Hi
So I've just listened to this : http://mises.org/media/4691
Hoppe says that one of the explanation for the industrial revolution is that Europeans were simply more intelligent. According to him, there's a long natural selection that tooks place until the Welfare state grown bigger and bigger : people who were more intelligent were more successful and earned more money than those who were stupid, so they could die older and have more children.
So centuries after centuries, this took place, but only in northern countries. Why ? Because living conditions are "harsher" in these places, and living is easier than in the so-called third world countries, where "every days look the same".
And now I wonder, how can he says that living was harsher in northern countries than in... Africa for exemple ? We've all watched reports on TV where we see people in villages in Africa eating dirt, dying from deseases, having no water, having to walk 6 hours each day to seek waters or to go to the nearest school... so how was it harder than peasants in England ?
EDIT : subsidary question : I have an economic history exams in 10 days about the industrial revolution. Can I write that northern people (French, yeay !) are more intelligent that african/asian/indians and that's why the industrial revolution happened in Europe ? =D
There is nothing absurd or ludicrous about testing for intellegence. The methodology may or may not be flawed, but the idea is sound. We do exactly what IQ test try to do everyday. We observe how people solve problems, then draw conclusions from the results. IQ tests attempt to do this a more orderly uniform fashion.
You are awfully hostile to the notion testing for intellegence. Why?
I feel that it has a lot more to do with culture than anything else. I don't find Asian kids to be smarter just because they were like that when they were born- but their parents(like mine) are very hardcore about getting proper school grades and nearly all other activity is trivialized. I know some asian parents that were so hardcore about it that they discouraged physical activity- and when those kids tried to play something like basketball or football they had no idea what they were doing, how to make plays, the signals to watch out for or anything like that. So to me it sounds like they gave up one kind of "intelligence" for another. The culture over here in the inner city is very anti-learning because its accepted that there's no point in trying to get by in the "system" because you're a sucker when you can just hustle and make a lot more money. Very easy when children are raised without fathers and many times without mothers. When you're raised in a different environment, different measures of intelligence are required. A kid who's was raised in a great neighborhood and told to walk around safely in the projects and the ghetto will definitely fail the "IQ test" of being aware of his surroundings, what body language is useful, and how to diffuse different situations.
So what happens if someone is half-black and half-white? Are they smarter than those who are completely black and dumber than those who are completely white? What is the point of trying to figure out the intelligence for people who look different? I don't see how it improves any real decision making unless you make all your decisions regarding associating with others based on IQ test results.
Lastly, if IQ tests could be trained, there wouldn't be any significant heritability.
That is a non sequitur. They can be both.
However, studies have shown that IQ is heritable at a rate of 0.4 to 0.8. From what I've read, most studies (or perhaps the most believable ones) show a heritability between 0.4 and 0.6. Obviously, this leaves a significant role for biological and environmental factors in shaping one's intelligence, but it shows that genes are just as important, if not more so.
I know about the various "studies". Studies don't show that it is heritable. The assumption is that it is heritable and the studies are interpreted as verification of the assumption. There is no reason to make that assumption (the quantitification). A person can have low IQ and parents with low IQ and not have inherited it and without the parent having inherited it. So, the studies don't reallly prove anything. The only way to prove that conclusion would be to find a physiological trait that would definitely make the difference and is not present in anyone with high IQ.
There is nothing absurd or ludicrous about testing for intellegence.
Don't change what I said and argue against the strawman.
The methodology may or may not be flawed, but the idea is sound.
The idea, extricating intrinsic intelligence from acquired intelligence, is impossible/nonsense and the method is "flawed" because the idea is impossible/nonsense.
IQ tests attempt to do this a more orderly uniform fashion.
They attempt to cover for the ineffectiveness of the school system. The alternative to overemphasizing "intrinsic" intelligence is emphasizing the ineffectiveness of teaching methods in the Prussian lever-puller system. That is what I am hostile toward. It's a convenient excuse to say, "It's not our fault that most people come out as dumb as anyone who never went to school- or dumber."
Well culture and ability are inseprable. The abilities of the people affect the culture. Culture cannot create great athletes, it augment the ability present but it cannot create the ability. Culture cannot create great intellects, it can augment the ability present but it cannot create ability.
What is the point of trying to figure out the intelligence for people who look different?
Its an attempt to explain things like why the industrial revolution happened where it did. The original purpose of this thread. So no the discussion is not pointless.
I think it's funny when chimps do better on intelligence tests than "educated" scholars.
There is nothing absurd or ludicrous about testing for intellegence. Don't change what I said and argue against the strawman.
This is your objection to IQ testing. The premise of testing for intrinsic intellegence is an impossiblility. This to you is obvious, so those who say it is possible are advocating an absurd or ludicruous notion.
It is simply absurd to believe that everything that a person has for his entire life has no impact on the result of any test that he takes. A good intelligence test would show a lower score for people who seriously propose such a crazy notion. It is designed to extricate "intrinsic" ability from acquired ability. Which is a ludicrous idea as I said above.
It is simply absurd to believe that everything that a person has for his entire life has no impact on the result of any test that he takes. A good intelligence test would show a lower score for people who seriously propose such a crazy notion.
It is designed to extricate "intrinsic" ability from acquired ability. Which is a ludicrous idea as I said above.
I dont think I have changed what you have said. Maybe I have just misunderstood you.
So with the correct teaching methods we could eliminate differences in intellegence? Anyone could become stephen hawking or albert einstein? Forgive me if I have misunderstood, I dont want to misrepresent you point of veiw.
Do you beleive that there are differences in intrinsic intellegence or even that intrinsic intellegence even exists?
That would be funny. Do you have a source?
100 is average for whites. Eskimos are around 90, african blacks 67(US & Euro blacks 80ish), aboriginals 62, middle eastern also 90ish
100 is the averge IQ, by definition.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
100 is average for whites. Eskimos are around 90, african blacks 67(US & Euro blacks 80ish), aboriginals 62, middle eastern also 90ish 100 is the averge IQ, by definition.
You are both right.
Quote Southern" Well culture and ability are inseprable. The abilities of the people affect the culture. Culture cannot create great athletes, it augment the ability present but it cannot create the ability. Culture cannot create great intellects, it can augment the ability present but it cannot create ability.
I don't think so. There's nothing in my own family's culture(Pakistani) about being on top of physical activity, my dad has a host of health problems because he never takes care of himself physically. But I developed that athleticism myself after hard work and being involved in a culture that did attribute importance to physical ability. I think this line of thinking really undervalues the time and work it takes to grow and create ability. Mike Tyson didn't become a great fighter till after his training. He lived a rough life growing up which made him more interesting in learning how to fight than the average guy who gets into boxing- but if I were to go by your analysis, then all his hardwork and life experience simply augmented his genetic prowress. Which doesn't make much sense to me seeing as if he didn't put any of that hardwork into it, he would've been a nobody.
Why are you guys childishly playing with numbers? If it is scientific to assign cardinal IQ values to intellect, then it must also be scientific to assign cardinal util values to desires. All I have to do is to define a DQ (desire quotient) test and I can start doing scientifically valid econometrics.
"100 is average for whites. Eskimos are around 90, african blacks 67(US & Euro blacks 80ish), aboriginals 62, middle eastern also 90ish"
I thought the average IQ of all people on Earth is defined to be 100. I find it highly suspect if whites' average IQ happens to be exactly equal to that, and not some other number.
Also, because the definition of IQ is inherently time-dependent, it is impossible to compare the IQ's from two different people or even for the same person at two different times. It is not even possible to assign even a single IQ without first performing some number of measurements and some kind of modelling to choose what 100 means. IQ is clearly like economic utils where the actual units involved are undefiniable and the quantity is meaningless.
Also, how do you average two IQ's. Should one use an arithmetic average? Or a geometric average? Why? When one averages two lengths, one uses the arithmetic average since lengths add naturally. But why should IQ's add naturally? Is a 100 IQ-person plus another 100 IQ-person equal to a 200 IQ-person? Why?
Even with quantities that have actual units, like dollars, one cannot just compute an arithmetic average. Is the average of a $5 burger and a $10 steak going to be a $7.50 or a $7.07 piece of meat? You might want to check your answer with how official government inflation is computed. It's clearly a subjective question, and official statistics are computed with the subjective goal of fudging the CPI in mind.
How can one scientifically compare the IQ between two people, or between two groups of people? Which is superior, a group with IQ's 100, 100, and 100; or 60, 60, and 180? Is it better to have 80 IQ or 120 IQ? Why? Isn't it just a subjective opinion?
If it is scientific to assign cardinal IQ values to intellect, then it must also be scientific to assign cardinal util values to desires.
Doesn't follow. IQ tests were designed to somehow measure abstract reasoning ability. It has nothing to do with "cardinal values."
Political Atheists Blog
>There is nothing absurd or ludicrous about testing for intellegence.
No but it is absurd to claim your measurement is scientific and at the same time to reduce intelligence to a single number.
If one person excels at composing music, while another excels at performing mathematical calculations, who is more intelligent? Which aspect is to be assigned greater weight? It is a purely subjective question.
I can easily measure the WQ (weight quotient) of a dog, with a scientific and reliable device called a scale.How do you measure the IQ of a dog? Surely a dog has some intelligence. If you cannot measure it, then maybe you aren't measuring intelligence, but rather something else, viz. the ability to solve a certain set of written puzzles.
Also, to clear up this whole "average IQ" fog, 100 is set as the overall average IQ. When you look at different population groups, 100 is the average for whites, 105 is average for Asian Americans, 119 is average for Jews, 90-ish is average for Latinos and mulattos (didn't mean that in a racist way), 85 is average for African Americans.