I don't see how you could miss it. Of the four forums that I have visited, this may be the only one that has not had a thread that compares the oriental, white, and black peoples by IQ. I suspect that these threads are produced by neo-nazi types, but that does not change the fact that people feel the need to justify the races that are "supposedly" lower in IQ. This need to justify indicates a belief in the evaluation process. Are you saying that you have never seen this tripe?the Hessian wrote:When did this happen exactly? I certainly haven't seen any evidence of it.Gee wrote:An IQ test has become the mark of a superior human without regard to personality, talents and abilities, disposition, and a host of other traits, and this does not even consider our evaluation of other species.
Or you can go to a magazine rack and look up parenting magazines. In at least one of them, you will find an article that tells parents how to raise their child's IQ. There are lots of examples of this type of thinking where higher IQ is represented as value, and even superiority.
Maybe I am more sensitive having been a victim of this type of madness in childhood. In the fourth and seventh grades I was given IQ tests. I never had so much fun in school, but the aftermath was terrible. My classes were all changed; I was sent to psychologists; and my family was visited by protective social services. My fifth grade teacher later told me that she had nightmares about me, because I had this brilliant mind that she could not reach. Once I realized that the testing was behind the madness, I vowed to never take another IQ test, and I never have.
So I am in a position to know that a high IQ has nothing to do with superior humans. I am very average. Of course, MS (Multiple Sclerosis) has done a wonderful job of scarring up my brain and making me a little stupid, so I am now working on my personality. (chuckle) It is a work in progress.
Nothing. What you are talking about are facts. Very brief history; philosophy began as a study of that which is real and true. It was soon discovered that some things are true without respect to perspective and/or time. These truths are stable and do not change, so a branch of philosophy evolved and broke off to study these static truths. That branch is science and these truths are now called facts. Facts are not relative to perspective, but truth still is.the Hessian wrote:Look, G, I have some sympathy for what I think you're trying to say. But, what does perspective have to do with the apparent truth of water freezing at 0C? Or the square of the length of the hypotenuse equaling the sum of the squares of the other two sides? Or the conversion of fuel into mechanical energy that helps me drive to work every day? Even the differing perspectives about motion that you referenced can be explained using formulae that describe these differing relations.
Agreed. If you read my earlier post to WanderingLands, I hope that I made it clear that mixing truth and facts, using them interchangeably, leads to idealism. I think that it is important to understand the difference between what constitutes a fact and what is a truth.the Hessian wrote:There are lots of things that are perspective, perspective, perspective. Value judgements, aesthetic tastes, design choices. We can make a mess of things when we try to assert too much truth here. But we can also make a mess of things when we try to deny or distort truth where we know better.
Regarding your above paragraph, I think that "tastes" are more personal, but judgment and choices are about wisdom, and wisdom is an advanced level of truth. Philosophy means quite literally love of wisdom.