Test of Intelligence - IQ

Some years ago, this I get rid the head you flew, these two patriarchs of the contemporary pansy gave me a vision esclarecedora among so much fog. They take an arduous, terrible company ahead, in some point being Marxist has some contact points with the first Discards, that of beginning to build a system of total pansy that question everything that that don't have an exact, precise definition that come from the reason. This text has a range extensive abarcativo, the social construction of the knowledge, the scientific community and the power, etc. As anecdote memory that you/they were not few those occasions in that friends, well-known, happened to me link with diverse intelligence" "test, many of them fascinated with your results, others before the non prospective result and your wounded narcissus, tried to refute the extent I practice of the same ones.

Some paragraphs that interest me that I want to share with this community will ascend. The Quixotic attempt on the part of these two titanes, deserves to be read, the unique attempt of demolishing that false building that are built with words. The order of the speech.... and that you should be destroyed by means of the same ones, I complain that this you finish decision you have such a Freudian edge, but you are Friday you rain and the dampness has certain goods.... (read you the poem of Pessoa "rains in silence")

Let us don't forget that if the floor is hard and the sky is celestial, you are because somebody said it. Let us be about joining to denounce the patent lies.

The tests of Intelligence

By Alan Woods and Ted Grant
A frequently not well utilized term for the genetic deterministas is the inheritance, especially in the field of the tests of IQ (intellectual quotient). The psychologists Hans Eysenck in Great Britain, and Richard Herrnstein and Arthur Jensen in the United States, they have defended the idea that the intelligence is largely hereditary. They also outline that the stocking of IQ of the blacks is genetically inferior to that of the targets and that the Irishmen are determined by genes of "low IQ." In fact it has been demonstrated that the tests of IQ is imperfect in themselves. Not a measure drive exists for the "intelligence", as which can book credit for the weight or the height. IQ is an imaginary concept based on wild suppositions.

The tests of Intelligence arose at the beginning of century when Alfred Binet established a plain test to help to identify children with learning difficulties. For Binet it was a mean of identification of difficulties that then could be solved with mental" "orthopedics. Certainly he/she didn't think that this was a measure of "fixed" intelligence, and to those that outlined this type of ideas the answer of Binet it was overwhelming: We "have to protest and to react against this brutal" pessimism.

The base of the test of Binet was quite bare: the biggest children should be able to carry out mental tasks that the pettiest children are not able to. With that base it elaborated an entire series of appropriate tests to each group of ages; in such a way that one could judge the children that it were considered they were more clever or less more capable. As consequence they should take measures to remedy the fields in those that is difficulties. However this system, in other hands, was used to reach completely different conclusions. With the death of Binet the defenders of the eugenics saw your opportunity of gold to reinforce your message determinista. The intelligence was considered as an innate and fixed thing through the inheritance and that you belonged together with the social class and the social origin. When Lewis Terman inserted the tests Stanford-Binet in the United States you left clear that the drop intelligence is "very communio between Hispanic-Indian families and Mexicans of the Southwest one and also among the blacks. Your turpitude seems to be racial or at least inherent in the root of the families of those that come. The children of this group should be segregated in special classes. Not they are able to dominate the abstractions, but often they can transform into effective workers. Not there is possibility to convince to the society that should not be allowed to reproduce, for the time being although from an eugenic point of view they constitute a serious problem due to your level of playback fruitful" inusualmente.

This was the general shade of the educational community of the United States in relation to the tests. A new step was inserted to extend your scientific extent: standards settled down for the adults, and a ratio among the age and the mental age, the intellectual" "quotient or IQ. In Great Britain, you were the English psychologist Sir Cyril Lodovic Burt the one that translated and you defended, even in a more obsessive way that your American colleagues, the tests of Binet. Burt defended that the men were more intelligent than the women on the base of supposed studios. The same gentleman outlined that you had scientific irrefutable tests that the Christian were more intelligent than the Jews, the Englishmen more than the Irishmen, the Englishmen of high class more than those of low class, etc. What chance that was a man English Christian of high class! With these means the oppressors justify the oppression, the rich and powerful justify your privileges, on the base that your victims are "inferior." During 65 years, until your death in 1971, Burt continued your work on the eugenics and the tests of IQ and you were properly rewarded with the title of Sir by your services to the humanity. You helped to establish a selectivity in the educational system to the eleven years that it divided the children in "intelligent" that went to the grammar school, and "silly" that went to the "secondary up-to-date" schools. Burt explained: "The capacity obviously debit side to limit the content. You are impossible that a jar of a spot contains more than a spot of milk; and you are equally impossible that the educational attainments of a boy rise beyond what your educational capacity allows."

This way the tests of Binet was taken beyond your feature of recognizing to reinforce the classist character of the society. Those that had been born to chop charcoal were and those that will direct the society. The tests was not used to solve the problems but to segregate. Independently of the modifications that have been made in the intelligence tests, all have the same root: a preconceived "intelligence" that you are the pattern based on which one judges everybody. However these tests is vastly influenced by cultural and social stereotypes that determine the results. They are also linked to the operation of the schools and they reflect those results. However the idea that you are possible to identify or to measure the "intelligence" this so raw way is fundamentally dummy. After everything, what is the intelligence? How can you quantify? Not it is as the weight or the height. The intelligence is not a fixed thing, like Burt outlined, but elasticum. The potential of the human brain doesn't have borders. The task of the society is that the human being can carry out this potential. The factors of the environment can cap or to enhance this potential. A boy that grow in a social unfavorable environment will be in disadvantage in relation to one that have all the satisfied necessities. The social origin is extremely important. If you change the environment, you change the boy. In spite of the statements of the biologic deterministas, the intelligence is not predetermined genetically.

The obsession to determine the intelligence statistically, through a graph in bell form, is an attempt of reinforcing the social conformism. Those that are outside of the standard are "abnormal" and they need treatment. Or you are genetic and you determine our social class, race and life. But in fact, while our genotype is fixed, our phenotype constantly changes. The forfeiture of an arm or a leg is irreversible but nonhereditary. The Wilson's disease is hereditary but with treatment it is not irreversible. "Neither, Rose, Kamin, and Lewotin say of course", "the phenotype is developed lineally of the genotype from the birth to the maturity. The 'intelligence' of a boy it is not only a petty certain percent of of the adult into which will transform, as if the 'jar of a spot' was being constantly" filled.

The frantic attempts of Burt to demonstrate the genetic base of IQ took you to falsify your data and registers systematically. Your famous studio on the intellectual quotient of identical separate twins took to the incredible statement that the environments separated from the twins didn't have any influence. For Him everything was determined by the genes of the twins. You were the idol of the genetic deterministas, and your studios gave you the necessary arguments to reinforce your position. In 1978, D. D. Dorfman, an American psychologist, demonstrated clearly that this English gentleman had simply falsified your results. After demonstrates you that you were a fraud, your followers were indebted to change speech, simply criticizing Burt for your ullage of scientific acuity. The studios of Burt were the Man of Piltdown (supposition 'lost link' among the man and the simian that it turned out to be a fraud of an English archaeologist) of IQ. However, in your day ¾ in spite of fifteen years of inconsistencias¾ your investigations were applauded by the scientific community as test that IQ was hereditary. But in spite of the drop in misfortune of Burt, the establishment continued holding on to your reactionary philosophy as support of your class point of view.

The most recent studios in relation to identical twins separated in Great Britain, United States and Denmark, don't demonstrate at all that the intellectual quotient is hereditary. These studios have been responded convincingly by Rose, Kamin and Lewotin. Your conclusion? "Not we know what you are really the heritability of IQ. All the data don't simply allow us to calculate a reasonable estimation of the genetic variation of IQ in any population. All told what we know, the heritability could be zero or 50%. In fact, although they have been devoted enormous investigation efforts to study this issue, the heritability of IQ is irrelevant regarding this subject. The enormous importance that you/they give the deterministas to the demonstration of the heritability is a consequence of your erroneous belief that the heritability means immutability."

"Neither for IQ neither for any other feature one can say that the genes determine the organism", they continue. "Not a match exists one-to-one between the inherited genes of your parents and your height, weight, metabolism rate, illness, health, or any non trivial other feature of the organism, each organism is an unique product of the interaction between genes and environment in each stage of the life."