<p>no this guy said he never opens the book and gets A+ on every test... he's a complete nerd , but he says he parties everyday with girls... there's 60 pages of material every test... and he seems to know all of it without reading it</p>
<p>sorry but I bet you joined those clubs just to show colleges... don't worry I did the same...until i realized how dumb clubs were... I was president of 3 clubs, but didn't put any of that useless junk on my EC list.</p>
<p>Narcissa:
[quote]
hmm they are, but not by much lol.
[/quote]
[quote]
no, there was a study done that said that on average asians had a higher IQ (but not by much, hence my comment)
[/quote]
people who try to equate race with intelligence are simply racist. if you believe this stuff then you are either racist or just ignorant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
they are, tho, according to IQ averages. whether you believe in IQ tests or not is up to you.
[/quote]
this statement makes you look racist. it seems to me that you already think of Asians as intellectually superior to everyone else? you know that the IQ exam test has MANY flaws and is totally biased in almost every way possible yet you choose to believe that Asians are intellectually superior? nice.</p>
<p>i'm going to be nice and assume you are just being ignorant since you are the same person who blames her math woes on being a female and makes statements like "males are better than females at math." Narcissa, stop listening to your parents or whoever is putting all of these stupid ideas in your head...</p>
<p>EDIT:
oh yea, and i don't think that an apology for making such outlandish statements would be out of line...</p>
<p>
[quote]
you are the same person who blames her math woes on being a female and makes statements like "males are better than females at math."
[/quote]
i wasn't even the person who said that! and i certainly don't believe it. somebody said "girls suck at math" and i just pointed out that according to USAMO and stuff there are more guys who are better at math. but that's probably because of many cultural reasons.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sorry but I bet you joined those clubs just to show colleges
[/quote]
some of them, yes, but not most of them (math team, science olympiad, etc--i joined them first because all my friends were in them and then because i liked it) =/</p>
<p>
[quote]
it seems to me that you already think of Asians as intellectually superior to everyone else?
[/quote]
you kno, i used to think this (subconsciously)...until i realized how stupid most asians are anyways. </p>
<p>
[quote]
oh yea, and i don't think that an apology for making such outlandish statements would be out of line...
[/quote]
lol</p>
<p>fine</p>
<p>that was really ignorant of me, sorry. I don't believe that asians are intellectually superior..I think that it's just the asian culture and all the pressures of being asian (you MUST be good at math/science, you MUST then have a 4.0 etc) that make asians take school and academics more seriously (and probably stuff like IQ tests too). IQ tests are stupid I AGREE SORRY EVERYONE WHO WAS OFFENDED</p>
<p>
[quote]
he says he parties everyday with girls...
[/quote]
lmao...that is funny</p>
<p>
[quote]
Narcissa, stop listening to your parents or whoever is putting all of these stupid ideas in your head...
[/quote]
that would be the INTERNET</p>
<p>by the way, my "i wish i were smarter" thread got totally twisted...i never really said that "i suck at math cuz i'm a girl." nor did i say that "i'm struggling in my calculus class." people kinda just assumed everything.</p>
<p>
[quote]
that was really ignorant of me, sorry. I don't believe that asians are intellectually superior..I think that it's just the asian culture and all the pressures of being asian (you MUST be good at math/science, you MUST then have a 4.0 etc) that make asians take school and academics more seriously (and probably stuff like IQ tests too). IQ tests are stupid I AGREE SORRY EVERYONE WHO WAS OFFENDED
[/quote]
thanks. perhaps beefs will read your posts again? :P</p>
<p>Just a interesting thought:</p>
<p>Suppose one day we find evidence that, let's say Bolivians, are intellectually superior than others. Will we suppress this information or knowingly subvert the evidence for fear of being labeled racist and causing societal unrest? Or will we simply say it simply because such evidence has been found?</p>
<p>The notion of equity is strong along racial lines because we deem this to be inherently innate. Thus the preponderance for us to cast the blame on society, upbringing, background etc. for our different lots in life, in the name of saying all homo sapiens are born equal.</p>
<p>Yet, it is plainly seen that not all humans are born equal. We have unfortunate friends that are borned physically or mentally challenged; there are those who are gifted in arts, sports, science.....We accept these as individual cases to be celebrated or lament. But when these differences are extended to the racial lines, we make every effort to blur them, especially when it involves the dimension of intellect.</p>
<p>It would seem very plain to me that a vast majority of African Americans are very gifted in sports and music, evidenced by the number of them as sportmans, rap artists and musicians. Yes, this does not extend to all of them, but Eminem would be the exception. Generalization is discouraged and frowned on, yet nevertheless, generalization is a tendency.</p>
<p>Suppose superiority in the global world today is based on physical prowess, and not on the ability to use intellect to control and create. Hunting is valued more than thinking. Menial workers valued more than professors. Will we then also start to vehemently deny physical superiority in any race?</p>
<p>This is not definitely not about racism, it is asking the what if. What if race is not equal, and do we have the strength and wisdom to deal with it. Or will we choose ignorance for the greater good?</p>
<p>limnieng has a valid point. </p>
<p>Narcisar, the IQ test about asia you mentioned was done by sampling in NA or in Asia. IMO, if sampling done in asia, you might prove your point. However if the sampling done here in NA, it would be a different story. On average the asians made it across the ocean to NA are a littel 'smart' than the asian left in their home countries.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Suppose one day we find evidence that, let's say Bolivians, are intellectually superior than others. Will we suppress this information or knowingly subvert the evidence for fear of being labeled racist and causing societal unrest? Or will we simply say it simply because such evidence has been found?
[/quote]
that day would never come because people cannot define what "intelligence" truly is. if we cannot define it how can we adequately test it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Generalization is discouraged and frowned on, yet nevertheless, generalization is a tendency.
[/quote]
not all tendencies are good. pedophiles have the tendency to be sexually attracted to young children and i'm pretty sure we can all agree that's not a good tendency.</p>
<p>also, generalizations are frowned upon because they are a hinderance. even in writing generalizations are frowned upon because they prevent the paper from reaching a deeper meaning.</p>
<p>I agree that intelligence is very difficult to define, hence we now have a multitude of different intelligences: emotional, kinetics, cognitive etc. Are we able to test these different kinds once we break them down is another topic altogether. But my point was not whether we can test them or not. By saying 'that day would never come' is like closing the door because you don't like what you see behind it. My point is will you accept such information if we have solid evidence and are able to test them, or deny them because you want to uphold notions of racial equality (a very artificial construct against all kinds of empirical evidence)</p>
<p>Also, I'm not talking about whether generalization and tendencies are good or not. I did acknowledge that generalizations are not representative of the group (hence my talk on African Americans and Eminem). I'm saying by virtue of our ability to generalize (all cats have 4 feets, most humans are born with 2 arms and 2 legs), the concept of generalization does show tendencies. I am asking if we are able to acknowledge these tendencies in the face of evidence. Then comes the question of whether this tendency is good or not.</p>
<p>We don't go around saying pedophiles don't exist. We acknowledge that they do have these tendencies first, then comes the question of evaluation. Similarly, do we have the strength to first acknowledge tendencies (or read inequality i.e this race has a tendency to have higher IQ, that race has a tendency to have stronger physical strength etc.) along racial lines and then decide what to do with them.....</p>
<p>Wow. people here are very eloquent</p>
<p>
[quote]
Suppose one day we find evidence that, let's say Bolivians, are intellectually superior than others. Will we suppress this information or knowingly subvert the evidence for fear of being labeled racist and causing societal unrest? Or will we simply say it simply because such evidence has been found?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it would be de-emphasized for two reasons: 1) It is very divisive to label certain races superior to others (RIP Adolph), and 2) more importantly, the "So what?" factor. Unless we can prove that a higher IQ necessarily translates to more valuable contributions to society and the world, there is no point in emphasizing it.</p>
<p>Well, let us just suppose, hypothetically, that it can be unequivocally proven that Bolivians are better at mathematical thinking. It would logically follow that one could expect a higher proportion of Bolivians to succeed in advanced mathematics programs, relative to their proportion in the general population. Then there would logically be no reason to tip admissions to these mathematics programs in favor of non-Bolivians, correct?</p>
<p>Not that there's any way to test certain facets of intelligence; there are definitely intellectual fields for which the above could never be done. But hey, in that scenario, suppressing the information only hurts the Bolivians.</p>
<p>All that aside: for whatever reason, it is not at all "un-PC" to claim that certain races are much physically weaker than others (I recall there was a recent thread in the College Life forum about this, in which this claim was made, numerous times, by certain posters. And other offended parties did not "demand an apology"). But when it comes to a comparison of intellect there's suddenly this huge stigma. Why the double standard? Would the former comment suddenly become unacceptable if success in our society were measured by physical strength?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Then there would logically be no reason to tip admissions to these mathematics programs in favor of non-Bolivians, correct?
[/quote]
let's not make this an AA thread.</p>
<p>i have to agree with Bay, there is a significant "so what" factor since this scenario isn't ever going to happen.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All that aside: for whatever reason, it is not at all "un-PC" to claim that certain races are much physically weaker than others (I recall there was a recent thread in the College Life forum about this, in which this claim was made, numerous times, by certain posters. And other offended parties did not "demand an apology"). But when it comes to a comparison of intellect there's suddenly this huge stigma. Why the double standard? Would the former comment suddenly become unacceptable if success in our society were measured by physical strength?
[/quote]
it's not ok to make generalizations like that either because they are unfair. even if there is some "truth" to those stereotypes they still hurt people just like the Asian-IQ thing does.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But hey, in that scenario, suppressing the information only hurts the Bolivians.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No it doesn't. Aside from the fact that the U.S. alone has 3000 colleges, in this country everyone (including convicted felons) is free to study anything they choose. A math whiz does not necessarily make a good citizen (see, e.g., Ted Kaczynski).</p>
<p>To answer the "so what" factor, you are moving into the work of Richard Lynn and associates.</p>
<p>Many decades ago I was looking at international development and came to a slightly different conclusion. As a young and politically-incorrect undergrad at the time, I was wondering if any so-called "developing" countries in fact became developed. I reasoned that if non of them has developed, then the older but less politically correct term "underdeveloped" may be more apt.</p>
<p>At the time, I could find four that were qualified to be called "developing" countries-Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea. They all seemed to have certain characteristics in common. They were small, non democratic, capitalistic, and highly influenced by Confucianism. I was wondering if they were necessary but insufficient factors in development.</p>
<p>I remember looking at Singapore and Trinidad in particular. They both were ruled by Britain, became independent at around the same time and had the time to produce two generations of the administration class. Furthermore, Trinidad discovered oil on her territory. On the surface, Singapore should have been out-classed. All she has is a harbor. Reality as we all know is quite different.</p>
<p>The strangest case was Argentina. She managed to turn herself from one of the world's richest in the late 1800s to a basket case by the 1970s. Unbelievable.</p>
<p>With the recent advances in China and India, I can see that my hypothesis was too "narrow". What is happening in Kenya, on the other hand, makes me wonder.</p>
<p>Interesting diversion from the topic.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I remember looking at Singapore and Trinidad in particular. They both were ruled by Britain, became independent at around the same time and had the time to produce two generations of the administration class. Furthermore, Trinidad discovered oil on her territory. On the surface, Singapore should have been out-classed. All she has is a harbor. Reality as we all know is quite different.
[/quote]
read the book The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad by Fareed Zakaria. it should answer your questions.</p>
<p>@firebird</p>
<p>just because you find it unlikely that these smart people don't study 1-2 hours, it's very, very possible. i'm not saying these kids don't, but some of us actually can pull 4.0 uw without more than 2 hours of studying</p>
<p>i took 6 ap's, had varsity swimming (which was a class period as well) and club swimming, along with an internship with a cardiologist. i didn't study more than 2 hours a night because i didn't have time (get home around 8, have to wake up around 5:30 to make 6 am practices). i had a 4.0 uw gpa. i didn't get 99's and 98's, but I got all A's</p>
<p>if your efficient with your time, it's not as bad as it seems. if someone reads 100 pages of bio in an hour, and another person takes 2 hours because he was chatting with his friends and watching TV, "studying" for 2 hours means nothing.</p>
<p>haha i think i might be narcissa's twin~
quote: "I hate it when I walk in bio class and these asian kids that get 47/50 on bio tests say they barely study, but get high test scores..."</p>
<p>i think it is totally possible to get 47/50 on a bio test without studying a significant amount, and i bet you that guy you give an example of is not lying about his life outside school. In my first semester of ap bio class taught by a former visiting prof. at princeton/ guy who used to work at cold spring harbor, (haha i'm not sure of the exact details, but the point is that he's really smart/ has high standards =P) I was able to get 78/75 on our unit test on photosynthesis while most people got 40 or below -__- our tests cover 5 chapters at a time out of our textbook, so 102 pages of material.</p>
<p>completely honestly, they all studied a LOT more than I did. Rather than studying and cramming outside of class, I just listened carefully when our teacher talked and made sure I understand where every number, scientific term, etc. was fitting in. I did study a bit, (looked at the diagrams in the book, looked at my notes), but I know it was not a long time because besides for one hour at home, I did it during the 30 minute break between classes. Not exaggerating and being cocky~ there are other kids in my school (curiously, all belonging to scioly) who are like this. I don't know if it's like this in other schools, but I don't see any of the super-studious/ take lots of sat prep asians doing stuff like scioly, i only see them in my AP classes freaking out about every test!</p>
<p>(btw I am half taiwanese, half euro female [junior year])
Curious sidenote, I also scored 235 on my PSAT, same subscores =)
I used to be pretty into swim team/ going to travel meets, but my parents made me quit cause they thought the cold water was bad for health -__-
And also I do math club, scioly, and GLL science prog. from northwestern.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I could find four that were qualified to be called "developing" countries-Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea. They all seemed to have certain characteristics in common.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hong Kong was/is not a country. It had been a part of China as early as the Sung Dynasty (960 A.D.-) until Britain won the 1st Opium War. Hong Kong was ceded to Britain in 1842 under the Treaty of Nanking. It remained a British colony until 7/1/1997 when it was returned to China. Hong Kong is now a special administrative zone of China...</p>
<p>Taiwan is not recognized as a country by many nations, although its current President, a native Taiwanese, believes it is. Chiang Kai Shek & his KMT that ruled Taiwan for a long time are not native Taiwanese.</p>
<ol>
<li>I don't know what people are fighting over. "Intellect" is influenced by the environment a child grows up in and genetics as well. So really, people only have a hand in changing the environment, not the genetics of a person (although we could do it in a few more decades).</li>
<li>Hong Kong is a city and Taiwan is a province. Both are not countries</li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
2. Hong Kong is a city and Taiwan is a province. Both are not countries
[/quote]
nope, sorry.</p>