slate.com
I find it amuzing when some dandruff covered geek explains this to me and then I point them to a video of Jimi Hendrix. I don't know what Jimi would have scored on the Stanford-Binet, but the man was a genius. Who can doubt that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJRWdseH1Pc&feature=relat...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-OnApUde4M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJmPtneBibU&feature=relat...
Sure I have scored high on IQ tests and that, plus 2$ will buy me a cup of coffee.
In fact, most scientific studies may be wrong, or at least deeply flawed:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915.html
When one considers the hundred years of horrific racism present in white culture, it's hardly surprising that such cultural attitudes manifest themselves from time to time in the form of sophisticated scientific arguments.
Whether or not there are genetic differences, doesn't the most accurate approach -- if not the most ethical approach -- seem to be withholding all race-based judgement for the time being?
However, it would not be offensive for scientists to say that people with a certain DNA sequence are more intelligent -- at least not yet since personalized DNA sequencing is not common.
So one solution to this problem would be to simply hide race and gender by allowing people to work from home, meet online, etc. There are probably many sorts of businesses where this would be possible.
But I am a fan of making the human race better, and I don't like when you can't discuss certain research.
In the past, I could believe the sociological reasons to not discuss things like this. It could easily be net negative for society.
But we are getting better at manipulating genes. Soon, we'll be enhancing people. I'd like to know which genes cause intelligence (including autism, aspergers, and other potential drawbacks) so that we can choose to activate them when we have the ability.
Socially distasteful research that could lead to improving all humans should be openly explored with that goal in mind.
For example, you can take IQ tests, get an MRI scan of your brain to determine its volume, get your DNA sequenced etc., to prove your high IQ as an individual.
1. See the graph at http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?p=321
The highest IQ holder now is great at word puzzles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant
The greatest of all time, what did he do?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_sidis
But Steve Hawking doesn't like the idea much: http://www.extremeintellect.com/ei2007/geniuses/hawking/hawk...
Just saying, it is a factor, but I don't think it's the end all and be all.
Too bad it's illegal to give IQ tests as part of the interview process. I think that's partially why the brain teasers have become so popular.
Though I do agree with you that you'd be right to laugh at someone who claims you should hire him simply because of an IQ test. They should also be motivated and interested in that line of work, otherwise I would imagine the intelligence would be wasted.
Taking a follow-the-money approach to these questions, it's worth reflecting that a 15 minute IQ test can give a rough idea of a candidate's quality. Compare that to the 4 year, 6-figure process of getting an Ivy League degree--Harvard, et al, is against any shade of genetic determinism not so much from liberalism as self-interest. Why obsolete themselves?
From the article:
[After listing obviously false rebuttals of Watson...] I wish these assurances were true.
I wonder why. If you showed proof of genetic proclivities toward certain kinds of muscle and nerve structures associated with athleticism, and then showed that blacks have some preponderance of the same...how many of them would throw themselves at the feet of Thomas Jefferson's tea-tax-related rhetoric and weep that "It just can't be so...all men are equal!"
Zero. Not everyone was taught to abase themselves.