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