Well "mr liberal genus" please show where I stated or even implied such federal information gathering "was for the purpose of determining your intelligence"?
Then what did you want to tell us with your argument about the federal forms? I've just said that the distribution of intelligence among races has not, and should not have, any impact on government policy.
You have posted nothing but links since your op. The information in the links is damning. Your assertion with this whole IQ things is a house of cards, and you know what happens to those. Also, why would I type stuff when targeted articles will do just fine. Progressives do not like reinventing the wheel. So are you going to answer the flaws in their methodology, or not? Quit with the Red Herrings, please.
1) Quite simply you are lying. 1a) What links are you referencing on this thread? 1b) The gap is well documented. 2a) Because I seriously doubt you understand much of what you link/quote. You have to demonstrate a reasonable understanding of your reference material. Otherwise I'm debating some paid specialist hack. 2b) Yeah but it would be nice if they knew how to use one beyond a tabletop or a kwanza decoration/table mat. 3) Who's methodology? Enumerate the flaws? I mean give me details of whatever flaw you presume exist. The red herrings are all yours, do you even know what red herring means? btw: your cut n paste information is easily dismissed. I may choose to debunk it , I may not.
You may not because you cannot. You do not understand the term, targeted. I would not post what I do not clearly understand, and there is very little in this area I do not clearly understand. Are you going to continue talking or are you going to refute my rebuttal to this ridiculous assertion of yours. Documentation, I might add, comes with standards. According to many others, Murrey et al did not meet those standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You think YOU discover all that you talk about in this post? Where do YOU read your information? Hmm? You are not doing the studys. You talk about OTHER people's research and method. You pick (only some) points of the research, but is really very complex, more than you talk about. You only want to convince people reading the ET of inferiority to some people. Then you want to say this to rcg poster QUOTE]Quote from PHOENIX TRADING: PLEASE DON'T BE SO LAZY AS TO THINK A LINK OR QUOTE MAKES YOUR ARGUMENT FOR YOU. (IOW if you cannot even summarize the information of someone else's work, and are relying exclusively on 'cut n paste" to make your points: don't even bother. There's no exchange of ideas there nor proof of even the remotest competence of the information attempting to be conveyed ). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So really here is something for you to read. "Last year, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray published The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. Although it had more graphs than a Ross Perot speech, The Bell Curve made its authors' names household words, sometimes accompanied by four-letter words. Herrnstein and Murray maintained that America is splitting into the intelligent, who will move and shake society, and the less intelligent, who will be moved and shaken. They thought that the split is inevitable, because our technological society requires intelligence to run it. Finally, they said that intelligence is largely hereditary, and that numerous government programs, especially Affirmative Action, are undesirable because they amount to discrimination against the capable. Such thoughts are not entirely politically correct. The first reactions to The Bell Curve were expressions of public outrage. In the second round of reaction, some commentators suggested that Herrnstein and Murray were merely bringing up facts that were well known to the scientific community, but perhaps best not discussed in public. A Papua New Guinea language has a term for this, Mokita. It means "truth that we all know but agree not to talk about." snip "We do not have the answers yet. We may need them soon, for policy makers who rely on Mokita are flying blind." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will copy the whole link for my next post.
The Role of Intelligence in Modern Society Are social changes dividing us into intellectual haves and have-nots? The question pushed aside in the 1970s is back, and the issues are far from simple Earl Hunt This article originally appeared in the July-August 1995 issue of American Scientist. Last year, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray published The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. Although it had more graphs than a Ross Perot speech, The Bell Curve made its authors' names household words, sometimes accompanied by four-letter words. Herrnstein and Murray maintained that America is splitting into the intelligent, who will move and shake society, and the less intelligent, who will be moved and shaken. They thought that the split is inevitable, because our technological society requires intelligence to run it. Finally, they said that intelligence is largely hereditary, and that numerous government programs, especially Affirmative Action, are undesirable because they amount to discrimination against the capable. Such thoughts are not entirely politically correct. The first reactions to The Bell Curve were expressions of public outrage. In the second round of reaction, some commentators suggested that Herrnstein and Murray were merely bringing up facts that were well known to the scientific community, but perhaps best not discussed in public. A Papua New Guinea language has a term for this, Mokita. It means "truth that we all know but agree not to talk about." The uproar over The Bell Curve is remarkably similar to a debate in the early 1970s. The earlier debate began when Arthur Jensen (1969) wrote that the educational enrichment programs of the Great Society were inherently limited by the immutability of intelligence and when Herrnstein (1973) claimed that differences in intelligence are largely genetic. Counterattacks followed, and by the early 1980s widely read books and articles maintained that there is no such thing as general intelligence (Gardner 1983), or that if there is it is largely a statistical artifact of the way that tests are constructed (Gould 1983), and that even if IQ exists it has little to do with life outside of a few narrow academic settings (Ceci and Liker 1986). Some of these authors have recanted (Ceci and bruck 1994, pg. 79). http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/issue.aspx?id=878&y=0&no=&content=true&page=8&css=print Contine next post.
Continue "A central question in the debate is whether or not mental competence is a single ability, applicable in many settings, or whether competence is produced by specialized abilities, which a person may or may not possess independently. Almost equally important is the question of how cognitive skill, as evaluated by IQ tests, translates into everyday performance. Popular presentations on both sides of these questions leave the impression that these questions have simple answers. They do not. My goal in this essay is to discuss different theories of how intelligence is related to performance in modern society. The plural was chosen intentionally, Although we know a good deal about individual differences in human cognition, there is no monolithic, agreed-upon, all-purpose theory to organize these facts, nor is there likely to be one. There are a number of different theories that are neither right nor wrong, but are useful for different purposes. Psychometric Views of Intelligence In popular discussions of intelligence, including The Bell Curve, the term generally refers to scoring well on tests that have been developed to measure mental ability as psychologists have come to see it. I shall refer to this emphasis on test scores as the psychometric view of intelligence. Its core belief is that individual differences in human cognition can be adequately measured by performance on intelligence tests, and that intelligence itself can therefore be defined by variations in test scores, across people. This notion was expressed most pungently when the psychologist Edwin Boring (1923), in a public debate with the columnist Walter Lippman, said that "intelligence is what the intelligence test measures." It turns out that that statement is not quite so arrogant or self-serving as it sounds. To see why we have to look at what intelligence tests are and how intelligence measures are inferred from test scores. Although it is not always clear in our everyday use of language, scientists distinguish carefully between a conceptual variable and its operational definition?the way that it is measured. Physicists distinguish between mass as a concept and scale readings as data to be analyzed. In the best of situations there is a clearly understood link between the two. Physicists can provide a theory of the relation between a scale's movement and the mass of the object being weighed. The relation between the data for and the concept of intelligence is not at all like the relation between scale readings and mass, because in psychometrics the concept is inferred from the measuring instrument, rather than having the measurement technique dictated by the concept. Most intelligence tests do not measure just one thing, in the sense that a scale measures only the gravitational attraction between an object and the earth. Instead, intelligence tests are made up of a number of component subtests, in which people are asked to perform different cognitive tasks. The test score is supposed to measure the common thread that runs through performance on the subtests. For instance, the widely used Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) contains subtests that evaluate a person's vocabulary, short-term memory, arithmetical ability, world knowledge and several other specific skills. The Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT), which is a widely used college-screening test, and the Armed Service Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), which is used to screen military recruits, are organized in somewhat the same way. Instead of thinking of these tests as cognitive yardsticks measuring intelligence the way a real yardstick measures length, it is better to think of an intelligence test as a sort of mental track meet, in which cognitive ability is inferred by combining subtest scores, just as athletic ability can be inferred by combining the scores in a decathlon."