Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 14:24:47 04/19/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 1998 at 16:06:07, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Hi all: >well, I knew this kind of things produce an automatic broadside from the >good guys, all those that just close his mind to any kind of debate >where non correct political issues are in discussion. I had been told of >how strong is that kind of attitude in anglosaxon countries, I was also told about how quickly latins reach conclusions based on nothing. So much for cliches, wouldn't you say. > but >anyway... So, let me insist in the following points: >a) To bruce: I cannot do the quotations you want because I don't even >remember the title of the book I read at fast pace in a store. It was >not, in any case, "that" kind of books; it was a serious one published >by one of those universtiy publishing houses that produces academical >kind of stuff. OK, if you think I am inventing a book to support what I >think... I don't care, I don't try to probe nothing, and not presenting >a paper in my alma mater, etc. But you were not talking games. Saying women can not be as intelligent as some men deserves a lot of foundation. >b) Is not truth -although is now a very popular point of view, very >progressive and democratical- that IQ does not measures nothing >relevant. It does, Thoersten. Of course comparisons are made inside the >same cultural pool. I am talking of men and women of the same country, >level of education, etc. The guys that made that books were no stupid; >they did not compare a phicisist from USA with women from a tribe in >Mombaza. Ouch. Physicist vs. women, USA vs. Africa. Ouch! IQ in a given culture tries to measure the likelihood of useful social performance in that culture. Inside a man-made culture, IQ favors men. Go to Africa and try to pass what they consider their IQ and you will see how badly you do. >c) Picasso, as well most if not all great performers in arts, are not, >as some people believe, creative but not neccesarily smart, high IQ >people. They are. This is perfectly unproven and unknown. And for the reasons above it would prove nothing else than: in a white-man culture, white men measure better. > Now I can quote, Bruce: the last and most extensive >and intensive research of these matter was conducted by Dr R. Ochse in a >book entitled "Before the Gates of Excellence", Cambridge University >Press, where he quotes a research made in 1926 where is proved that >"historical genuses were assesed as being above normal -IQ, ranging >from 120 to 200, with a mean of 158,9..". After examining that and >another facts, the author say that althought many other things are >neccesary for preeminence in creative perfomances, a high level of >intelligence is neccesary. 1926 and it was the last? Either this is not true or it can only prove that no other scientist took seriously this sort of research. >d) If high IQ people are or not happy, are or not succesful or even if >that kind of academic intelligence is so important or not, if it is >"just" a measure of verbal or mathematical abilities -"just"...-, >that's another matter. I am not going to discuss the philosophy of this >issue. I just remembered some facts and used it for giving an element of >explanation about the issue why women does not oplay chess or does not >appear in places like this. >e) If somebody uses this kind of research to justify racist positions, >that's also another fact. It's the same fact and it has been used a number of infamous times precisely in the same way you presented the "reason" and "scientific facts" of your presumed superiority of men over women: higher IQ, superior races. > We cannot stop short in any kind of debate >just because there is people willing to use something for backing his >political positions. Should we stop chemical research because people >like Husseim can hire a guy to produce mass destruction weapons? That's sophistic. You were not talking scientific research. You mentioned one opinion you read diagonally in a bookshop. Fernando: if you get 100 scientists and you ask them for a definition of intelligence, you will get 100 different answers. The opinion of a scientist is still an opinion. Organizing the way you did is ideology. Men more intelligent than women, arian than jews, white than blacks. I am sure it rings a bell. >ANYWAY END BESIDE, I AM NOT INTERESTED IN THIS ISSUE, FOLK. Why post it then. Enrique
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.