From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: stuff
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:30:52 GMT


Scott Tai writes:
> 
> In article <EePr0kO00VRSMCTT95@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Stephen P. Marting" 
> <sm6h+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> 
> |> So you're saying then that every organization should be open to
> |> everyone?  Since Mensa "discriminated" against others when they accepted
> |> me because of my SAT scores, then other organizations, say NCSU,
> |> shouldn't "discriminate" by using SAT scores?
> 
>      No one can deny that minority groups in this country do poorly on
> standardized intelligence tests, particularly on the SAT and PSAT.

I'm surprised you made this mistake, after having posted those
articles about intelligence testing.  The SAT and the PSAT aren't
intelligence tests.  Actually, they are what "intelligence tests"
are generally used for.  To predict academic success.  Other uses
for IQ tests are for pinpointing learning disabilities and a general
diagnostic tool.  For uses such as these, I, for one, am damn glad
we have them.  Throwing them out is, to me, like throwing away a
screwdriver because it's not a power drill or because someone once
stabbed someone with one.  Too bad we don't have more tests that
can pinpoint that kind of stupidity.  Using IQ tests to indicate
"intelligence" is a misuse of these tests.

> Schools, universitites, and Old Guard fans everywhere use this to
> uphold their own racial stereotypes, to label minority groups as
> "ineducable."

This is a rather large generalization.  Sort of like saying everyone
in government is the Enemy of the People.  Inappropriate and, worse,
impractical.

>      Personally, I have absolutely no doubt that blacks, Hispanics, 
> and other minorities are of equal intelligence, on average, to the 

Much as that sounds attractive, I must point out that this would be
quite a leap, since most people have admitted that they cannot
accurately or completely define intelligence.  Secondly, if one
were able to perform that feat, and later found out that the average
intelligence of people decended from a tribe of left-handed nomads from
Germany was 10% lower than the average of other groups, how would
it matter any individual?  Keep in mind that you are talking about
something that is (as I have posted before) not a useful predictor
of an individual's success.  I was under the impression that most
people agreed that an individual should not be judged by the
qualities of their race or any other group.  Einstein being Jewish
does not automatically mean that a Jew should be admitted to
graduate studies.  

Furthermore, I don't think you know if all minorities score
poorly on IQ tests.  So which minorities are you talking about?

> average white.  I do not want to accuse MENSA of racism here, but 

It sounds like you are.  Not that I care, however.  

> how the hell do you explain these testing differences?  If you assert 

Well, this is why it's okay if you do.  Mensa had no hand in writing
any of these tests.  The tests were around before Mensa.  If someone
wrote a test in which score differences among groups did not appear,
I wouldn't be surprised if Mensa accepted it.  This might be a constructive
project to begin.  Give it a shot.  I generally choose not to defend
any individuals or institutions, but the above implied relationship
is illogical.

> that IQ and aptitude tests measure skills that are unrelated to 
> differences in education and social background (which is the position
> of all psychometric purists), you can come to only two logical 
> possibilities:

This is an overgeneralization and an oversimplification, and more
than a little naive.

>     (1) The tests are culturally biased towards white Anglo-
>         Saxon Americans, generally from the middle to
>         upper-class.  What they test is your linear
>         distance from the bias of the test-maker, who is almost
>         always white, male, and upper-middle class.

This is possible.  You have not included so-called "culture-fair"
tests, I assume.

>     (2) Minority groups are less intelligent than whites, as
>         demonstrated by your beloved "measurements..."

This depends on your confidence in your definition of intelligence,
as well as your actual ability to measure same.  Further, if what
you call "intelligence" tests are used to predict academic success
or success in some occupation, and the correlation is high enough
for a university or business to continue to want to use them,
then they may be an indicator that some groups for whatever reason
would need different training.  This happens in business all the time.

> 
>      Sorry, but if you eliminate differences in education, social
> background, culture, "coaching," and upbringing as possible factors,
> you must conclude that #2 is the correct answer.  And if you do, you
> have just jumped into the pit with Hitler, Brigham, Laughlin, Galton,
> and a bunch of other cool dudes.  Enjoy the smell.
> 
I'm sounding like a broken record, but I have to say it.  You're
oversimplifying this.  You haven't allowed for a combination of factors,
nor have you been consistent with your earlier posted contentions
about the difficulty of defining or measuring "intelligence".  I believe
that earlier contention of yours about this difficulty was right.
But it's really hard to follow your line of reasoning with these
logical problems, especially the unwarranted assumptions and your
contradicting yourself.

>      And if you pick #1, then you must conclude that the college 
> selection system in America as well as MENSA's own membership criteria
> are both fundamentally flawed.  (If you find another possibility, I
> would like to hear it.)

See above.  Also, as you know, pretty much everything is flawed to
some degree.  If you want perfect tests or perfect organizations
you'd have to dismantle the science of psychiatry and the AMA.
The recommendation here is not to bitch about it, but to try to
improve it.

It quite frankly has me mystified that the obvious seems to escape
folks.  The way to get schools and businesses to abandon so-called
"intelligence" tests and aptitude tests is to either prove that
their success in using them is wrong or to give them something better.
This is especially true for businesses.

If I go to you and say, "Scott, what you're doing is wrong," wouldn't
you at least be curious as to what you could do that could serve
your purpose better?

>      I have given many MENSANS and other assorted IQ-freaks this little
> paradox.  In most cases, I end up finding out that they are either
> hopelessly misinformed or totally racist.
> 
Actually, I'm a little surprised at this.  You know this is not a
paradox but only a statement of unwarranted assumptions and claims.
Further, you have to admit that the terms "hopelessly misinformed"
and "totally racist" are at best melodramatic.  I don't know if
this is for effect, a' la televangelists, or if you're just upset,
but reread what you wrote here and you can see that what you've done
is reach a conclusion and then put together assumptions to support it.

>      You might ask yourself, "Why is this guy going on like this?"  I 
> really believe that you guys deserve to be kicked in the ass every now

I understand the motivation, but keep in mind that your arguments have
to be more thorough.  Your point would be more readily accepted if
you are more careful not to surround it with overgeneralizations and
drama.

You may or may not be right about the racist origins in IQ tests, but
merely making the statements you've made does not make it so.

As a said, if you want to change the way an institution works, you
have to prove to the institution, like the business or school, that
you have something they can do to make their job easier or faster or
better.  These tests, for whatever reason, appear to them to be
able to predict performance.  And until they are offered better ones,
you are wasting your breath, you must admit.

> and then by someone who studies the brain scientifically.  And I am no
> exception to the ass-kicking.  Kick back; I will enjoy it.  I enjoy 
> intelligent debate, for it makes me and those I debate stronger in the
> process.
> 
It doesn't always work.

Finally, I'd like to make a point about the use of these tests as
diagnostic tools.  If psychologists had decided that "intelligence",
as measured by theses tests, was an innate, fixed, genetic, unaffected
by environment quantity, why in the world would they use these tests
to diagnose areas for improvement?  Why measure a quantity you can't
do anything about?

Now, considering the above, since it is obvious psychologists use
those tests, and not obvious that any of them would consider the
results of the tests to peg an individual as "better" or "worse"
an individual, it seems that the biggest proponents and supporters,
however inadvertent, of the negative aspects of "labeling" by
these tests seem to be those who actually want to abolish them.
Why would anyone want to abolish something that they could prove
to themselves and others as being meaningless?

I just had a humorous thought.  What if the tests really were
easily proved meaningless, but those people that were most insulted
by them really were stupid and incapable of doing that?  And if those
most insulted by them were always indicated by the tests as being
stupid, so the tests didn't work, but turned out to be accurate
anyway?  I think that's closer to a paradox.

Anyway, to sum up, there are lots of things we believe and lots of
things we would like to believe, but reasoning is always better if 
complete.  It keeps us from making asses of ourselves when we least
expect it.

BTW, Hitler used lots of allegory and drama and incomplete reasoning,
too.

GMS
From: Dave.Aronson@f120.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Aronson)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP