October 27, 2007
THE WISDOM OF WATSON:
Q & A: IQs rise, but are children really smarter?: An expert says scores are higher because more people view the world through scientific spectacles (Denise Gellene, October 27, 2007, Los Angeles Times)
James R. Flynn, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Otaga in New Zealand, discovered two decades ago that IQ test scores were steadily rising in the developed world despite failing schools and stagnant standardized test scores -- a phenomenon called the "Flynn effect." During a recent visit to UCLA, Flynn talked about the conundrum, which is the subject of his new book, "What Is Intelligence?"So why are their IQs higher than those of their parents and grandparents?
The people who invented IQ tests saw the world through scientific spectacles. They were interested in logical reasoning. But generations ago people were very utilitarian. If you asked a person in 1900 what a dog and rabbit had in common, they would say you could use a dog to hunt rabbits. Today you would say they both are mammals. That is shorthand for a lot of insight. That may seem trivial, but classifying the world is prerequisite to understanding it scientifically.
You are referring to the portion of the IQ test that measures the ability to determine similarities?
Yes. And if you say "Mammals," you get two points, and if you say "Dogs hunt rabbits," you get none. The score on this portion of the test has gone up 24 points in America since 1947.
Do you think there is something wrong with the way IQ is assessed?
The people who designed the test thought they were measuring intelligence, but they were actually measuring a mix of intelligence and a way of looking at the world. They looked at the world through scientific spectacles, and it took a long time for the average person to slowly take on that perspective.
Poor James Watson. Note that when he referred to the lower IQs of Africans all he was saying was that they are different from him and the group of people like him. Were Darwinism true and life just a struggle between like groups, then it would be a truism that one ought to "do something about" those who are unlike, else the struggle might be lost. After all, the sole measure of inferiority and superiority in Darwinism is survival. If your group survives and the other doesn't then you're superior. His whole statement wouldn't have caused such a fuss if it hadn't revealed the hidden truths of the cult. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 27, 2007 12:00 AM
Ah, we are so perilously close to grasping the truth of evolutionary sociology. All we need do is to let the racist scales of multiculturalism drop from our eyes.
Go back to the above closing paragraph, and edit out the word, "group," substituting therefore, "way of thinking," and we have the history of human progress in a couple of sentences.
Dare to assume that the races of man are indistinguishable in terms of cortical efficiency. What then accounts for the differences in results we see about us? The article extends an insight here. Those New Guinea Blackfellows and Outback Abos are not necessarly "inferior" in intelligence, only different in how their culture looks out on material reality. The process of cultural diffusion would then better their "I.Q.'s" just as education has done so among our own people.
Wherefore, "better," comes back the crypto-racist multiculturalist objection. "Better" in terms of providing such things as food, health safety and comfort, is our answer. "Better" in restraining men who would act as wolves to other men, comes law and government to answer further.
On the other hand, Lou, there are patent differences in cortical efficiency between individuals. And, therefore, between groups of pertinently comparable individuals.
The "pertinently comparable" part may or may not correspond to conventionally defined groups.
Posted by: ghostcat at October 27, 2007 4:35 PM