|
Poor people have lower IQs than rich people... (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Arbiter |
Well, I won't comment on the merit of Charlton's thesis without at least reading his paper, but I spy a few people who are pretty clearly suffering from a lower IQ in that article. What kind of bone-headed responses are these?
| quote: | | The Government criticised Dr Charlton's comments. Higher education minister Bill Rammell said: "These arguments have a definite tone of 'people should know their place'. |
Nice straw man, . One thing I can say for sure is that his place isn't as "higher education minister." Although frankly, the job "grave digger" would probably prove too intellectually rigorous for this fellow, too.
| quote: | | "There are young people with talent, ability and the potential to benefit from higher education who do not currently do so. That should concern us all." |
What exactly is the implication here -- that if a student can't gain admission to one or two particular universities because other, more qualified, students are admitted instead, then he or she can't receive the benefits of higher education? Well, that's either incredibly stupid or this "point" isn't even relevant to the topic at hand. In either case, I'm more concerned about the apparent lack of standards when it comes to appointing such government officials.
| quote: | Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union, said: "It should come as little surprise that people who enjoy a more privileged upbringing have a better start in life.
"It is up to all of us to ensure that not having access to the social and educational benefits that money provides is not a barrier to achieving one's full potential." |
Again, what is the implication here? Is it that a student can only achieve his or her full potential by attending Oxford or Cambridge? If not, then how does this opinionated tripe even approach being relevant in any way? If it is the implication, then, just maybe, the problem is the apparently inadequate quality of other educational institutions (the one inept enough to employ Ms. Hunt, for instance), rather than the selective admissions process of the two most prestigious universities in Britain.
For 's sake! If these people are going to try to offer criticism, then they should at least take the first step of making it a) actually relevant to the subject of their criticism, and b) not a transparent fallacy. Bonus points are awarded to those who can argue with something other than banal platitudes, which it appears neither of these nincompoops can. |
|
|
| Inertia |
 |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
Intelligence Quotient is something invented and calculated by the academic standards of the rich in the first place. It's like Wal-Mart awarding Wal-Mart with the Best Wal-Mart of the Year award.
"Intelligence" is a dicey thing in the first place, and really, what is its relevance anyways? Does it lie in our ability to invent, innovate, use tools, etc? None of those things can be effectively reduced to a single test, no matter how "broad" an examination of reasoning it diagnoses itself to be.
Perhaps the truest measure of our general value to our species lies in our ability to effectively compete and breed in the greatest volume and rapidity as well as any group or individual's proclivity towards relevant resilience and eventual survival. If such a thorough diagnosis were to be exacted upon any particular population, I can hypothesize with certainty that the "intelligent" would be in the minority and thus comparatively not of particular value to what relevance something such as "intelligence" is even supposed to hold to our proliferation, much less the integrity of ideals, themselves. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Intelligence Quotient is something invented and calculated by the academic standards of the rich in the first place. It's like Wal-Mart awarding Wal-Mart with the Best Wal-Mart of the Year award. |
yeah, that's what i was gonna say, though prob not about walmart. IQ is a middle class test, so why are we surprised that the middle class does better at the it? |
|
|
| Arbiter |
I tracked down the paper. You can read it here. Ugh, what kind of ghetto publication distributes documents in microsoft word format anyway? "Times Higher Education" apparently.
Anyway, it's pretty short and simple (yet amusingly despite that simplicity its critics don't seem to be able to comprehend it.) To the extent that IQ is a proxy for "merit," his conclusions are pretty much beyond dispute.
Although there exists a long laundry list of criticisms against IQ testing, most of them have been largely or wholly discredited:
http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~amorto...ntelligence.pdf
One quotation from that document that seems particularly pertinent here is "research findings were often assessed not so much on their merits or their scientific standing as on their supposed political implications." It appears similarly, here, none of Charlton's critics have actually engaged with his data or his reasoning, but rather countered with statements of political opinion that are tangential to the claims made by Charlton.
In any case, while it is certainly true that IQ tests only measure a portion of what might be termed "intelligence" generally, IQ correlates with academic achievement even when you control for cultural or socioeconomic background. Consequently it would be unreasonable to claim that the test is not measuring something that is pertinent to academic performance.
We also know that certain environmental factors are predictive of IQ. Consequently, it seems like the "fair access" political agenda that Charlton is attempting to criticize would be better served in attempting to provide children of less advantaged backgrounds with an environment that is conducive to "achieving [their] full potential" at this early stage in life, rather than attempting to secure them admissions to a particular university after their potential might have already been scuttled, perhaps irreversibly, by the circumstances of their socioeconomic disadvantage. |
|
|
| Sadface |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I tracked down the paper. You can read it here. Ugh, what kind of ghetto publication distributes documents in microsoft word format anyway? "Times Higher Education" apparently.
Anyway, it's pretty short and simple (yet amusingly despite that simplicity its critics don't seem to be able to comprehend it.) To the extent that IQ is a proxy for "merit," his conclusions are pretty much beyond dispute.
Although there exists a long laundry list of criticisms against IQ testing, most of them have been largely or wholly discredited:
http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~amorto...ntelligence.pdf
One quotation from that document that seems particularly pertinent here is "research findings were often assessed not so much on their merits or their scientific standing as on their supposed political implications." It appears similarly, here, none of Charlton's critics have actually engaged with his data or his reasoning, but rather countered with statements of political opinion that are tangential to the claims made by Charlton.
In any case, while it is certainly true that IQ tests only measure a portion of what might be termed "intelligence" generally, IQ correlates with academic achievement even when you control for cultural or socioeconomic background. Consequently it would be unreasonable to claim that the test is not measuring something that is pertinent to academic performance.
We also know that certain environmental factors are predictive of IQ. Consequently, it seems like the "fair access" political agenda that Charlton is attempting to criticize would be better served in attempting to provide children of less advantaged backgrounds with an environment that is conducive to "achieving [their] full potential" at this early stage in life, rather than attempting to secure them admissions to a particular university after their potential might have already been scuttled, perhaps irreversibly, by the circumstances of their socioeconomic disadvantage. |
Yes. Exactly. |
|
|
| yujie__ |
| Are poor people less rich than the richerest people? |
|
|
| smallSHEEP |
| His findings seem to have a fairly logical conclusion. I've met some extremely intelligent people who haven't had the best upbringing, but they do seem to be the exception. |
|
|
| neovalkyr |
Lets see, it's a lot easier to be rich than poor thats for sure. Many "poor" children live in single parent homes where the parents struggle just to get food on the table. Forget about having a computer with an internet connection. They live with many siblings sometimes having to share rooms with more than 1 other. They dont have reliable forms of transportation, places to study , or time to study. They may feel a general sense of inadequateness. Have to deal with horrible classrooms where other students undermine their chances to learn.
I'm definitely not poor but I went to public school, and my middle school was particularly bad. I remember my math class in 7th grade, we had an ugly teacher, so many of the students would do nothing but disrespect her. They would paint whiteout on her back as she walked by, amongst other things. Most of the students in the class would not even pay attention, not to mention the class room was absolutely filthy due to the students. I remember the teacher actually cried one day. Another one of my teachers cried in 9th grade as well. After 9th grade though I was usually in the "smart" classes so I didnt have to deal with that crap anymore. |
|
|
| Dervish |
Well the school I went to used to come very close to the bottom of the league tables. And the area I live in is literally defined as an area of deprivation.
But ok a crap up bringing means you're more likely to be less successful. This 'IQ' test tests metrics which are advantageous to success.
All the bleeding heart stuff is fine. But who is basically responsible for the children? Their parents. You can take a scummy kid and his scummy mates into the best school in the world, with the best teachers in the world and they won't succeed. Why?
Because culturally they don't care.
Culturally they are lazy.
Culturally they don't want to progress.
Unless you want the state to interfere with the culture of it's people (even it if could) there isn't much else you can do. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I tracked down the paper. You can read it here. Ugh, what kind of ghetto publication distributes documents in microsoft word format anyway? "Times Higher Education" apparently.
Anyway, it's pretty short and simple (yet amusingly despite that simplicity its critics don't seem to be able to comprehend it.) To the extent that IQ is a proxy for "merit," his conclusions are pretty much beyond dispute.
|
Except for the fact he chooses to define social class based on occupation. It's not so controversial to say that the people working the best jobs (his highest working class consists of "mainly professional and senior managerial workers such as professors, doctors and bank managers") will have higher average IQs than unskilled labourers, is it?
The chief problem with this logic is that most people applying to university in the UK are about 18 years old and thus probably never had a job. In other words, defining social class by employment is utterly irrelevant to the subject he's applying it to. |
|
|
|
|
