Race and Intelligence: Science's Last Taboo

[Wainkerr99]

I also read that 2% of the population have an IQ of 130%. About 7% an IQ of 120%.

In South Africa one of the biggest racist issues was that blacks were just plain dumb. Whites didn't hate the blacks so much as look down on them. After 1994, there was a dramatic change.

Poof went that theory.

 

[somebadlemonade]

IQ as a percentage?
unless you are averaging for all of the human population i would think it should be plain old IQ points. . .

seeing as i have an IQ of 138, and i am a high school dropout, goes to show you intelligence isn't everything, you can be the smartest person on earth and do nothing with it, speaking of which the smartest person on earth(known) is a bouncer. . .
since i wasn't exposed to anything different from my peers, i would think it has to do with genetics, but that's an acestory thing not a race thing, since i am a mix of a whole bunch of different races.

intelligence isn't so easy to determine by things like environment, race, or even plain genetics, there isn't some golden nugget of information that you can use to make someone intelligent. you either are intelligent or not. don't feel bad about not living up to someone else's standard, you'll never be happy, if you live up to your own, you will always be happy.

and heres the kicker i didn't even learn how to read till the 7th grade. . .

 

[robbied196]

IQ as a percentage?
unless you are averaging for all of the human population i would think it should be plain old IQ points. . .

seeing as i have an IQ of 138, and i am a high school dropout, goes to show you intelligence isn't everything, you can be the smartest person on earth and do nothing with it, speaking of which the smartest person on earth(known) is a bouncer. . .
since i wasn't exposed to anything different from my peers, i would think it has to do with genetics, but that's an acestory thing not a race thing, since i am a mix of a whole bunch of different races.

intelligence isn't so easy to determine by things like environment, race, or even plain genetics, there isn't some golden nugget of information that you can use to make someone intelligent. you either are intelligent or not. don't feel bad about not living up to someone else's standard, you'll never be happy, if you live up to your own, you will always be happy.

and heres the kicker i didn't even learn how to read till the 7th grade. . .

:thumbsup: Exactly! To many people think that education provides you with intelligence. They are unrelated, although an 'intelligent' person will benefit more from an 'education'.

 

[Shindekudasai]

This thread had to become interesting.

First:
For once, it is a fact, that there is a correlation between race and intelligence. There is no discussing that. It's the same thing with, for example, many medical "conditions". Certain races, different sexes or people of a certain age are on average more "prone to" heart disease, diabetes, stroke or substance abuse.
For example:
An obese, elderly Afro-American man is more prone to diabetes than a skinny elderly Caucasian woman.
Or a young Caucasian man is more prone to personality disorder through alcohol abuse than a young Japanese woman.

That is absolutely descriptive, free of bias and non-judgemental.

The reason for differing medical conditions or differing intelligence lies in differing influencing factors and parameters: social, economic, ecological, environmental, national, medical, genetic etc.
Like so many said before, if all factors and parameters were equal and the same, the intelligence level would probably be pretty even. But there are some factors that simply cannot be identical or equal in quality (for example genetic factors). These factors have to be equalized by other (e.g. social or environmental) parameters like a good school, healthy food and fruitful conversation. In areas (theoretical and geographical) where this isn't given, disadvanteged people fall behind on the IQ scale. Theoretically, it's as easy as that. If all races had the same access and opportunities, there probably wouldn't be a difference in race-related intelligence. But in most of the world they haven't, so there is a race-related difference in intelligence.


Second:

There are different forms of intelligence and different methods of IQ testing. Most IQ tests (especially in the US) just measure intelligence when it comes to mathematics. But an IQ test is not just about being the best in math or even the best in school. A good, sound and well-founded IQ test measures knowledge, thinking and personality (talent, acquirement, transfer, measurement, ability to implement, ...).

For example:
Most of the "IQ tests" made by private companies to be used by banks, law firms or private businesses to search for ideal employees are not very "meaningful", useful or legitimate, because they don't care about scientific research and results. It is often the case that they still today think, that ten different mathematical questions appropriately measure a persons intelligence. (There are some companies that provide good tests for different areas of intelligence and personality. They are often made by psychologists or in collaboration with universities or certain institutes.)

An IQ test should measure all aspects of intelligence at once: concrete and abstract thinking, language and communication, mathematics, logic, emotional intelligence etc.. Some give a little less importance to emotional intelligence, some a little less importance to concrete/abstract thinking, some a little more to mathematics or logic. So again, even if you take part in two different, but sound IQ test like that, you could come up with two slightly different results.
The worst IQ tests are those that present you with ten different mathematical questions (of which maybe half are so badly put that you can easily misinterpret them) and one tiny word-play on top (which you often can't answer if you grew up in an area of your country where that word-play is unknown). What kind of intelligence is that supposed to measure?
The best IQ-Test I've seen so far measured language skills (15%), mathematical skills (5%), logical thinking (24%), three-dimensional, concrete and abstract thinking (26%), the three stages of memory (short time,...) (15%) and emotional intelligence (empathie,...) (15%).


Which finally brings me to this posting:

IQ as a percentage?
unless you are averaging for all of the human population i would think it should be plain old IQ points. . .

seeing as i have an IQ of 138, and i am a high school dropout, goes to show you intelligence isn't everything, you can be the smartest person on earth and do nothing with it, speaking of which the smartest person on earth(known) is a bouncer. . .
since i wasn't exposed to anything different from my peers, i would think it has to do with genetics, but that's an acestory thing not a race thing, since i am a mix of a whole bunch of different races.

intelligence isn't so easy to determine by things like environment, race, or even plain genetics, there isn't some golden nugget of information that you can use to make someone intelligent. you either are intelligent or not. don't feel bad about not living up to someone else's standard, you'll never be happy, if you live up to your own, you will always be happy.

and heres the kicker i didn't even learn how to read till the 7th grade. . .

You are contradicting yourself permanently. If you had a "real" IQ of 138, you'd talk differently, believe me. Reading as well as comprehending language and communication is an essential part of intelligence. Not learning how to read until the 7th grad shows a certain lack of intelligence in that field. So, going by your sentence "you either are intelligent or not", you wouldn't be. Furthermore, most studies in emotional intelligence for example show, that it can be trained. Some people have more EQ than others, but those others can train their EQ as well for example by following Kohlbergs ten steps of moral development. Thus, intelligence is not plain genetics, even though genetics play an important role.

One thing on your first sentence:
Wainkerr99 probably confused IQ points and percentage, when he wrote "I also read that 2% of the population have an IQ of 130%. About 7% an IQ of 120%.". Your response shows, that your communication skills weren't high enough to see that. Instead you made the proposal, that it should be plain old IQ points, obviously not knowing, that a) what "plain old IQ points are" (see my explanation above) and that b) the IQ pooints at the end of a test are normally derived from your IQ percentage in the test. "IQ points" is just a number, that is better comprehensible for the general public (who needn't be bothered with the mathematics behind the IQ percentage) and better comparable (so one once thought, which was as we now know wrong, because it makes it actually less comparable).

I could go on about a lot more of the stuff you said, but I'll spare the others and come directly to the conclusion:
You just wanted to make a pseudo-smart posting bragging about an questionable IQ of 138 that you achieved in a probably equally questionable and biased test.

To many people think that education provides you with intelligence. They are unrelated, although an 'intelligent' person will benefit more from an 'education'.

Intelligence and education are not unrelated. And you contradicted yourself, because if they were unrelated (which you said), an intelligent person wouldn't benefit from a good education.
What you said is like saying: "Good food and a healthy dog are unrelated, but it would be good for the dog's health if it had some good food." :crash:

Maybe these scientists should leave the lecture room every once in a while and venture out into the real world.

For someone who speaks in a thread about intelligence, you yourself made a pretty stereotypical, prejudiced and trivializing remark. Scientists and scholars examine, describe and analyze the real world, my friend. Just because some of the findings, results or conclusions don't match your opinion, it doesn't make them ivory-tower inhabitants or even idiots.

 

[robbied196]

You are contradicting yourself permanently. If you had a "real" IQ of 138, you'd talk differently, believe me. Reading as well as comprehending language and communication is an essential part of intelligence.

Intelligence and education are not unrelated. And you contradicted yourself, because if they were unrelated (which you said), an intelligent person wouldn't benefit from a good education.
What you said is like saying: "Good food and a healthy dog are unrelated, but it would be good for the dog's health if it had some good food." :crash

Point 1: Reading as well as comprehending language and communication is an essential part of 'education'. Otherwise you may as well say that anyone who has no education, has no intelligence.

Point 2: What you said is like saying: That the dog that will sit for you, is more intelligent than the dog that won't. Actually, the only difference is that one dog has been trained, not that he is more intelligent.

That brings me back to my point, that Intelligence and education are unrelated. I don't see any contradiction, of course an intelligent person is going to learn more from an education than an unintelligent person.

 

[Hot Mega]

IQ as a percentage?
unless you are averaging for all of the human population i would think it should be plain old IQ points. . .

seeing as i have an IQ of 138, and i am a high school dropout, goes to show you intelligence isn't everything, you can be the smartest person on earth and do nothing with it, speaking of which the smartest person on earth(known) is a bouncer. . .
since i wasn't exposed to anything different from my peers, i would think it has to do with genetics, but that's an acestory thing not a race thing, since i am a mix of a whole bunch of different races.

intelligence isn't so easy to determine by things like environment, race, or even plain genetics, there isn't some golden nugget of information that you can use to make someone intelligent. you either are intelligent or not. don't feel bad about not living up to someone else's standard, you'll never be happy, if you live up to your own, you will always be happy.

and heres the kicker i didn't even learn how to read till the 7th grade. . .

In plain speak, intelligence is practically little more than the capacity of some being to resolve complex problems.

That's separate from one's internal motivations, personal, environmental and/or circumstantial interests.

I stated in an earlier post that base human intelligence goes up or down based primarily on diet and other environmental factors. What must be understood about this is the relationship of these factors on genetics.

It was recently discovered that the food we eat may have an effect on our genetics in as little as a week. Increasingly studies are showing links between diet and/or nutrients and genetics (Not quite sure why that's not obvious by now).

That said, some studies demonstrate Asians generally having the highest IQ. But shouldn't that make sense if we understand the relationship between omega fatty acids and improving intelligence? In a simple analysis we know the Asian diet is generally rich in nuts and fish, the primary sources for omega fatty acids.

Accordingly, balanced diets of fish, meat, poultry, whole grains, green leafs, etc. is one rich in the B family of vitamins, the other nutrient most associated with improving intelligence.

Over time and generations groups exposed to such diets tend to improve the odds of higher IQ.

Has zero to do with race IMO save for the circumstance that the indigenous diets of some races are either rich or deficient in intelligence level determining nutrients.:2 cents:

 

[Shindekudasai]

Point 1: Reading as well as comprehending language and communication is an essential part of 'education'. Otherwise you may as well say that anyone who has no education, has no intelligence.

You seemingly don't know, what the words "education" and "intelligence" mean exactly. Education isn't something you just get in school.
Besides, I don't know what your wild statement is even based on. There is no evidence, no proof, no modern scientific method that will show you, that there is no connection between intelligence and education.
A person who is able to communicate is more intelligent than someone who isn't. That is a plain fact. Education and learning aim at enhancing communication skills (like language) and thus highten intelligence.
Who has no education doesn't have no intelligence, but he is certainly not as intelligent as someone with the same predisposition who has had an education. An example: Japanese pupils/scholars/schoolkids score on average higher in memory-related tests than kids in schools/colleges/universities with a Roman alphabet (the "ABC"). You know why? Not because Japanese kids are more intelligent than American or German kids, but because the Japanese language requires a higher activity and effort on the fields of memory and concentration. Thus Japanese kids are more educated and trained in these fields.

Again read up on what the words "intelligence" and "education" mean. And don't use "the internet whack-a-mole slobberknocker dictionary of questionable language".

Point 2: What you said is like saying: That the dog that will sit for you, is more intelligent than the dog that won't. Actually, the only difference is that one dog has been trained, not that he is more intelligent.

Read my first posting again please. There you will find, what constitutes intelligence. Being trained makes you more intelligent in the field, that you have been trained in or have trained yourself in, than a person who hasn't been trained or training in that particular field.
Training is part of an educational/cultural/learning process. Processes like that are always very likely to highten or strengthen one's intelligence.
However, you have to distinguish between education/learning and conditioning. That is a distinction that you obviously didn't make, when jumping from my harmless "food is good for the dog" comparison to your judgemental "who is trained (in the sense of being conditioned) is more intelligent".
Are you American by any chance? Just curious.

That brings me back to my point, that Intelligence and education are unrelated. I don't see any contradiction, of course an intelligent person is going to learn more from an education than an unintelligent person.

Well, isn't that grand. You divide people into intelligent and unintelligent without hesitation, not even knowing what intelligence even means. It is obvious that you equate "unintelligent" with "unchangeably dumb/stupid". Now I know why you go under the false assumption, that education and intelligence are unrelated: who is unintelligent in the first place can't be helped by an education either. Well, bad luck for all them dumb black folks who are pressed into the white man's school system. If they're really less intelligent, the school system is really just a means of the white guy to suppress the black man.
I wouldn't be surprised, if you were a defender of a society that divides people into two legitimate and rightful groups: those taking advantage (intelligent) and those being taken advantage of (unintelligent). Hopefully I'm wrong about you.

Again, education, cultivation and learning are life-long processes that aim at enhancing a persons intelligence. Of course they are not the only influencing factors and parameters, but they are not to be underestimated.

 

[robbied196]

You seemingly don't know, what the words "education" and "intelligence" mean exactly. Education isn't something you just get in school.
Besides, I don't know what your wild statement is even based on. There is no evidence, no proof, no modern scientific method that will show you, that there is no connection between intelligence and education.
A person who is able to communicate is more intelligent than someone who isn't. That is a plain fact. Education and learning aim at enhancing communication skills (like language) and thus highten intelligence.
Who has no education doesn't have no intelligence, but he is certainly not as intelligent as someone with the same predisposition who has had an education. An example: Japanese pupils/scholars/schoolkids score on average higher in memory-related tests than kids in schools/colleges/universities with a Roman alphabet (the "ABC"). You know why? Not because Japanese kids are more intelligent than American or German kids, but because the Japanese language requires a higher activity and effort on the fields of memory and concentration. Thus Japanese kids are more educated and trained in these fields.

Again read up on what the words "intelligence" and "education" mean. And don't use "the internet whack-a-mole slobberknocker dictionary of questionable language".


Read my first posting again please. There you will find, what constitutes intelligence. Being trained makes you more intelligent in the field, that you have been trained in or have trained yourself in, than a person who hasn't been trained or training in that particular field.
Training is part of an educational/cultural/learning process. Processes like that are always very likely to highten or strengthen one's intelligence.
However, you have to distinguish between education/learning and conditioning. That is a distinction that you obviously didn't make, when jumping from my harmless "food is good for the dog" comparison to your judgemental "who is trained (in the sense of being conditioned) is more intelligent".
Are you American by any chance? Just curious.



Well, isn't that grand. You divide people into intelligent and unintelligent without hesitation, not even knowing what intelligence even means. It is obvious that you equate "unintelligent" with "unchangeably dumb/stupid". Now I know why you go under the false assumption, that education and intelligence are unrelated: who is unintelligent in the first place can't be helped by an education either. Well, bad luck for all them dumb black folks who are pressed into the white man's school system. If they're really less intelligent, the school system is really just a means of the white guy to suppress the black man.
I wouldn't be surprised, if you were a defender of a society that divides people into two legitimate and rightful groups: those taking advantage (intelligent) and those being taken advantage of (unintelligent). Hopefully I'm wrong about you.

Again, education, cultivation and learning are life-long processes that aim at enhancing a persons intelligence. Of course they are not the only influencing factors and parameters, but they are not to be underestimated.

A message full of assumptions and simplistic analogies

"A person who is able to communicate is more intelligent than someone who isn't". :1orglaugh

"Read my first posting again please. There you will find, what constitutes intelligence." :1orglaugh

I think its you who have the definitions of "education" and "intelligence" confused. To quote Bob Marley, "If I'd have been educated, I'd have been a dam fool". Please continue by all means, and prove yourself a case in point.

 

[Shindekudasai]

A message full of assumptions and simplistic analogies

"A person who is able to communicate is more intelligent than someone who isn't". :1orglaugh

"Read my first posting again please. There you will find, what constitutes intelligence." :1orglaugh

I think its you who have the definitions of "education" and "intelligence" confused. To quote Bob Marley, "If I'd have been educated, I'd have been a dam fool". Please continue by all means, and prove yourself a case in point.

"Assumptions and simplistic analogies" based on decades of research and studies by psychologists, sociologist, behavioral scientists etc. Yeah, right.
And your response is a Bob Marley quote and the usual unsubstantial and childish "No, you are stupid!!" phrase?

Well, from your pointless, immature, uninformed and unconvincible answer I'd conclude two things:
1. I definitely had a better education than you.
2. It's most likely that you are an American. Most other people would have tried to reason with me (if they have a different opinion), would have acknowledged my point (for I studied stuff like that) or would have understood where they were wrong. You are unable to do any of those things. The only people on the net who are like that, (ignorant, shameless and proud of it) sadly are some Americans and Chinese. And you're definitely not Chinese.
Please, take example from guys like Hot Mega. Even if his opinion differs, he at least gives an informed, mature and reasonable response.

 

[robbied196]

"Assumptions and simplistic analogies" based on decades of research and studies by psychologists, sociologist, behavioral scientists etc. Yeah, right.
And your response is a Bob Marley quote and the usual unsubstantial and childish "No, you are stupid!!" phrase?

Well, from your pointless, immature, uninformed and unconvincible answer I'd conclude two things:
1. I definitely had a better education than you.
2. It's most likely that you are an American. Most other people would have tried to reason with me (if they have a different opinion), would have acknowledged my point (for I studied stuff like that) or would have understood where they were wrong. You are unable to do any of those things. The only people on the net who are like that, (ignorant, shameless and proud of it) sadly are some Americans and Chinese. And you're definitely not Chinese.
Please, take example from guys like Hot Mega. Even if his opinion differs, he at least gives an informed, mature and reasonable response.

More assumptions, the way the uninformed try to make a point. Your message's have deteriorated, you no longer debate the original question, and you're determined to analysis my genealogy in some vain attempt to substantiate your 'better education' and consistently expose the lack of it in the process. Most likely ignored as a child and developed a self defense mechanism for a deep seated inferiority complex.

2. Native english using an oxford dictionary. Sorry I can't add another brick to your mental wall that would enable you to substantiate your uneducated myth that all American's are unreasonable.

intelligent, having or showing a high degree of understanding, clever, quick of mind.

education, systematic instruction, development of character.

I await in anticipation of a mature and reasonable response :1orglaugh

btw, I never said you were stupid

 

[Shindekudasai]

More assumptions, the way the uninformed try to make a point.

Well, in my last posting I made an conclusion on the information I had, not an assumption. Don't confuse those two. But that's the problem when debating with the wrong people. One can conclude as long as one likes, the other one will always stubbornly say, that one's assuming, guessing, lying, instead of just simply proving the opposite. Doesn't strengthen any of your points, for this is not a political discussion over the color of shit, this was a discussion about the meaning and correlation of intelligence and education.

Your message's have deteriorated, you no longer debate the original question, and you're determined to analysis my genealogy in some vain attempt to substantiate your 'better education' and consistently expose the lack of it in the process. Most likely ignored as a child and developed a self defense mechanism for a deep seated inferiority complex.

And the next example as to why you shouldn't debate with certain people.
1.) May I remind you, that the first posting deviating from the original subject was yours. No points made, no worthy response, no intention to debate the subject.

A message full of assumptions and simplistic analogies

"A person who is able to communicate is more intelligent than someone who isn't". :1orglaugh

"Read my first posting again please. There you will find, what constitutes intelligence." :1orglaugh

I think its you who have the definitions of "education" and "intelligence" confused. To quote Bob Marley, "If I'd have been educated, I'd have been a dam fool". Please continue by all means, and prove yourself a case in point.

2.) I don't "attempt to substantiate" my "better education", I concluded from your behavior and your lack of knowledge when it comes to certain concepts like "intelligence", "education", "conditioning" etc., that I must have had the better education at least when it comes to debating and correctly communicating this issue. And you have yet to prove me wrong on that. Your accusation, that I lack education, remains, again, without proof. On top of that, it's really immature. Ask the people on this board who know me, they'll tell you that my education is quite extensive.

3.) Concluding from a couple of postings on the internet, that I was ignored as a child and have a deep seated inferiority complex, is not helping your point and is nothing but an attempt to attack me personally, because you try to fault all my points by trying to attribute me with a psychologically disabling treat. The only thing it proves, is that I probably hit the mark with my previous statements.

2. Native english using an oxford dictionary. Sorry I can't add another brick to your mental wall that would enable you to substantiate your uneducated myth that all American's are unreasonable.

intelligent, having or showing a high degree of understanding, clever, quick of mind.

education, systematic instruction, development of character.

I await in anticipation of a mature and reasonable response :1orglaugh

btw, I never said you were stupid

1.) Using the half-sentence explanation on the use of the word in common language and the thesaurus of the oxford dictionary is not what I meant by "looking the meaning of the words up". You know that exactly, which makes that answer of yours three things: provocative, childish and neither ample nor sufficient. Read the works of Gardner, Bovet, Weinert, Müller, Roth etc. There you will find for example the concept of "multiple intelligences" or that intelligence has different dimensions (operational-measurable, learning theoretical, information theoretical, social/cultural, behavioural) or that intelligence can be enhanced by endogenous and exogenous parameters. After you have reached that level of knowledge and have proven me wrong in a reasonable discussion, I am willing to admit that you had a better education in that field.
2.) If you had read my postings correctly, you would know that I never said that all Americans are unreasonable. In fact, I firmly believe that some of the most reasonable, intelligent and well-educated people in my line of work are Americans. I simply stated, that I am sad about the fact, that more and more Americans are becoming like that (unreasonable, childish, shameless and immature behaviour in verbal communication), but that there are still many, that aren't. Sadly, it more and more seems to me, that I have to put you into the wrong category, because you don't reason, you amplify, distort, misinterpret, attack on a personal level and have to argue with quotes out of context and yawning smiley-faces.

 

[D-rock]

It's not that I would automatically discount a natural difference in intelligence or ability to learn between races of people, I think there is a chance it could exist and a chance it might not. It's just that there is so much that factors into it, it's borderline impossible to get a good assessment. Human intelligence is something that is a lot more complex than other things. Short of doing something unethical like taking thousands of babies from different races and having them live in a laboratory setting past the onset of adulthood it just isn't very possible to do. It's almost impossible to separate out natural ability to learn from one's environmental circumstances. All of that doesn't even take into account there is no standard way to measure intelligence, no agreement necessarily on what exactly "intelligence" is in people, and no flawless or even standard way to measure it. Even then how would you take things into consideration like common sense and wisdom. I've known a number of supposedly "intelligent" people that had little of it.

 

[Hot Mega]

Short of doing something unethical like taking thousands of babies from different races and having them live in a laboratory setting past the onset of adulthood it just isn't very possible to do.

Well, even that experiment wouldn't render credible results as factors such as genetics and more importantly genetic conditioning would not be accounted for but still play a substantial role. Babies aren't born equal per se...they are products of generations of ancestral input which are further products of diet and environment.

What we know is the human species is intelligent. That is, all humans irrespective of race have a baseline of what is considered intelligence. We also know that baseline of intelligence can be diminished, fairly static or enhanced over time and generations based on diet and environment.

From everything I've seen and what we now know, race has no role because of course, all humans are intelligent.:2 cents:

 

[somebadlemonade]

If you had a "real" IQ of 138, you'd talk differently, believe me. Reading as well as comprehending language and communication is an essential part of intelligence. Not learning how to read until the 7th grad shows a certain lack of intelligence in that field. So, going by your sentence "you either are intelligent or not", you wouldn't be. Furthermore, most studies in emotional intelligence for example show, that it can be trained. Some people have more EQ than others, but those others can train their EQ as well for example by following Kohlbergs ten steps of moral development. Thus, intelligence is not plain genetics, even though genetics play an important role.

i'll say this the human brain doesn't finish developing till early puberty, having dyslexia made it hard for me to learn written english, also going to a public school where the teachers didn't give a crap, and having parents that didn't have enough time to teach you. i understood a good bit of the words meaning and how to use them correctly use know how they were spelled, i still have trouble with understanding people spelling out words, but i think that has to do with my dyslexia, seening as i was doing algebra in the 4th grade, i was highly proficent in math, and i have a very good memory, that's how i learned how to read, unlike most people i memorize every single word i use.makes for a situation where one could easily not learn how to read by the 7th grade and seeing as i got up to 11 grade level reading comprehension within 2 years of learning how to read. i think you argument against what intelligence i do have is moot. I took a certified IQ test getting a score of 138 back in high school. seeing as my brother's IQ is 152, my sister's IQ is 125, my mother's IQ is 130(she also has dyslexia), and my father's is 127.
so yea language is a big part of intelligence, but using your own words, their are different kinds of intelligence.

if you don't want to believe me that is up to you, but their are people that can't spell worth a damn but can out class you logically every single day, i might not be one of these people but assuming one's intelligence by one example is equaly as unintelligent as you think i am. have a nice day

 

[Shindekudasai]

i'll say this the human brain doesn't finish developing till early puberty,

Yes, that is correct. For example our ability to perform abstract thinking or perspective changes isn't fully developed until we're 12 years old. And it can be trained well beyond that age. A famous example for this is the singular classification discovered by Piaget. He asked kids between the ages of 2 and 7 several questions. For example: If a mother of one the kid's friends was a teacher/a physician/etc., the kid was only able to talk to her as either the mother or the teacher/the physician/ etc. Or one of most famous examples is the "brother-question":
Adult: What's your name?
Kid: John.
Adult: Have you any brothers or sisters?
John: Yes, a brother.
Adult: What is his name?
John: Sammy!
Adult: Does Sammy have a brother?
Kid: No!

having dyslexia made it hard for me to learn written english, also going to a public school where the teachers didn't give a crap, and having parents that didn't have enough time to teach you. i understood a good bit of the words meaning and how to use them correctly use know how they were spelled, i still have trouble with understanding people spelling out words, but i think that has to do with my dyslexia,

I didn't know, that you had a learning condition. Of course that makes it harder to learn and comprehend language. Well, you pointed out one of the disadvantages of growing up in the US. In Germany, that wouldn't have been a problem, because you would have been in a school with teachers trained for this and you would have gotten a logopedic education/class in addition to school. I can imagine that wasn't very easy for you.

seening as i was doing algebra in the 4th grade, i was highly proficent in math, and i have a very good memory, that's how i learned how to read, unlike most people i memorize every single word i use.makes for a situation where one could easily not learn how to read by the 7th grade and seeing as i got up to 11 grade level reading comprehension within 2 years of learning how to read.

Having a good memory and being good in math are not that strongly related to your ability to learn and comprehend language that it could level or equalize a learning condition. The ways of thinking in the fields of mathematics and language overlap slightly, but that's it. Scientists know today, that the saying "who is good in math is good in Latin" is just a myth. Of course it still depends on the language you're learning, but in general does having math skills not mean you're also good at learning a language.

i think you argument against what intelligence i do have is moot.

Well, considering that I didn't have the information I have now, of course it's moot. But, I still have to object a bit. The reason for that is as follows:

I took a certified IQ test getting a score of 138 back in high school. seeing as my brother's IQ is 152, my sister's IQ is 125, my mother's IQ is 130(she also has dyslexia), and my father's is 127.

Those "certified IQ tests" are (especially in the US) for the most part not worth much. I myself participated in several IQ tests (4 or 5 if I remember correctly) because I was researching the testing methods. There are those IQ tests (and those are mostly the ones that call themselves "certified") that only query or retrieve your skills in the fields of mathematics, logical thinking and very rudimentary communication or language. That's just about half of what constitutes intelligence, as I explained several postings before. According to one of America's certified IQ tests, I have an IQ of more than 140 and should be a prime member of MENSA. Sorry, but, I don't consider myself as being as intelligent as Einstein. The only thing that test showed me, is that the word "certified" doesn't mean a thing when connected to an IQ test. I scored higher on IQ tests that requested too much communication skills or logic than in those that requested too much three-dimensional thinking or mathematics for example.
And one more thing you're forgetting: a good IQ test is always relative. That means, the IQ depends on several factors. The IQ shows your age-related development and your peer-related development. It also considers, that a human being is learning and developing. That's why an IQ test you took twenty years ago is probably null and void today.
Your individual scoring is translated mathematically in a percentage which again constitutes your ranking position.
An IQ of 100 equals a percentage of 50% and a ranking position of 0. That means about 50% of your peers reached the same score. Your standard deviation is 0.
An IQ of 115 equals a percentage of 84,1% and a ranking position of +15. That means your were able to score more points than 84% of your peers.
An IQ of 130 equals a percentage of 97,7% and a ranking position of +25. That means only 23 out of 1000 of your peers were able to score more points than you.
In conclusion: A 30 year old that scores an IQ of 120, isn't necessarily more intelligent than a 15 year old that scores an IQ of 115.

so yea language is a big part of intelligence, but using your own words, their are different kinds of intelligence.

Yes, there are.

if you don't want to believe me that is up to you, but their are people that can't spell worth a damn but can out class you logically every single day, i might not be one of these people but assuming one's intelligence by one example is equaly as unintelligent as you think i am. have a nice day

Why shouldn't I believe you? I don't know you. When you tell me you had a learning disadvantage, you had a learning disadvantage. No reason to sneak an insult in there.

 

[georges]

you have ass holes and intelligent people in every race

 

[drf]

Are you saying God is a loud drunk who spends all of his time in pubs and pees on the side of the road?

You're Fuckin' A right. God had to be drunk when he created this mudball. :thumbsup:

 

[calpoon]

In plain speak, intelligence is practically little more than the capacity of some being to resolve complex problems.

That's separate from one's internal motivations, personal, environmental and/or circumstantial interests...

Has zero to do with race IMO save for the circumstance that the indigenous diets of some races are either rich or deficient in intelligence level determining nutrients.:2 cents:

I think that about sums it up. :thumbsup:

On the subject of race, there is no consensus of what defines a race and the characteristics that constitute a member of one particular race compared to another. The general accepted social view based on physical appearance and/or geographic location, eg., Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Etc., is not very specific or scientific and is not adequate for these studies.

There is also such a wide discrepancy of "intelligence" levels among any group of people, even within race, location, etc., that I think making such a generalized statement would not be very meaningful or effective.

Bottom line is that there is no test to study human intellectual capacity. It merely studies what a person already knows, not what they are capable of knowing/learning. It is simply a study of the persons comprehension of the test, not of their cognitive functions.

And the intelligence tests are European culturally bias because the factors that they consider to be signs of intelligence are the things that are valued in that culture, but not necessarily in others. Once again, making it a test of "knowledge" not intelligence.

For instance there are many groups of people that have almost no understanding of what we would call mathematics. Their world view does not consist of ordering objects into abstract systems. For all we know they could be the "smartest" people in the world in the field of math if they studied and applied it, but they don't because it is not a part of their belief structure. Society dictates intelligence not biology.

 

[marquis2]

All that can be said is that in the tests applied some groups did less well than others.Until someone invents infallible tests that's as far as we can go.

 

[rwill25]

I think that about sums it up. :thumbsup:

On the subject of race, there is no consensus of what defines a race and the characteristics that constitute a member of one particular race compared to another. The general accepted social view based on physical appearance and/or geographic location, eg., Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Etc., is not very specific or scientific and is not adequate for these studies.

There is also such a wide discrepancy of "intelligence" levels among any group of people, even within race, location, etc., that I think making such a generalized statement would not be very meaningful or effective.

Bottom line is that there is no test to study human intellectual capacity. It merely studies what a person already knows, not what they are capable of knowing/learning. It is simply a study of the persons comprehension of the test, not of their cognitive functions.

And the intelligence tests are European culturally bias because the factors that they consider to be signs of intelligence are the things that are valued in that culture, but not necessarily in others. Once again, making it a test of "knowledge" not intelligence.

For instance there are many groups of people that have almost no understanding of what we would call mathematics. Their world view does not consist of ordering objects into abstract systems. For all we know they could be the "smartest" people in the world in the field of math if they studied and applied it, but they don't because it is not a part of their belief structure. Society dictates intelligence not biology.

It's almost like saying women with blond hair are unintelligent.