Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 15:47:45 04/19/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 1998 at 17:24:47, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >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. That's stupid and you know it, dear latin friend from Spain. In the first place, I am not trying to reach a conclusion. I just recalled a book I read. But you, based in nothing, comes and say I am trying to reach conclusions. that's a too fast conclusion you make. >> 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. I did not say that. Are you blind and youir grandmother read for you the post here? >>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. That approach about "male culture" is nonsense. In all over the occidental world children of any gender do the same studies. >>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. Is not unproven. Statistics I showed are a fact. >> 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. > AGAIN YOU READ BADLY: Lokk at the sentence "after examining that an another facts...." Did you expect I try to write a treatise with all the facts and number here? >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. Just a dilemma of the kind that logic books show as example of how bad use can be done of logic. >>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. Oh, again.... You are a walking proof of what I said of politically correct discourse. >> 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. Why not? Should I be in state of ectasis to write something here? >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.