Hello ,
Horse writes about current IQ tests:
"They are a sore point because they are so thoroughly discredited no-
one of any intelligence or integrity uses them for anything other than
what they are - a means to espouse a particular thought system for a
particular group. As a general intelligence indicator of homo sapiens
they are worthless."
If people can't fathom a test for intelligence it means they are pretty dumb and need
to go to work on their social science. Old IQ test needs to be reformed into something
we can use as a standard for getting ourselves motivated to *some kind* of positive behavior.
Personal tests, games and strategies for getting up and interested. Many involve hallowed
ritual and repetition. These are personal rather then public tests.
Public tests in schools, and later cultural life, mainly need to monitor a child's attention
and somehow reflect their level of interest in what is presented. How all of that "interest"
is graded--the talk about who and what is best--*is* social science and at the root
of all ofthe humanities. Talk of our diverse racial mix has long been a key point people use
in trying to find out what values we like and share. As we're quickly becoming globalized culturally,
people are getting a big look at every bit of what everybody else is doing; and in the process,
"sorting the values" for themselves and for demographics.
I think people have long looked at racial difference and made judgements. It's something we
just do. My own judgement about the analytical capability of the various races is that each
one produces many gems and that there are no racial limitations save the personal ones that
come with our bodies in birth. Every person has their life to test against. It's true that
competitive talk about the races and our various positions is a sore point. It gets pretty
mean.
The one thing we all have in common is that every day we keep trying to spin our minds good
enough to count and spell our names correctly and perform well. Our personal IQ tests, games
and strategies help us to keep it going.
On the dark side, the abuse of people "grouped" into a lower caste by others is pervasive.
Many acts of aggression spawn new victims. And some of those abused tend to "wear their war
wound like a crown" (Bernie Taupin). We don't easily forget who and what did us wrong and
sometimes experience a kind of cultural road rage. That keeps it very clouded for us and tends
to thwart our future efforts.
The static latch we struggle culturally to attain is "sameness". I first wrote to defend and promote
it in terms of scholarships for promising kids. People here have said the MOQ is all about
betterness. It's also about sameness and difference. The spirit of sameness that holds people
together is the leading principle of democracy. Every kid should get the same chance for available funding.
Some will get preference because they are like lottery winners but no discernable group should
be omitted or given a disproportionate share of scholarships. Is there any further discussion
on this particular issue? Shouldn't the neediest group get first opportunity when there isn't
enough of a grant to satisfy all the groups? Or should the needy white kids (such as I myself
was) get to go first?
One thing I'd like to mention to any students in college is that few of you have to work your
way through school. Most are on "scholarship grants" by liberal-hearted family. Very few students
*don't* ride for free in terms of the basic costs. So what's the problem if others get a break?
People who do well on the current tests think the ability to generate good grades should be the
only factor. Straight analytical and verbal skill. I've tried to make the point that "a full
spread" should be considered as being the most logical course and that as such is in accord with
the MOQ. Does it follow that a similar "full spread" should be used to hand out admissions to
a particular school? Probably so.
But that brings up Socialism. I didn't bring up it up originally. That gets into how binding
we wish the static latch of "sameness" to be. How much democracy do we wish to impose on our
fellow citizens who also enjoy the freedom to go their own way in peace? Once again, I'll use
my cryptic phrase, "it all the quality you can afford". A culture can afford all the quality it
takes to have peace and great success.
I also brought up the question of what are people evolving towards? I mentioned good basketball
players, Bill Gates and Mother Teresa. I think the qualities women most look for in men
(in one of many different combos) is Cuteness (childlike youthful features made of bright
smiles), A good body (builds her strong families), A sharp mind (makes her life more enriched),
and a good heart (is kind and controllable). The gateway to man's future evolution is kept by
the women. They know what's good and snatch it when they can. Racially, you see all of these
kinds of traits in people (cute, good bodies, brains and heart). You get the feeling that this
is what stirs the gene pool and causes each generation.
Bill Justin
mailto:elg14@earthlink.net
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:59 BST