Re: nbc Jeff Jacoby on the looters nbc

Ok, This conversation is getting good and I have to go to work (
"WORK!!!!", Maynard G. Krebs).

Ruth, Save for Later, NJ



In article <2sj9i19bfo03gutanib560l4psqefton5u@xxxxxxx>,
Ukes <duke_of_diddly@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 23:23:21 GMT, Evan Z
> <evanz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'tspam> wrote:
>
> >Ukes wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:26:30 -0500, "Gumboman" <noemail@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> http://tinyurl.com/betd7 (a September 2005 article examining the
> >> evidence concerning male-female and white-black differences in IQ and
> >> the taboo associated with discussing them)
> >
> >I don't have the energy or the smarts to respond fully to this thread,
> >but I know enough to know that a Charles Murray article in Commentary,
> >of all places, doesn't feel all that credible. This is not a science
> >publication and it's not refereed, either. It's essentially a
> >conservative organ of a kind (albeit one with a rich history and (at one
> >time) some great writers).
> >
> >It happens that I was taking a required college psych course
> >(developmental) when The Bell Curve was published. The course quickly
> >turned into a semester-long examination of "Why Charles Murray is
> >wrong." Psychology was boring to me, anyway, so I didn't pay very close
> >attention. But based on what I know of his other writings, Murray isn't
> >what I'd call a credible figure.
>
> Evan - So you're dismissing Murray's article, not because you can
> prove that his assertions are wrong, but on the basis of a logically
> fallacious ad hominem argument?
>
> You know better than that.
>
> And it takes an incredible amount of effort to not realize that Murray
> does cite to peer reviewed studies to support his position.
>
> >
> >> The study of intelligence wouldn't be of much importance if it were
> >> not for the fact that intelligence contributes significantly to
> >> outcomes people experience in life.
> >
> >I should hope that's true. Otherwise we'd need to reinvent our idea of
> >intelligence. It is, after all, man-made or, as people in my line of
> >work put it (regrettably), socially constructed. There's no reason to
> >think that our current notion of intelligence will last; as the world
> >changes in ways we can't possibly predict, the skills needed to thrive
> >in it will also change, and we'll need a revamped IQ test. (I'm not
> >conceding that IQ tests ever measure anything useful about our native
> >smarts, only saying that even if they do measure something useful today,
> >our definition of intelligence is necessarily fluid and thus so too is
> >the test.)
>
> Intelligence is generally defined as g, the general factor of
> intelligence that emerges from diverse tests of mental ability.
> Charles Spearman discovered g through factor analysis after noting
> that students who did well on one subject tended to do well on other
> apparently unrelated subjects. IQ tests are typically highly
> "g-loaded" and therefore are good measures of g.
>
> If intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, is merely a "social
> construct", why are variances in it 70%-80% determined by genes in
> adult Americans? And why do tests involving elementary cognitive tasks
> (which are simple timed tasks that involve some mental processing,
> such as pressing one of two buttons that lights up) show that
> intelligence correlates significantly with mental processing speed?
>
> The "intelligence is a social construct" argument reminds me of
> something Francis Crick once said. Crick spent the second half of his
> career searching for a neurobiological explanation for consciousness.
> Consciousness was a field that had traditionally been ignored by
> scientists, but which was studied by philosophers as part of the
> mind-body question. In commenting on why he, a scientist, was studying
> consciousness, Crick observed that philosophy didn't have a
> particularly good track record at correctly explaining natural
> phenomena. With the "intelligence is a social construct" argument, one
> can barely get out of the box to consider intelligence and it's
> practical importance.
>
>
> >
> >Of course, in my line of work we also say that race is socially
> >constructed (that is, a category invented by people for their own
> >purposes, not an inherent, essential way to distinguish people. One of
> >the purposes of inventing the category of race, of course, was to
> >rationalize or justify the enslavement of darker-skinned people.)
>
> That's a better point, and one that Murray addresses in section III of
> his article.
>
> If those in your line of work say that race is socially constructed,
> do they therefore oppose affirmative action?
>
>
>
>
> > It's not as though there's one barrier to scientific progress,
> >and that's left-wing identity politics.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Jerry
--



.