-
“average I.Q.s shift over time…How could such huge gains be intelligence gains? Either the children of today were far brighter than their parents or…I.Q. tests were not good measures of intelligence”
-
“The poll, like so many other efforts to figure out “race relations,” starts with an assumption that race and racism are primarily issues about how X individual of one race feels about Z individual of a different race.”
-
“Rev. Sharpton didn’t show up at their first rally…Megan’s chief handler, Malik Shabazz…is fond of making anti Semitic statements and his organization has been designated a hate group”
-
Awesome article. “The more victimised “the Muslim woman”, the greater the need for the liberated west to liberate her. The noble intervention is for her and in her interest, not for the west, or its interests.”
-
“Sharpton called Williams’ case “a national disgrace” and pledged to talk about the it every day on his syndicated radio talk show.”
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
Safiya wrote:
The CiF post is good, but the comments are terrible. Screeds of people insulting Islam and Muslims, especially Muslim men. Such bigotry.
Posted 20 Dec 2007 at 2:22 pm ¶
Minotaar wrote:
I love how the New Yorker piece cites asian immigrants actually having higher IQs, but doesnt mention that it was because of our racist immigration policy.
Posted 21 Dec 2007 at 7:09 am ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:
What IQ does correlate with fairly well is success as defined in a certain way (and in a way that might be questioned if there are other things you care about besides certain lines of work, certain kinds of measurements of wealth, and so on). I don’t think IQ is arbitrary. It is strange given what we know now to think it’s really the same thing as intelligence, which is a much broader notion. But that doesn’t mean it’s meaningless, as a lot of people like to treat it. It measures a certain set of cognitive skills that are learned but that depend on some genetic potential to start with and that are useful for certain kinds of tasks that are often involved with a certain kind of success.
Posted 21 Dec 2007 at 7:46 pm ¶
Marshall wrote:
Jeremy: The NYer article never suggested that IQs were arbitrary. The article suggested that IQs are not genetic, and rather than being leading indicators of success, IQs are trailing indicators. That is, those who have experienced a high quality, challenging cognitive environment develop higher IQs.
Posted 28 Dec 2007 at 1:24 am ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:
But the following two claims are consistent:
1. IQ is significantly influenced by environment.
2. The range of someone’s IQ is determined genetically.
If those statements are both true, then some people might have a greater potential for IQ given the same environmental conditions. What I’ve seen suggests that this is probably true. I don’t expect that the difference in potential matches up even remotely with racial lines, as some have claimed, but I do expect that different genetic populations might have at least somewhat different ranges of potential for IQ.
Posted 07 Jan 2008 at 10:09 am ¶