I will say there could likely be a correlation between blatant racism and low intelligence. I say intelligence because an IQ test is a test. That's pretty much it. Now, I will also say there is a distinct difference between racism and making generalizations. Those who make generalizations should not be called "racist" because if we didn't generalize about anything then on what basis would we make decisions if not all information is available? A generalization is based on past experiences and observations. I think that is a valid tool for decision making (now it certainly doesn't always result in a correct decision though!).
__________________
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
I will say there could likely be a correlation between blatant racism and low intelligence. I say intelligence because an IQ test is a test. That's pretty much it. Now, I will also say there is a distinct difference between racism and making generalizations. Those who make generalizations should not be called "racist" because if we didn't generalize about anything then on what basis would we make decisions if not all information is available? A generalization is based on past experiences and observations. I think that is a valid tool for decision making (now it certainly doesn't always result in a correct decision though!).
Generalization is a useful tool, yes, for all the reasons you've pointed out. However, conclusions made on generalizations are never as accurate as conclusions made on specifics. A refusal or inability to comprehend the specifics of a situation leaves nothing but the generalization on which to form a basis of opinion. A lack of specific information - ignorance - leaves nothing but the generalization. An inability to comprehend the specific information - lack of intelligence - leaves nothing but the generalization. The greater one's intelligence and the more information he has, the more likely he will make a conclusion that differs from the pre-existing generalization.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Generalization is a useful tool, yes, for all the reasons you've pointed out. However, conclusions made on generalizations are never as accurate as conclusions made on specifics. A refusal or inability to comprehend the specifics of a situation leaves nothing but the generalization on which to form a basis of opinion. A lack of specific information - ignorance - leaves nothing but the generalization. An inability to comprehend the specific information - lack of intelligence - leaves nothing but the generalization. The greater one's intelligence and the more information he has, the more likely he will make a conclusion that differs from the pre-existing generalization.
Okay, so if one neglects facts and instead generalizes then yes that is not good. If that is your point then I agree.... Sometimes we do not have all the information available to us which leaves a generalization... I'm not sure what you are getting at here?
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
Okay, so if one neglects facts and instead generalizes then yes that is not good. If that is your point then I agree.... Sometimes we do not have all the information available to us which leaves a generalization... I'm not sure what you are getting at here?
I'm saying that people of higher intelligence are more likely to comprehend information that differs from the assumptions inherent in the generalization, and are thus more likely to accept and embrace conclusions that differ from those arrived at from previously established generalization. The smarter one is, the more likely one will embrace change.
I'm also saying that people of lower intelligence are less likely to comprehend information - they have less information available to them from which to form a conclusion. People of lower intelligence are more likely to rely on the assumptions inherent in a generalization, and are slower to adopt change.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
I'm saying that people of higher intelligence are more likely to comprehend information that differs from the assumptions inherent in the generalization, and are thus more likely to accept and embrace conclusions that differ from those arrived at from previously established generalization. The smarter one is, the more likely one will embrace change.
I'm also saying that people of lower intelligence are less likely to comprehend information - they have less information available to them from which to form a conclusion. People of lower intelligence are more likely to rely on the assumptions inherent in a generalization, and are slower to adopt change.
University professors are probably smarter than the average person and my experience with the liberal arts professors was that many of them leaned toward socialism.
IQ measurements are not perfect as it's hard to separate the subject from his environment. I don't think my teachers ever figured it out but my IQ kept rising in elementary school. I think for a couple of reasons, I was an avid reader plus they kept testing me since I had a high IQ. I did better on all tests because I became skilled at taking tests and had no anxiety about being tested. So the reality was that I was being trained to take tests rather than having an increasing IQ.
University professors are probably smarter than the average person and my experience with the liberal arts professors was that many of them leaned toward socialism.
So what?
Quote:
IQ measurements are not perfect as it's hard to separate the subject from his environment. I don't think my teachers ever figured it out but my IQ kept rising in elementary school. I think for a couple of reasons, I was an avid reader plus they kept testing me since I had a high IQ. I did better on all tests because I became skilled at taking tests and had no anxiety about being tested. So the reality was that I was being trained to take tests rather than having an increasing IQ.
I really love the "trained to take tests" argument. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems, whether on paper or in real life. While there is *some* merit to the idea that some people do better on tests than others, in general (and we just spoke about generalities), someone who does better on tests is going to do better in real-world applications than a person who tests poorly.
Yes, intelligence is a very difficult attribute to test in any single individual. So is any analog attribute. Measuring someone's height to the nearest millimeter is a fairly inaccurate task - ask 10 different people to measure someone, and you're likely to get 6 different answers. Yet, if we measured the height of 100 liberals and 100 conservatives, we'd be able to find some fairly meaningful trend for each group, and we'd be able to compare them.
Even if we assume that the actual intelligence levels are the same for each group (An exceedingly poor assumption), we have to ask why liberals tend to score higher on IQ and other problem-solving tests than conservatives.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Even if we assume that the actual intelligence levels are the same for each group (An exceedingly poor assumption), we have to ask why liberals tend to score higher on IQ and other problem-solving tests than conservatives.
So could a syllogism lead one to conclude socialism is for those of higher IQs?
So could a syllogism lead one to conclude socialism is for those of higher IQs?
Sure, if you continue to use the word 'socialism" to describe modern liberal political theory. I for one do not. Every red arrow in this photo points to something that could be referred to as products of "socialism":
But when a conservative speaks about the evils of socialism, he's not referring to these things, but to some nebulous and nefarious strawman. When a liberal says "socialism", he's referring to things like those in the photograph, things that enable the individual and expand his choices. When a conservative says "socialism", he's referring to government-owned farms, factories, things that restrict individual choice.
So yes, depending on the concept you're referring to, a syllogism could lead one to conclude that socialism is for those of higher IQs.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Some NC State students are trying to make the campus smoke free. I would assume (maybe incorrectly) that university students have IQs of 100 or greater so why would any be smoking?
Linear Mode
