Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (172097)	10/7/2005 12:21:29 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<I was hoping you were going to respond to my post with the five links with something of substance supporting your stated notion that all bias has been removed from intelligence tests for decades.> People who are involved in researching intelligence are well aware of cultural bias and pre-learned information. Those links were mostly tendentious twaddle. Especially the first one. Studying for SAT is useful to some extent. Once the rules and vocabulary are learned, there's not much gain by more studying. I taught our 12 year old the rules in maths over an hour or so, and he sat SAT 15 years ago. Of course he couldn't have done any good at SAT if he didn't know the basics such as how many angles in a triangle. But they are simple rules to learn. Studying the rules for ages doesn't make any difference. Having learned the rules, then it's a matter of thinking of the answers. It's the thinking that people can't do. The learning of rules is easy, for anyone who is going to score above tree-stump levels. The reason for sitting the SAT was to get into Johns Hopkins Talent Search programme. That was back in 1989. If somebody doesn't know what numbers are, and has never heard of a triangle, there would be a bit more explanation needed to get them up to test-sitting standard. But even the melanin-rich have heard of triangles and numbers. Melanin-rich females should even be able to do it, even though they mature 3 years earlier than blokes. Melanin-rich females from low income families would be in big trouble though. The melanin soaks protein out of their brains and being female means they can't learn new information and if their parents don't have money they have to be stupider still. Ah, the fun and games of intelligence and how unfair it is. I bet smart melanin-rich females from poor families can do the SAT easy-peasy. It's really nothing to do with melanin, being female, or having money in the bank. There's an effect due to females maturing earlier, so that's an advantage to females. But only until the males catch up in brain growth, then males also have the ability to do well. SAT results for 14 year olds would show some differences between males and females [males not doing so well, if my theory is correct]. I guess that data is somewhere in Google. Mqurice