On 6/4/2010 10:50 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 04.06.2010 19:19, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
>>>> This logic is so horrifyingly broken...
>>>
>>> Not if the prime axiom of anti-racism holds true, that all races are
>>> equal; because if you take that for granted, any test that exhibits
>>> significantly different test results for different races /must/ be
>>> broken.
>>
>> False.
>
> No Sir, because...
>
>> It's not difficult to prove that different races have different access
>> to education, which quite obviously has a radical effect on the ability
>> to pass tests that measure how educated you are. Nothing inherant about
>> the ability of a race, just environmental factors.
>
> ... if a test measures education instead of ability, according to
> aforementioned prime axiom the test /is/ broken. Q.E.D.
>

Still broken if it does test "ability". The problem is, a lot of what we 
call ability is training the body or brain to do something a certain 
way. If you don't ever get the education needed to train them to do X, 
testing for X will show a lack of skill, even if you avoid testing for 
knowledge. The stuff we can "do" without training is roughly the same as 
any other animal, walk, make meaningful noises, and do basic stuff 
needed to survive. What differs is the **capacity** to learn to think 
logically, which goes against some of those "instinctive" processes, 
create complex noises, instead of simple ones, and make complex tools. 
All of which, if ones *skill* is being tested, generally require a lot 
of pre-knowledge, representing a significant portion of what other 
people already came up with, in order to "test" the skill at dealing 
with something founded on those much simpler tools, thought processes, etc.

One person I once heard put it like this, "Nearly anyone can learn to 
get into MENSA, since the more you work on the sort of puzzles they use 
to test you, the easier they become." What you are trying to test for, 
on the other hand, it a bit... harder. You want to know how long it 
takes them to figure out the tests in the first place, blind, without 
any prior input. This is nearly impossible for anyone that has variable 
levels of knowledge and existing skill, which *relates* to the 
puzzle(s). Its also useless for testing someone that has never been 
exposed, in one fashion or another, to even the *basic* concepts needed 
to figure out what you are supposed to do in the first place, never mind 
how to solve it, once you have that critical detail.

In short, its not testable, since you can't test low level "capacity", 
there being no way to reset the person to a state where you can see how 
long they "relearn" something. And testing someone's capacity, by aiming 
at a more complex, pre-existing knowledge dependent, puzzle or skill 
set, also won't work, because they might, by shear chance, completely 
lack the context needed to figure out what they supposed to do.

Most people, even with something as simple as, "fit the pugs in the 
right shaped holes", will get better the more they do it. Especially 
true if, as a child, they already had one as a toy.

I don't think you can get any statistical data about what people are 
*capable of* from these. What you can get is statistics that could mean 
either that X people never learned this, or X people find it harder, or 
**both**, but unless they have a cognitive problem that result in them 
failing over multiple trials, you can't say if they are "less capable", 
in any meaningful sense. Worse, if there is *any* pre-knowledge needed, 
perceive or not, you will still not get accurate results, and you may 
not have a means to accurately assess what that pre-knowledge *is*, or 
how/why some group might be lacking it.

-- 
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