SAT scores: 25 years of effort and nothing to show

[korinaus]

Sometimes, I am confused. Everybody knows that black people are much more fortunate than other races for playing basic sports involving running and juming as you can see many US professional sports are dominated by black athletes. Everybody knows that asians in general are smaller in size than other races. Everybody knows that whites are more likely to have skin cancer than other races. Etc, etc, etc.. So, isn't is another form of political correctness to blindly insist that the brain part only should be absolutely equal among all races?

 

[B_New End]

Sometimes, I am confused. Everybody knows that black people are much more fortunate than other races for playing basic sports involving running and juming as you can see many US professional sports are dominated by black athletes. Everybody knows that asians in general are smaller in size than other races. Everybody knows that whites are more likely to have skin cancer than other races. Etc, etc, etc.. So, isn't is another form of political correctness to blindly insist that the brain part only should be absolutely equal among all races?

assuming it is genetic is the results of being fed pop-science. Genetics are way more complicated than "there is a gene for that".

And the most complex of human traits is intelligence, we are talking billions upon billions of genes make up human intelligence. One of the least complex is levels of melanin.

 

[B_Mister Buildington]

And the most complex of human traits is intelligence, we are talking billions upon billions of genes make up human intelligence. One of the least complex is levels of melanin.

While I disagree with the racist notions held by the OP, I think you may be incorrect about the many billions of genes that determine human intelligence.

From wikipedia:
The human genome is the genome of Homo sapiens, which is stored on 23 chromosome pairs. Twenty-two of these are autosomal chromosome pairs, while the remaining pair is sex-determining. The haploid human genome occupies a total of just over 3 billion DNA base pairs. The Human Genome Project (HGP) produced a reference sequence of the euchromatic human genome, which is used worldwide in biomedical sciences.
The haploid human genome contains an estimated 20,000–25,000 protein-coding genes, far fewer than had been expected before its sequencing.[1] In fact, only about 1.5% of the genome codes for proteins, while the rest consists of RNA genes, regulatory sequences, introns and (controversially) "junk" DNA.[2]

 

[AllHazzardi]

I never agreed with standardized testing. The reason is because I believe everyone to be equally intelligent(given the same energy input to the brain it must have equal development unless specifically impaired), the difference is in HOW we apply our intelligence.

For example, is a Samurai smarter than a Stock Broker; about certain things, sure, but on average there is a similar level of intelligence directed towards each particular field.

A Stock Broker might be able to instinctively know what to do with each particular share because his life experience of investigating that application of his intelligence have taught him how to do so. Likewise, a Samurai might be able to instinctively know what to do with each particular assault, attack, or attacker because of the same reason.

That the SAT *only* has sections for *MENTAL APTITUDE* is the problem, not any particular question or habit of operation, but solely because it is foregoing the consideration that Michael Jordan was probably far more intelligent than the average person when it came to ACCURATELY placing a ball into a hoop while defenders were trying to prevent such. The same could be true of any sport, handy-craft, or any subject of intellectual interest.

In fact, there's a few psychological theories which divide up aptitude into particular "types" of intelligence depending on what that aptitude deals with(creativity, spacial relations, logic, language, sensory inputs). The SAT focuses only on "book smarts", and in truth, by doing so, it is no more a Standard test than a ditto handed out in home-room.

There should be two tests, SMAT and SPAT; Standardized Mental and Standardized Physical. The former includes math, science, logic, literature, grammar, and all the current SAT stuff. The latter would include physical endurance, strength, dexterity, the ability to do both fine and broad motion, among every other "Physical" trait one could test.

Sure, there's a tiny genetic basis for intelligence and physical ability, but in truth, if you have a genetic gift in something and DON'T focus on it, you can be anything, you just won't be something else as good as quickly as if you had focused on your gifts. Even if you look at the simple consideration of mass of organs, the brain itself makes up a relatively small amount of the whole construction, which falls in line to support the while genes may influence things, they actually have very little to do with it. If anything, mental aptitude comes down to how much you learn from other people(Different versions of the same story give you a better perspective overall on truth), while physical aptitude comes down to how much you learn about your own body(how strong you are, how fast you are, how far you can push, how often you need to relax, how quickly you need to think). One fits solidly within the vein of SLOW thinking(Mental; applying the mind to improve efficiency by "working smarter"), while the other fits in the vein of FAST thinking(Physical; reflexes, applying mind to improve performance, aka, "Working harder").

We all develop according to what we do, so the test needs to be able to grade all of the different results of all of the different things we do, rather than just one side of it.

 

[B_New End]

While I disagree with the racist notions held by the OP, I think you may be incorrect about the many billions of genes that determine human intelligence.

From wikipedia:
The human genome is the genome of Homo sapiens, which is stored on 23 chromosome pairs. Twenty-two of these are autosomal chromosome pairs, while the remaining pair is sex-determining. The haploid human genome occupies a total of just over 3 billion DNA base pairs. The Human Genome Project (HGP) produced a reference sequence of the euchromatic human genome, which is used worldwide in biomedical sciences.
The haploid human genome contains an estimated 20,000–25,000 protein-coding genes, far fewer than had been expected before its sequencing.[1] In fact, only about 1.5% of the genome codes for proteins, while the rest consists of RNA genes, regulatory sequences, introns and (controversially) "junk" DNA.[2]

urumph. I was thinking base pairs, but even then my estimations were well off. Been a while since i have seen the NOVA documentary. :redface:

However, 25,000! combinations of genes makes quite a number of possibilities, and even if only 100 genes were related to intelligence (which i doubt), 100! is still 9.3 x10^15 possible
combinations.

I just don't see us ever finding the "intelligence gene", esp with alternative splicing.

And I remember hearing about junk DNA. If we don't understand it, why assume it's junk?

 

[AllHazzardi]

urumph. I was thinking base pairs, but even then my estimations were well off. Been a while since i have seen the NOVA documentary. :redface:

However, 25,000! combinations of genes makes quite a number of possibilities, and even if only 100 genes were related to intelligence (which i doubt), 100! is still 9.3 x10^15 possible
combinations.

I just don't see us ever finding the "intelligence gene", esp with alternative splicing.

And I remember hearing about junk DNA. If we don't understand it, why assume it's junk?

What we might find is that a person's predisposition to intelligence based on genetics might be more fundamentally based on the quality of their hearing, vision, and other sensory inputs. I don't think there is any particular gene which controls intelligence, but I do believe there may be genes which control intellectual attitude; what things you're mentally interested in versus what things you're not. This varies, but probably depends on physical aptitudes, diet, even illness to an extent.

As to junk DNA, the reason most refer to it as such is because it doesn't appear to do anything. But there's nothing wrong with calling it "Junk". Personally, I have a lot of "Junk". It's mostly useful stuff that I don't use very often. The same is true of "Junk" DNA; It's not in use, likely because the required nutrients are not present, and so we don't know what it does. But you know what they say, one man's trash is another man's treasure.

Think of it this way; if the ancient philosophers had actually figured out how to turn lead into gold, they would've literally turned one man's trash into another man's treasure. We fear that this would cause wide-spread panic, but in truth, only one thing actually does happen; the price of gold would go down(increased supply- created through processing), and the price of lead would go up(decreased supply- consumed by processing). The net change is 0; we simply had value transfer from the object type we are creating to the object type we are consuming. Junk DNA is the same deal; once a change occurs(eg, environment, ambient energy, diet, activity), this DNA which appears to have no function or value will suddenly in fact have function and value, and the others will look a little less important by comparison.


Note: Keep in mind that the number of "Possible variations" will not always equal the number of "Probable variations", and even less likely so equal the number of "Viable variations"(given current environment).