Home        Log in

The stupidity of intelligence by Jay Knott (12/20/12)       ⇌ (Darwinism)       

I'm reading "The Bell Curve", a notorious book on pyschology from the nineties which was widely attacked as "racist".

"If a person is a wonderful visualiser but can barely compose a sentence, and another person can write glowing prose but cannot begin to visualize the simplest spatial images, what do you really learn about these two people if they are reported to have the same IQ?"

The authors of "The Bell Curve" don't believe this, and they put quite a bit of effort into trying to refute it. I don't think they succeed. By page 29, I'd come to the conclusion that their argument is circular. I don't care if it's "racist" or not - I only care it it's a) meaningful, and b) true. Moreover, IF you care if it's racist, you CANNOT care if it's a) meaningful, and b) true, and vice versa.

"Almost anyone can become a ditch digger (if he has a strong enough back); many can become cabinetmakers (if they have good enough small-motor skills), but only people from a fairly narrow range of cognitive ability can become lawyers" (page 54).

OK - how about this: "Almost anyone can become a lawyer (if he has a high enough cognitive ability); many can become cabinetmakers (if they have good enough small-motor skills), but only people with exceptionally strong backs can become ditch diggers"?

An objection might be: "there are lawyers who can dig ditches". The answer is too obvious to spell out.

And within "cognitive ability" is a conglomeration of skills, not one standardized range of "intelligence".

The mind is a collection of modules. We all have some that are pretty good at what they do, and some that are not so good. There is no one place where you will find "intelligence".

However, it's worth reading. On page 44 is the best explanation of the statistical term 'standard deviation' I've ever read. The book is also useful for separating people who reject books like The Bell Curve because of p.c. groupthink from people, like me, who reject them for their logical incoherence.

"IQ tests are 'fundamentally flawed' and using them alone to measure intelligence is a 'fallacy', study finds":


It's taken THIS LONG (about 100 years) to figure that out?!?

Wikipedia unconsciously demonstrates the stupidity of 'intelligence':


It's not that "using them alone to measure intelligence" is a fallacy, it's "measuring intelligence" itself.

If my "intelligence quotient" (IQ) is 110, what was Albert Einstein's? 2,000? How about his intellectual courage, in discarding the basic assumptions of the physics of his day? Could there be a 'courage quotient' test? Probably not.

IQ is for idiots.


Home        Log in