un691cs at genius.embnet.dkfz-heidelberg.de
Thu Dec 1 04:30:43 EST 1994
> >By this line of reasoning, it would make no sense to measure the
> >heritability of grain yield in maize or stem volume growth in trees,
> >since these are the cumulative result of "subsystem" activity --
> I think the original criticism is not that it is complecated, but that
> 'intelligence' is not really a unified concept. 'Yield' is probably
> pretty easy to objectivly quantify. But what is the measure of 'intelligence?'
> In fact it has always seemed to me that few people question the basis
> of the tests. Opponents criticize the results as being biased, but only
> rarely do we here someone (seriously) suggesting throwing out the whole
> thing as hopeless.
> In other words, you can measure the heritability of performance on
> a certain test, but you can't say that that test measures intelligence.
talking about race... IQ tests where developed by white people in the
western world. So they may very well be biased for and by white people.
Surplanting intelligence test to Japan or Africa may turn out to be
Come to think of it, the were probably also developed by men, and not women !
In conclusion: intelligence is not something as rapidly measuered as
grain yield and ANY kind of conclusion will be quite disputable...
More information about the Bioforum