On what terms? What part(s) of it's thesis do you find valuable or informative?
It is a popularization of what is generally known about intelligence in the research community. There have been made several surveys among IQ researchers on their position, and the majority of them think that a) intelligence is a real biological concept with a significant heritable component and b) some of the differences in the measured IQ between races is of biological origin. Here is a statement that was released to the media by 52 mainstream IQ researchers during the Bell Curve controversy:
http://www.honestthinking.org/en/pub/HT.2008.02.11.Mainstream_scientists_on_race.htm
There is in fact surprisingly little controversy
within the IQ research community. Most of the criticism and controversy arises from non-experts outside the field (e.g. Stephen Jay Gould, loads of sociologists etc.). This may be a sign that there is something wrong with the entire IQ research field, or it may mean that the non-experts actually don't know more than the experts, but just don't like the implications.
IQ isn't a "valid biological concept" at all, and measurement of IQ isn't even a valid concept per se, given that none of the determinant factors currently used are universalisable across cultures. In other words, an IQ test will inform you only of the "intelligence" of people within the particular culture the test was developed in.
That's not true. IQ is equally predictive of mental performance regardless of culture, and mental chronometry predicts IQ equally good regardless of race and culture.
BTW, what is this "biological reality" you refer to? Please expand.
a) intelligence is a physiological property of the brain that can be measured and quantified accurately. Currently only by proxies, but in the future IQ tests will likely be replaced entirely by primitive cognitive tasks (mental reaction tests), and measurements of the brain (ph-Value, brain size etc.). b) as a largely heritable and physiological property there exists biologically based differences in intelligence between both individuals and groups of individuals.
I've never met a socialist who's made such a claim. Perhaps Norwegian socialists are especially stupid, or (more likely) you're mistaken?
a) not only have I met such socialists, but they are actually the mainstream among the intellectuals. In fact, a famous Norwegian comedian (but educated as a sociologist) Harald Eia made a TV series called "Brainwash" in which he challenged sociologists on topics such as sexual preference, gender, race and IQ. The series completely and utterly shocked large parts of Norwegian TV-viewers because Eia exposed Norwegian sociologists as completely out of touch with reality. In the program we see sociologists and sex researchers who claim that sexual preference has NOTHING to do with biology, that IQ is a myth, that all differences between the sexes is PURELY social in origin.
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask_(TV-program)
All humans are very obviously not "equal mentally". Cognitive and developmental issues see to that.
Ah, yes, socialists obviously accept that environmental factors such as nutrition can alter cognitive development, and that of course birth defects such as Down's syndrome can cause mental dysfunction. HOWEVER, socialists think that for healthy humans there is ZERO heritability. That is, if you take two random healthy humans and place them in the same environment and give them the same nutrition and the same education (with adjustments to suit the individual of course) then left intellectuals really do believe that they will come out exactly the same. I know that this is true because this is the mainstream position among sociologists.
I suspect that you're conflating a social-democratic position that cultures have equal worth with a reductive assumption that socialists believe "that all humans are equal mentally".
Oh, no, absolutely not. Cf. the TV-program "Brainwash" ("Hjernevask") that exposes that left wing sociologists really do believe this.
No, it's your assumption, based on who knows what evidence, because you source nothing), hardly an "archetype".
Well, you yourself are regurgitating the exact same archetype in your response to me, see below.
IQ is a myth. It's a culturally-loaded form of measurement of factors, it does not measure "intelligence". Nobody denies that some people manifest intellect in a more meaningful and/or practical and/or remunerative way than others, but that has little to do with "IQ", which is snake oil, a fantasy created to make sexually-unappealing men seem attractive.
Check.
There are no biological racial differences. You, I, an Australian Aborigine, a Wolof tribesman from Gambia and a Tierra del Feugan are indistinguishable biologically. We all share the same genetic material, the same chemical constituents, the exact same internal and external topography. Our only differences are climactic and environmental adaptions that are, quite literally, skin-deep.
Check.
See? You DO have exactly the position that I claimed intellectual socialists have. So let me ask you a question. How do you KNOW we are all the same biologically? Do you have any evidence for that? Before you answer let me inform you that all dog races are also virtually genetically identical. There is less gentically that distinguishes a poodle from a wolf than what distinguishes an African from a Chinese. Did you know that? Do you think that there are no biological differences between a poodle and a wolf? Do you think that all dog races are of equal mental ability? Sure, they are artificially bred, but unless you're a creationist you'll recognize that artificial breeding is just evolution in fast forward motion.
Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you (you don't strike me as a thinker, more of an "ideas man") that the reason "the able" are held back (and this happens in all schools, regardless of their public or private status, or the quality of teaching staff, is because it is a function of not having a one-to-one teaching system? Any time a teacher is teaching more than one student, "the able" will always be held back.
UNLESS there are special schools for the able. (i.e. people of similar high ability are gathered in the same classes or schools) In Norway such schools are illegal. Special schools are allowed for the disabled but the law explicitly states that it is not allowed for the able. That is what socialism means in practice.
IQ is a practical attempt to measure intelligence. Intelligence can be defined as cognitive speed and energy. That is, the intelligent can think *faster* than others, and he also can hold more information in his short and medium term memory, partially due to a higher energy level and partially due to faster refresh rate. As a consequence the intelligent is able to process and search information for patterns faster than the less intelligent. IQ tests are designed as order (a distinct solution) hidden within noise. Easy tasks have little noise and therefore requires little cognitive speed and energy. Hard IQ problems have a lot of noise and require much faster and more energetic cognitive abilities.
Once you've done that, have a skim through the literature on IQ tests. There's about 70 years worth (50 if you measure it from Eysenck). Even if you just select a single paper for each year that IQ has been a subject under study (by the hard sciences as well as the soft), you'll find very little academic consensus about what IQ is, what functions and abilities should be measured, how it should be scored, how to cross-reference and equate scores between different IQ tests, and so on.
I think Arthur Jensen said it quite right. The 20th century was dominated by a zeitgeist that severely hampered IQ research. (Basically socialists who for ideological reasons wanted to exterminate the IQ concept) Therefore you find that some of the best research on intelligence was conducted quite early, e.g. by Francis Galton. Galton proposed that intelligence was mental speed that could be measured by mental chronometry. Basically he was right, but the fog of the 20th century zeitgeist removed that line of thinking from the research until quite recently. Today the field is returning to its roots and there is now loads of evidence that support the chronometric theory and this is starting to establish itself as the leading theory of intelligence.
You're shaping the evidence to fit your predetermined outcomes.
Are you absolutely sure that it is not the other way around?
