<p>MODERATOR’S NOTE: </p>
<p>I will ask Sally, the OP of this thread, to make the call on whether or not this thread is getting to be badly off-topic, both as to the thread’s narrow topic, and as to the broader topic of this forum, college admission. It may be that some of the posts in this thread really belong elsewhere, so I’ll invite Sally and the other members of the moderation team to have a look and see what they think needs to be done.</p>
<p>^
It does seem to have derailed to a point of no return.</p>
<p>"It is conventional for psychologists to operationalize “intelligence” as “scores on IQ tests.” See post #238 for abundant references on that point. "</p>
<p>That’s exactly what I’m criticizing. Who gets to determine what goes into an IQ test? Euro-centric “psychologists”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is why Asians (both here and in Asia) score a half std above Europeans?</p>
<p>You can put the blame on the material of an IQ test being put in my “Euro-centric” individuals. However, the scores of different ethnic groups excluding those from Africa or wherever else you want to say still show the same pattern. Asians are taking these same Euro based tests and scoring better than the average person of European descent. The Ashkenazi Jewish population is doing even better than them, with the same environmental factors as everyone else. You can claim that IQ is arbitrary in itself, but there are strong correlations with these scores and real, tangible proof of human intelligence by these ethnic groups, through development, research, or whatever form of human progression you may want to use. I’m not going to go find the information that talks about how the Ashkenazi Jews make up around 2% of the population, yet have won a relatively high percentage of Nobel prizes for America in science. My memory says 25%, but I don’t know if that’s correct or if the source was accurate. The point is there is a very real difference in regards to intelligence and what an individual is capable of achieving between races. You don’t have to accept it, but it’s real.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can count on your recollection being incorrect AND the source being inaccurate on those points. </p>
<p>What “race” a person belongs to has nothing to do biologically with what the individual is capable of achieving.</p>
<p>I hope everyone here is aware that a standard deviation is not a resistant statistic, so it doesn’t constitute a measurement unit for human intelligence.</p>
<p>Go take a couple of online IQ tests and see what questions are asked.</p>
<p>All IQ tests can do is testing for certain sets of knowledge and skills, all of which are learned. They do not have much to do with the innate “intelligence”, even if one can really define the meaning of “intelligence”.</p>
<p>^^ Exactly.</p>
<p>“What “race” a person belongs to has nothing to do biologically with what the individual is capable of achieving.”</p>
<p>Genetics have everything to do with what someone is CAPABLE of achieving. Genetic variation is obviously a strong component of different races. Environment is the only other factor that influences a person and that just has to do with how much of your potential you do reach. Online IQ tests are not real IQ tests.</p>
<p>“Which is why Asians (both here and in Asia) score a half std above Europeans?”</p>
<p>Exactly. Asian cultures uphold education and revere it, thus, culture matters a lot. As I have have, this is why AA is justified. Individuals should be judged by their environment and race is undoubtedly has a strong correlation with their culture and thus the environment the individual lives in.</p>
<p>“Genetics have everything to do with what someone is CAPABLE of achieving.”</p>
<p>Are you kidding me? You’re implying that minorities are INCAPABLE of achieving at the same capacity as these high “IQ” Jews or various high “IQ” races. You’re view is asinine as well as ignorant. All races are capable to do anything. One must be judged by their circumstances and AA does this to its best to its ability; although nothing is ever perfect.</p>
<p>Nope, I’m not saying minorities are incapable of achieving high levels of success at all. So no, I’m not kidding you, but you fail to understand. Let me try to use another example. Do you know how many sprinters have ran the 100m race under 10 seconds? I don’t know the number, and a quick search gives several different results… anyways, there has been a relatively large number correct? By large I mean we’re talking about more than a select few in the world. Do you know how many white sprinters have sprinted under 10 seconds? Zero. Does this mean that white people can’t be fast? Obviously not, obviously if you have someone of African descent and European descent either person could be the faster. Yet because of genetics white sprinters are unable to achieve the same level of success. It is the same concept. However, the brain is a much more complex thing to measure and the ways intelligence is implemented is much more diverse than running a race as fast as you can.</p>
<p>“However, the brain is a much more complex thing to measure and the ways intelligence is implemented is much more diverse than running a race as fast as you can.”</p>
<p>Exactly, thus your analogy is sketchy at best. Intelligence is not something that can be measured such as speed and what you perceive as intelligent is not the same as other people. Therefore, judging races by intelligence is pointless.</p>
<p>“Genetics have everything to do with what someone is CAPABLE of achieving.”</p>
<p>That pretty much infers that genetics, and thus race, provides the limits of what an individual can achieve. But since you said that’s not what you mean then whatever.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I imagine he’s talking about racial averages.</p>
<p>Uh…I know African Americans who got 36’s on the ACT and still got rejected from Harvard, so no the bump isn’t as big as you’d imagine. Still, basing a flawed policy off race is much worse than off income.</p>
<p>Thank you for bringing this back around to the topic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But the group averages comparisons that several people are making in this thread, based on flawed sources, still say nothing about what individuals in any group are capable of achieving. Nor is there any evidence offered by anyone here that hard limits on what people can possibly achieve have been hit by anyone.</p>
<p>I completely agree with you that no one has hit their hard cap, or what they are capable of learning. However, the hard cap is a significant factor on what a person is likely to end up learning. You could think of this as a graph x^(1/2), the x axis being effort put into education and the y axis being the result of that effort. This isn’t really a great example because this graph has no asymptote, but the general shape should work. People can also put in more effort, but that effort is realistically only going to do so much. So assuming people are remotely close in their effort this is something that is significant.</p>
<p>Exactly, thus one should look at what culture the student comes from and, thus distinguishes how hard and how much they will work compared to where they come from. Race is not the perfect thing to look at, but it is the best and that’s why AA is good.</p>