Then why is there a strong corelation between the IQ and the social or economic level? I'm sure that there is a lot of cultural bias, but saying that this explains everything is complete nonsense.

It seems to me that more and more people try to convince themselves that we are all equal, and just mentioning the contrary is blasfemy.

Have you been to the presentation? Then you'd know that Sternberg wasn't talking about 'equality' at all. He just said that eg in Kenya, those kids who are good at practical things are considered 'smart'. Hence, actually the smart kids concerned themselves with stuff they needed (practical), and only the dumb kids went to school... funny, isn't it?
But Sternberg admitted, if the 'smart' kid was taken back in time and taken to a school in NY, s/he would end up being 'smart' in an IQ test, too: just bc s/he would adapt to the culture (which means that s/he was intelligent).

The correlation can be explained: you have a high IQ => you're considered good in school => you get good recommendations and education => people will employ you cause they think you're smart...

But SAT scores have no other purpose as to predict _academic success_. That they certainly do, but we must not forget that academic success is not the only measure for intelligence.

Since even scientists can't agree on how intelligence or intelligent behavior, any purported 'measure of intelligence' is completely arbitrary, and only governed by our perception of what skills are useful for success in our current environment.

That's why you're not asked to make tools from flintstone in the SAT, but rather mathematical reasoning and other things which are in theory 'useful' to predict a measure of success in the modern western world.

Now, that was a mouthful.

for Lucas,

Rich kids are privileged, get the best schools and recomendations, the best jobs. Still poor kids with hihger IQ's do better on average. Explain that.

for Jaffar,

abstraction (i.e. math) is the fundamental logical faculty that humans use, either in doing flitnstone knifes or building airplanes. verbal skills are equally important.
you think that everything is relative and try to explain differences. sure there are "explanations", but then why are yours true and not others. The truth is that there are differences between people, and turning a blind eye won't make them go away.

Dear Aham,

You remark that "The truth is that there are differences between people, and turning a blind eye won't make them go away." This is, indeed, one of Dr. Sternberg's central points- though not, I think, in the way you intend it. Part of his research examines how people may express the same skill through different means. Take your point about abstraction as a fundamental logical faculty: (one of) the issue(s) is not whether certain groups, ie people in industrialized and post-industrial nations are smarter than other groups, ie people from non-industrialized nations. This is the conclusion one would reach just by examinging standardized IQ test scores as they are currently administered. This, in turn, has led to all sorts of arguments with racial and racist underpinnings (see "The Bell Curve" for a prime example). The point is that this type of testing purports to test IQ across cultures, when in fact it is culturally biased. In other words, people may have those abstraction skills but be unable to express them in a standardized test format because they learned to express them in different ways. That was the focus of the Brazilian street children study Dr. Sternberg mentioned.

Dear Ben,

Have you read "The Bell Curve"? I didn't, but this only because I can't buy it. Nevertheless I made a little research of my own about the book and the controversy that the infamous "Chapter 13" raised. All bullshit aside, I concluded that most researchers support the assumptions of the book and the findings, although these conclusions are not politically correct, or for that matter safe for the researchers to express.

I agree that most IQ tests are culturally biased, but I (and the book) am speaking about really scientific studies in which IQ test results were compared for identical twins, adopted brothers, etc., tests that were meant to minimize cultural impact, economical status differences, racial bias and others.

I am sure that there are many influencing factors that can alter the specific values of studies, but this is no reason to dismiss the science.

You shouldn't understand from this that I am a racist. There's nothing further from the truth. But I feel that people try too much not to see differences, which is maybe the "safe side" approach. This is ok as long as they don't become stupid or blind. There's nothing sadder than lying to yourself.

I happened to do a presentation on "The Bell Curve" this semester and I can tell you that, actually, most researchers in the field today think that the authors' main points are bullshit.

For those among you who read German - here is an interesting / shocking article on the topic which I just found: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,353677,00.html

Aham,

You can find the text in the IRC. And I would be more than happy to supply you with detailed critques of the text that examine just how the data these authors used is flawed, the errors in their logic, etc.

I understand your sentiment that we shouldn't let one ideology (a fear of being 'un-PC') get in the way of our evaluations, but at the same time you have to understand that the un-PC views may be as ideologically motivated. In this case, those vuews also happen to be empirically questionable.

Thanks for the info. I will eventually take the book from the IRC when it's returned and maybe also some of the critiques, although I'm not really up to 850 pages of statistics.

I read a lot of derogatory articles on the web about the book, as well as some which seemed supportive. But the most convincing and neutral piece of writing was this:
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html
or
http://www.psychpage.com/learning/library/intell/mainstream.html

It is a statement published in the Wall Street Journal by 52 internationally knowned scholars as a reaction to the discussions about this book. It is about mainstream science of intelligence, pretty short and to the point. I recommend it for reading.

well, actually Dr. Sternberg encouraged us to contact him for questions about his theories. So as you couldn't attend the presentation, why don't you just give it a try: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

That would clarify some issues, I guess.

Just one word about the first article: I just browsed it and found that "A high IQ is an advantage in life". That was exactly what Sternberg contested. If you read further the authors admit that they are talking about "our society"; and that's the whole point.

The idea is, I repeat:
'Smart' people specialize in what's worth the most specializing in. At IUB, IQ is pretty worth specializing in. In a place where you survival depends on knowing how to hunt, a high IQ is just not the way to go for the kids gifted with a good brain.

IQ tests, however, measure only certain kinds of intelligence. It was found (Sternberg) that even the way questions are posed influences the answers.