200 IQ and 500 bench we must get him to post here!

[dorkeroo]

(My response point-by-point to parrellel your quote-by-quote)

- Well sure, I never denied that. What is someone supposed to do, deny that an I.Q test score is an I.Q test score? As I said, an I.Q test score is an I.Q test score, and nothing more. If John scores 100 on the I.Q test, then John scored 100 on the I.Q test. The following does not necessarily obtain (or, for my mind, contingently obtain): If John scores 100 on the I.Q test, then either his intelligence is at a certain level, or his intelligence is higher than a person who scored 90 on the same I.Q test. This is because I.Q test scores are multiply realizable. Yes, the results have social implications- I am in complete agreement with you here. What those implications are, however, is a different story. Further, to hold to a particular view and cite a number of supporting studies is not to indicate implication or entailment to that particular model.

- Tell me, have you heard the term exaggeration before? No?  You mean that if I went through all your previous posts I wouldn't find a single case of you using either metaphor or hyperbole? Do me a favour

- I don't know whether you've comprehended my point or not- so I'll say it again, simply- a certain study result does not entail any conclusion beyond the concluding that a certain study result was obtained. As was already written several times, an I.Q score is nothing but an I.Q score, as ten million I.Q scores are nothing more than ten million I.Q scores. Sure, you can infer what you want from that; don't pretend, though, that because you have more studies that your inference is somehow more certain or valid. I implied nothing of the sort about Rushton- you read what you wanted to into my words; indeed, I was agreeing with Rushton that the particular views that he cited were flawed.

- I don't really think I need bother with the rest of your post since it is mainly dressed-up argument from authority, a strategy you seem to be fond of judging by some of your other posts. I'm not sure whether you're familiar with what argument from authority is or not- perhaps you should look it up. I could, however, lavish the same ludicrous praise on Newton. Would that make classical mechanics any more sensible when applied to micro systems? 

Canadian?

[logical?]

Canadian?

Inuit

[Necrosis]

Inuit

beothuck

[HowieW]

IQ tests like SAT scores are reliable indicators of various cognitive abilities, much like 40 yd dash times and vertical jump is used at NFL combines to select future pros. We all know pro football players that were not the fastest or the biggest, etc. BUT if you take the avg 40 time of the top 50 def backs in the NFL or body mass of the top 50 lineman, it clearly shows some standard.
It is easy with human beings to find some excpetions. BUT, if you look at MILLIONS of people and IQ, one will see that academic success and degrees that lead to various professions go hand in hand with IQ.
NOBODY with an IQ below 85 ever became a top level math or physics prof or obtained an MD from a top med school.

[logical?]

beothuck

pigmy 

[dr.chimps]

beothuck

LOL. I think you're 200 years too late with this one. 

[Necrosis]

LOL. I think you're 200 years too late with this one. 

funny thing is my ancestors killed them all!!

i live on the island they once lived on, but we smoked them piece pipe