OK, an idiot above who I normally don't engage with said a few things that resemble an argument:
"Has anyone suggested that the only thing that an IQ score truly represents is how good a person is at taking an IQ test? "
If they did, they would be a moron.
IQ is one the best predictors of life outcomes. There is some evidence to show that blacks, whites, and Hispanics of the same IQ will generally make within a couple thousand dollars of each other per year. Racial disparities in income can be explained by certain groups producing highly intelligent people at different rates.
View attachment 57365
So IQ definitely measures something more than just the ability to take an IQ test. And what is life anyway if not a series of tests?
"Yes, the hereditarian view lends aid and comfort to racists and nativists."
More armchair psychology. Not an argument.
"But more importantly, it's just plain wrong."
Not an argument.
"Specifically, it is based on the ahistorical and ethnocentric assumption of a fixed relationship between the development of certain cognitive skills and raw mental ability. In truth, the skills associated with intelligence have changed over time--and unevenly through social space--as society evolves."
OK, there's a lot to unpack here.
First of all, even if true, that would not be an argument for racial equality.
Secondly, that is based on a few ahistorical assumptions of its own. It assumes that everyone is good at
something, that maybe blacks are just as intelligent as whites
but in a different way. Which is something you have no reason to believe to be true. Some people are just plain dumb all around.
There are finite kinds of intelligence that will allow you to thrive and prosper in an advanced Western society like the one we live in and IQ test measure those kinds of intelligence. Are there other kinds of intelligence that IQ tests don't measure? Sure. Someone could be dumb as a box of rocks and a be musical genius. Or a gifted salesman. I've known such people. But our society doesn't need and couldn't support 20 million Beethovens. And with online commerce, we will probably need fewer salesman in the future, not more (more on that in a bit).
For clarification: my contention has never been that whites are the best at everything. I don't need to believe that my family is the best family in the world to stand up for my family. You stand up for your family because it's YOUR family. My contention from the beginning has been that the races are
not the same.
So if you wanna take the line that "blacks are just as intelligent as whites
but in a different way", well, even if that were true (which it's not) that would actually back up my contention that the races are
not the same.
That brings us to...
Third, it assumes that
maybe just
maybe society will evolve in such a way that will become more advantage to blacks, that the kinds of hitherto undiscovered latent talents that blacks have will eventually come into high demand (we're stacking assumptions on top of assumptions here).
That is highly,
HIGHLY unlikely.
Automation is just around the corner and pretty soon all the low-skilled work will be being done by robots. The only jobs that will be left will be ones that will require you to have high intelligence in the kinds of things that IQ measures and a few jobs for extreme creative types.
OK, what else have we got here....
"Not to mention that the so-called "heretability of IQ" varies substantially by socioeconomic class?"
Can be explained by regression to mean.
"People like Travis want so badly to be given credit for having been born white, as if they possess a divine right to something despite having failed in every other endeavor."
More armchair psychology. Not an argument.
View attachment 57366
metro.co.uk
