Something like that right?

the second time, i scored 160

turns out i "overthought" the test the first time, though i would say i "underthought" the test the second time (one item showed a drawing of a girl with her right hand raised, & the question was "right or left?" - my question was "do they want me to say that her right hand is raised? or are they thinking that little kids won't be able to figure that out, which would mean that the question is about whether her raised hand is on my right or my left?")

IQ tests measure current academic abilities -- not any sort of fixed, innate intelligence. More specifically, the best-known IQ battery, "Stanford-Binet 5," measures Fluid Reasoning, Knowledge, Quantitative Reasoning, Visual-Spatial Processing, and Working Memory. Collectively, these skills are known as "symbolic logic." Among other things, IQ tests do not measure creativity; they do not measure "practical intelligence" (otherwise known as "street smarts"); and they do not measure what some psychologists call "emotional intelligence."

The tasks featured in the IQ test are decidedly microscopic, are often unrelated to one another, and . . . are remote, in many cases, from everyday life. They rely heavily upon language and upon a person's skill in defining words, in knowing facts about the world, in finding connections (and differences) among verbal concepts . . . . Moreover, the intelligence test reveals little about an indivdual's potential for further growth.

[IQ problems tend to be] clearly defined, come with all the information needed to solve them, have only a single right answer, which can be reached by only a single method, [and are] disembodied from ordinary experience . . . . Practical problems, in contrast, tend to require problem recognition and formulation . . . require information seeking, have various acceptable solutions, be embedded in and require prior everyday experience, and require motivation and personal involvement.

Eventually, I think science could find certain genetic markers that dictate intelligence to some degree.  Personally, I am cool with that because those markers, be it negative or positive for a race, will form such a small part of what makes people smart as to be largely irrelevant.  Education, family, etc. are far bigger influences. I am simply not afraid of the result that everyone is dancing around and think it is silly to pretend that it is impossible.  I have no idea what the answer is but I don't think we should be terrified of the question.

What Andrew gets wrong is the idea that research dollars are being stifled. The most valuable discovery will be a way of making people smarter and correcting things that make people less smart.  That's what this is ultimately leading to.  The idea that there aren't a lot of very decent and motivated people doing all they can to figure this out is silly.  It's the holy grail.  Of course political correctness can't stop that.  Sullivan appears to be using that as a defense against the attacks he gets on the subject, which in some cases are not fair and are motivated by fear of what this line of thinking could mean.  People are scared about what racists will do with the information, but that shouldn't be the principle that guides us from an objective perspective.

I do sympathize with the real (indirect) point made by Sully's critics: maybe the information gained isn't worth the price.  That's really the issue.  I have no idea where I fall on that issue. My default is always that more information is better, but maybe some information's impact on society outwieghs the benefits. Maybe whether a race has certain minor IQ advantages on average is that kind of information.

Interesting moral/ethical question that I think will be irrelevant long term.  We are going to find out. For better or for worse.

Even if one believes his motivations are not due to some deep-seated racism, what then?  Does he prefer a Gattaca type pre-determination for future generations?  What is the earth-shattering revelation to be gained here?  Some folks are smarter than others?  None of us should be assumed to be that which we may not be?  

"Eventually, I think science could find certain genetic markers that dictate intelligence to some degree.  Personally, I am cool with that because those markers, be it negative or positive for a race, will form such a small part of what makes people smart as to be largely irrelevant.  Education, family, etc. are far bigger influences. I am simply not afraid of the result that everyone is dancing around and think it is silly to pretend that it is impossible.  I have no idea what the answer is but I don't think we should be terrified of the question."

That, ladies and gentlemen, was translated into the fact that I support the Bell Curve, believe that blacks are less smart and know nothing about anything that matters anywhere.

Just to close the loop, here is Coates making the exact point I made in my original comment above:

"On the broad question--Should researchers be free to explore the nexus of race, IQ and intelligence?---Andrew and I are in harmony. Onward, indeed. Where we differ is the following: Andrew, like most conservatives who write about race, is more concerned with a vague p.c. egalitarianism than the forces that birthed such things. (Unlike "political correctness" those forces can actually be quantified, and their impact demonstrated.)

That his contention has long been linked to one of the ugliest strains of American thought, that it continues to be linked to actual white supremacists, is not particularly troublesome to Andrew. But that others might find it troublesome is deeply distressing. I don't charge Andrew with defending slavery or sterilization. I charge him with bumbling through the ICU, tinkering with machinery, and wondering why everyone is so uptight and stuff."

Interesting test:

I'll post the exact same comment I made to start this back and forth in a number of places and see if it gets the same response.  If I am attacked as supporting the Bell Curve and being ignorant and what not, I'll recant.

Doubt it though because what I wrote was pretty benign and had nothing to do with supporting the Bell Curve.

Oh, there are community college teachers and people who may have a bachelor's degree who accept that crap, but nobody who actually does science.

Why worry about it? It has been cast aside as a silly approach.

Here's an example... a Native American is 8 times more likely to be prone to alcoholism than a european american.

But if that native american never takes a drink, he won't become an alcoholic.

It doesn't matter how smart someone is, if they do not apply themselves and learn, it's simply wasted potential. It doesn't matter if the person has the potential to be the next Mozart. If s/he doesn't compose anything, what have you got?

My goodness, watch the movie "Trading Places" to find this premise discussed much more intelligently than Sully approaches.

At present, sociologists say that about 20 percent of who we become is genetic. the rest is social.

Look up the history of IQ tests... the 1917 Beta test given during WWI showed that almost all southerners were idiots. But the test used questions such as asking the test-taker to examine two men playing tennis with no net, then asking what was wrong with the picture.

Well, if you've never seen a tennis court, nothing's wrong with it, is there?

1. I don't support the Bell Curve or its authors.

2. I think it is possible that there is a link between genetics and intelligence.  The fact that I believe it is possible does not mean (a) that I think it is likely, (b) that people wouldn't use this possibility for racist purposes, or (c) that the Bell Curve guys should not be criticized for various reasons.

3. I am not arguing that 2 above is support for the Bell Curve.  They are two distinct issues, which is why my first comment doesn't speak to the book's findings at all.

4. That people on polar opposite sides of this discussion can have good and engaging conversations about this, including all of the points I have made, and many of the counter points made against me, without questioning the character, intelligence, or knowledge of the participants. Coates  and Sullivan did it.  It's possible.

5. See 1 again.