IQ TESTS ARE INVALID \doc\web\98\10\noiq.txt "Intelligence tests are a pseudoscience and can't be anything else, because they will always be without a scientific foundation from which to be constructed and tested." Date forwarded: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 23:09:07 -0500 (EST) From: "Albert Himoe" To: "Upstream-List@Cycad. Com" Date sent: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:08:48 -0800 Subject: [Upstream] The g factor, explained Forwarded by: upstream-list@cycad.com Send reply to: upstream-list@cycad.com Another book inspired by the publication of The Bell Curve, and which touches on "the g factor in human intelligence" is WD Wright's _Racism Matters_, recently published by Praeger. The last 2 chapters of this book are concerned with "Racism and the Question of Intelligence". Here is part of what Wright has to say about the 'g' factor in one of these chapters: "There is no way to determine scientifically whether genetic inheritance or environment plays the larger role in either intellectual ability or intelligence or, scientifically, which factor plays the largest role in individual or group results. There is no scientific way and thus no scientific evidence to indicate clearly and decisively the intellectual potential of a single gene or a cluster of genes. There is no way scientifically and thus no scientific evidence to indicate how many genes in the human brain are related to intelligence. There is no scientific proof, and no scientific proof can be gathered, to determine how many genes are required for one point of intelligence or even what is a point of intelligence. To say that the genetic inheritance, the 'g' factor in human intelligence, swings forty points, between a minimum estimated low of forty and a maximum estimated high of eighty points, as Arthur Jensen said years ago and many testers rigorously cling to, is hardly a scientific observation or explanation. If the 'g' factor was at 40, then that would mean that the environment factor, the 'e' factor, would be 60 percent of intelligence. If the 'g' factor was 80, then the 'e' factor would be 20. But why can't the measuring devices establish something that doesn't swing so much, for example, that the 'g' factor is 60 percent or 75 percent or that the 'e' factor is 60 percent or 75 percent? And, in any case, how can the 'g' factor be 40 points, or 80 points of intelligence when it can't be determined scientifically how many genes equal a point of intelligence or what a point of intelligence is? Another question to be asked is what is the scientific proof that the 'g' factor relates to intelligence and not to intellectual ability, and vice versa. On the face of it, someone should be cautious in talking about the scientific evidence for the 'g' factor in intelligence when the range of error is 40 points, not 3 or 4 or 5." Wright continues this closely reasoned argument for another 17 lines, finally concluding the paragraph with: "Intelligence tests are a pseudoscience and can't be anything else, because they will always be without a scientific foundation from which to be constructed and tested." This book can be yours for $55 [plus postage and handling]. Albert Himoe Urbana, IL --- This is a message from the Upstream mailing list. Visit the Upstream Website at http://cycad.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/ Visit the Upstream Mailing List archives at http://cycad.com/upstream-list-archive To subscribe to this list send email to the address upstream-list-request@cycad.com with just the subject subscribe To unsubscribe from this list send email to the address upstream-list-request@cycad.com with just the subject unsubscribe