I am the one who used to go out with Danny Shine.. I am not afraid of being not politically correct. However don't forget that my 70/30 assumption is based only on my experience as a western white women with white children (not my own), comparing to other white children.
Interesting about Danny Shine. Public nuisance is also what government is using against me. My argument is that the First Amendment does not permit the kind of discretion that a police officer, a district attorney, and a judge must exercise to decide whether particular facts constitute a public offense. My attack says that acts that are inseparable from speech content or speech method cannot be subjected to public nuisance legal process. (Your speech rights in the UK differ; I'd be interested in how Shine's prosecution turned out.)
White men are arguably oppressed both in opportunities and in outcomes. If race does influence IQ and IQ is correlated with job performance, employers should be able to consider race in deciding pay and promotions. Prohibiting employers from doing so discriminates against Whites and favors Blacks.
If you read the scientific articles that I am reading, you will find that the scientists consider all of your points and many others. The debate has been vigorous and thorough. I'm just beginning to read, but what already appears clear to me is that it is a one sided debate, with one side pressing for acceptance of an undeniable but unpleasant truth, and the other side desperately grasping at straws to find some basis for denying that truth. IOW, the quality of the scientific research and reasoning is solid on one side of the debate and mediocre on the other.
I am not a racist. But if this research turns out to be persuasive, I might become one.