|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Tim Cook wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> That's precisely the PC-ideology speaking: "It's not a valid test of
>> *anything*". That's BS. Of course it's a valid test of *something*, and
>> more precisely, something related to people's brains. You might not like
>> the implications, but that doesn't change the fact. Simply wishing the
>> tests were completely irrelevant doesn't make it so.
>
> I think the argument goes something like "there are exceptions that
> prevent using this xyz as a convenient, over-generalised measure to
> which we can refer without having to actually think about it (read: use
> in sensationalistic news stories), THEREFORE it must be incorrect in
> EVERY case!".
>
> Yes, an IQ test is not perfect, nor do we fully understand every
> intricate detail of how the brain works or all the qualitative factors
> of 'intelligence'. This doesn't mean we should look the other way
> instead of using the most efficient tool for getting a reasonably
> accurate comparison of individuals, so those who genuinely need
> assistance due to mental disability can get it.
>
> --
> Tim Cook
> http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
No, it means we need to use it for what it is useful for, and not
exaggerate that, and when we find a disparity in development, we figure
out *why*, not just pigeon hole the person in the "they are genius", or
"they are special ed", category. This isn't what happens though.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |