3 ms·

Let me guess, you probably also believe that IQ is static, and people's ability is chiefly dictated by their natural talent? How are those beliefs working out

Let me guess, you probably also believe that IQ is static, and people's ability is chiefly dictated by their natural talent? How are those beliefs working out for you?

superobserver 10y ago
Let me guess, you probably make a lot of presumptive statements that have no basis in reality about what a lot of people say. Or perhaps that is just in this instance. I can, nevertheless, point out to you that that isn't going to get you very far in rational discourse.
mike4ty4 10y ago
It seems you are interpreting what is said in black and white terms. He (she?) said that personality is _neither_ completely _fixed_ _nor_ completely _mutable_. Things are not either/XOR. The same goes with IQ. I don't think any average person could ever train their intelligence to be, say, John von Neumann. Thus it is not _completely_ mutable. He was a genetically superior specimen by every account and evidenced such from a very young age. But a good 15-20 point boost, especially if we did not train ourselves to our fullest before? Maybe. I used to process more slowly, now I process faster, because I pushed to think quicker. Thus it is not completely _fixed_, either. Definitely we can eradicate racial IQ gaps, I believe (average Black-White IQ gap in the US is 15 points favoring Whites, by the way.), Rushton et. al. be damned. If I remember right, in some places it was actually done, thus proving its possibility. (Interesting tidbit the racists seem not to address: Bhutan's and China's people are both “Mongoloid Asian" race by racist theory – but Bhutan has IQ 85, China at 105, at least using racists' own data sets. I wonder also what the IQ for rural China vs. urban wealthy China looks like. I suspect the 105 number comes from having a large proportion of the latter in the sample.)

3 ms·

Let me guess, you probably also believe that IQ is static, and people's ability is chiefly dictated by their natural talent? How are those beliefs working out

by CuriouslyC 10y ago

Let me guess, you probably also believe that IQ is static, and people's ability is chiefly dictated by their natural talent? How are those beliefs working out for you?

superobserver 10y ago
Let me guess, you probably make a lot of presumptive statements that have no basis in reality about what a lot of people say. Or perhaps that is just in this instance. I can, nevertheless, point out to you that that isn't going to get you very far in rational discourse.
mike4ty4 10y ago
It seems you are interpreting what is said in black and white terms. He (she?) said that personality is _neither_ completely _fixed_ _nor_ completely _mutable_. Things are not either/XOR. The same goes with IQ. I don't think any average person could ever train their intelligence to be, say, John von Neumann. Thus it is not _completely_ mutable. He was a genetically superior specimen by every account and evidenced such from a very young age. But a good 15-20 point boost, especially if we did not train ourselves to our fullest before? Maybe. I used to process more slowly, now I process faster, because I pushed to think quicker. Thus it is not completely _fixed_, either. Definitely we can eradicate racial IQ gaps, I believe (average Black-White IQ gap in the US is 15 points favoring Whites, by the way.), Rushton et. al. be damned. If I remember right, in some places it was actually done, thus proving its possibility. (Interesting tidbit the racists seem not to address: Bhutan's and China's people are both “Mongoloid Asian" race by racist theory – but Bhutan has IQ 85, China at 105, at least using racists' own data sets. I wonder also what the IQ for rural China vs. urban wealthy China looks like. I suspect the 105 number comes from having a large proportion of the latter in the sample.)