Cornflakes Anybody???

[Stillhomewardbound]

Danny (now Lord ...) Finkelstein was on Newsnight briefly and complained that he had been quoted out of context and his remarks weren't in the least controversial. 'Read the whole speech', he said, so I did.

Jonson got off light for the rest of it was the worst kind of faux-Thatcherite pap based on a highly selective memory and all seen through the myopia of tory blue tinted glasses.

It really was quite sickening and I hope the commentators will report him more honestly for the neo-facist that he is.

But going back to those claims equating IQ values to attainment. How repugnant and convenient to draw a link between the two, to imply so moronically that the poor are where they are because they're thick.

Oh, and to parrot that worst Thatcher falsehood about the parable of the good samaritan ... he was able to help because he had money. In the parable the money is incidental. The point is that he was the one that stopped and showed mercy.

What a pratt!

Regrettably, but in the interests of balance I feel to link to the speech in full:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/london-mayor-election/mayor-of-london/10480321/Boris-Johnsons-speech-at-the-Margaret-Thatcher-lecture-in-full.html

[Bumfluff]

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Boris is simply stating the fact that some people are less likely to succeed because they are of low I.Q., and others will probably do better because they are more intelligent. I should have thought that is a given. And he goes on to say that envy of those who are better off, and a wish to increase one's own personal wealth and standard of living, can be a spur to encourage people to get off their arses and go out and earn some money.

It's common sense and it's simple truths, but as always the Liberal lefties who have pretty much taken over these boards don't get it.

Some people are less likely so succeed because of lack of money, lack of education, unconducive family circumstances, social status, psychological factors etc etc, not IQ, which is a fiction anyway. The stuff linking IQ and success is complete and utter unscientific nonsense, and is just a way that people from well off families try to justify their environmental advantages. Or of course those who are greedy and rapacious to justify those behaviours. Basically, success is its own justification, however you do it and in whatever manner, and if you can say you did because of 'intelligence', then you back it up with the non-scientific shitheap of 'IQ'.

Sociological and critical appplications of psychology let the cat out of the bag years ago, surely no one actually believes this self-justifying stuff anymore?

[jean]

And what about those who (as I think ams has often pointed out) are considered to have failed by all the critreria by which the succcesful have identified their own success, who yet continue to provide the services without which our society would fall apart?

[ahinton]

Danny (now Lord ...) Finkelstein was on Newsnight briefly and complained that he had been quoted out of context and his remarks weren't in the least controversial. 'Read the whole speech', he said, so I did.

Jonson got off light for the rest of it was the worst kind of faux-Thatcherite pap based on a highly selective memory and all seen through the myopia of tory blue tinted glasses.

It really was quite sickening and I hope the commentators will report him more honestly for the neo-facist that he is.

But going back to those claims equating IQ values to attainment. How repugnant and convenient to draw a link between the two, to imply so moronically that the poor are where they are because they're thick.

Oh, and to parrot that worst Thatcher falsehood about the parable of the good samaritan ... he was able to help because he had money. In the parable the money is incidental. The point is that he was the one that stopped and showed mercy.

What a pratt!

Regrettably, but in the interests of balance I feel to link to the speech in full:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...e-in-full.html

Thank you for this. As I said before - although I feel that I can say it more loudly now that I've read the entire thing, it beggars belief. It also seems as though BJ's undergone quite a few changes, unless he's simply further developed his ailties in the black art of sailing close to whichever wind he believes might suit him at the time. I wonder just how many Conservatives, including MPs, take this kind of thing as seriously as BJ would presumably like to pretend is the case.

[Bumfluff]

For anyone who believes in IQ: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news...where-25136472

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Boris is simply stating the fact that some people are less likely to succeed because they are of low I.Q., and others will probably do better because they are more intelligent. I should have thought that is a given. And he goes on to say that envy of those who are better off, and a wish to increase one's own personal wealth and standard of living, can be a spur to encourage people to get off their arses and go out and earn some money.

It's common sense and it's simple truths, but as always the Liberal lefties who have pretty much taken over these boards don't get it.

actually not that true, having a good warm mother throughout childhood and not being bundled off to cold boarding schools matters much more than IQ; which is why the game is rigged so that such as Boris can prosper the best predictor of how well you do in life is daddy's bank balance ....

it is entirely sinister that a whole bunch of powerful people think like this - you are poor and needy because of your own failings it is your fault and we are not giving you any of daddy's money to help eh?

that the prototype of the present cabinet is a high IQ toff outfit with Oxbridge PPE pretty much makes my point --- dangerous idiots

[Ferretfancy]

We all seem to accept the concept of IQ, but in this context it's well worth reading Stephen J Gould's 1987 book The Mismeasurement of Man. Gould looks at the history of IQ measurement, pointing out that it was originally intended as a rough tool for assessing which schoolchildren were in need of additional tuition. The idea was taken up by the Americans in WW1 and used to restrict the opportunities for black soldiers.
In fact the criteria on which IQ is based have too often been racist in application.

Gould's book is rather too detailed to describe here, but he makes a convincing argument that IQ testing is meaningless. I should say that Gould was a distinguished American palaeontologist and historian of science, and not as far as I know one of Mr Pee's left wing pinkos

[amateur51]

Danny (now Lord ...) Finkelstein was on Newsnight briefly and complained that he had been quoted out of context and his remarks weren't in the least controversial. 'Read the whole speech', he said, so I did.

Jonson got off light for the rest of it was the worst kind of faux-Thatcherite pap based on a highly selective memory and all seen through the myopia of tory blue tinted glasses.

It really was quite sickening and I hope the commentators will report him more honestly for the neo-facist that he is.

But going back to those claims equating IQ values to attainment. How repugnant and convenient to draw a link between the two, to imply so moronically that the poor are where they are because they're thick.

Oh, and to parrot that worst Thatcher falsehood about the parable of the good samaritan ... he was able to help because he had money. In the parable the money is incidental. The point is that he was the one that stopped and showed mercy.

What a pratt!

Regrettably, but in the interests of balance I feel to link to the speech in full:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...e-in-full.html

Additonal evidence about the relationship between IQ and happiness, wealth, etc.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-25152532

[ahinton]

We all seem to accept the concept of IQ, but in this context it's well worth reading Stephen J Gould's 1987 book The Mismeasurement of Man. Gould looks at the history of IQ measurement, pointing out that it was originally intended as a rough tool for assessing which schoolchildren were in need of additional tuition. The idea was taken up by the Americans in WW1 and used to restrict the opportunities for black soldiers.
In fact the criteria on which IQ is based have too often been racist in application.

Gould's book is rather too detailed to describe here, but he makes a convincing argument that IQ testing is meaningless. I should say that Gould was a distinguished American palaeontologist and historian of science, and not as far as I know one of Mr Pee's left wing pinkos

Quite, although the IQ issue, distastefully treated though it has been by Mr Johnson, is only one of a series of faux pas on his part in what must surely have been as indigestion inducing an post-prandial speech as may be imagined; the deserved fate of this potentially dangerous loosely canonic buffoon is perhaps now to be slung into I'm A Celebrity Masterchef: Get Me Out Of Here And X Factor Me Onto Britain's Got Strictly Come Dancing Talent, where it would at least seem that he'd be likely to do less damage to himself or anyone else.

[amateur51]

For anyone who believes in IQ: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news...where-25136472

Top link, Bumfluff - intriguing story.

[amateur51]

that the prototype of the present cabinet is a high IQ toff outfit with Oxbridge PPE pretty much makes my point --- dangerous idiots

Most pithily put, Calum.

Let's throw in another angle - what about people with high IQ scores but who score low on emotional intelligence?

[ahinton]

Additonal evidence about the relationship between IQ and happiness, wealth, etc.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-maga...nitor-25152532

Thanks again for this. I am nevertheless getting a little concerned to note that this is the second time within the space of a single day that you have quoted from a news source other than The Guardian; you really must curb this kind of thing before it becomes a habit and upsets the effortlessly acquired prejudices of certain other members who shall remain nameless but who are nevertheless Peerless!...

[amateur51]

We all seem to accept the concept of IQ, but in this context it's well worth reading Stephen J Gould's 1987 book The Mismeasurement of Man. Gould looks at the history of IQ measurement, pointing out that it was originally intended as a rough tool for assessing which schoolchildren were in need of additional tuition. The idea was taken up by the Americans in WW1 and used to restrict the opportunities for black soldiers.
In fact the criteria on which IQ is based have too often been racist in application.

Gould's book is rather too detailed to describe here, but he makes a convincing argument that IQ testing is meaningless. I should say that Gould was a distinguished American palaeontologist and historian of science, and not as far as I know one of Mr Pee's left wing pinkos

A much-missed scientist and human being imho - many thanks, Ferret.

Here's a detailed wikipedia entry ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man

[ahinton]

Most pithily put, Calum.

Let's throw in another angle - what about people with high IQ scores but who score low on emotional intelligence?

Good question (though I'm unsure whether a certain member would even accord credibility to such a concept). Someone whom I know happens to be both Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience at the Department of Neuroscience in a distinguished Swedish institute and an astonishingly gifted pianist whose exceptionally high IQ has enabled him to be a member of the Prometheus Society (http://prometheussociety.org/cms/), yet somehow I don't imagine that he makes more money from his research activities or piano playing than do certain of those CEOs and City slickers to whom I referred earlier...

[ahinton]

A much-missed scientist and human being imho - many thanks, ahinton.

Here's a detailed wikipedia entry ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man

'Tis Ferretfancy to whom you should offer your "many thanks", ams! Credit where credit's due (as the banker said to the bishop)...