"Malcolm"  wrote:
> > > HT: If you define intelligence as the ability that IQ tests measure
> > > for instance, then there is still "something to be
discovered",..

> > JE:-
> > There most certainly is "something to be discovered".
> > If you define intelligence "as the ability that IQ
> > tests measure" then you have proven yourself unintelligent.
> > A significantly higher correlation between members of
> > society that have proven themselves to be in the elite of
> > a _diverse_ range of accomplishments and IQ does not
> > exist.


> M:-
> The IQ test was designed to identify children who were falling behind in
> their education so they could be given extra help. Inevitably people then
> began to focus on high scores and different averages between 
> groups. However
> this isn't what the test was intended for.

JE:-
I agree IQ has been misused. However, those
that misuse it will never admit such. The
establishment just blunders on, irrespective. 
My main point is: scientific theory must be
tested against nature and not just dictate it.
This means that IQ MUST, at the very LEAST,
correlate with a proven RANGE of KNOWN
abilities to even BEGIN to be a recognised
test for "intelligence. This has never been
the case. No evidence exists that IQ can 
be correlated with a range of proven excellence.
Within any trading society, a DIVERSITY of
intelligence types is more important than 
lumps of the same type. However, the ivory
tower academics think that only their view
of the world reflects "intelligence" and misuses
tests that reflect how _they_ think.

>snip<

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 8/1/04 5:56:35 AM