Posted on 05/22/2008 3:07:07 PM PDT by GourmetDan
WORKING-CLASS students have lower IQs than those from wealthier backgrounds and should not be expected to win places at top universities, an academic has claimed. Bruce Charlton, an evolutionary psychiatrist at Newcastle University, has written a paper asserting the reason why fewer students from poor families are admitted to Oxford or Cambridge is not because of social prejudice, but lack of ability.
He suggests that low numbers of working-class students at elite universities is the "natural outcome" of "substantial" IQ differences between classes.... His claims could trigger an outcry similar to that faced by the Nobel prize-winning geneticist James Watson, who was forced to apologise after claiming that African and Caribbean workers were "demonstrably less able" than white ones.
However, Dr Charlton argues it is precisely the fear of creating controversy that prevents other academics taking the same line.
He said: "That is why such obvious scientific truths have not so far been stated clearly, or have actually been denied.
"(This theory is] accepted among those who know and understand the research."
Well stated! And it need not involve money at all.
LOL on ad in the middle of page, made for the not so smart humans.
I think one explanation would be that the more generations that we have an equal-opportunity-but-specialized society, the more that intelligent people of working class origin ‘rise’ beyond their origins, and the more stratified by intellect our society becomes.
Boat people from Southeast Asia or similarly peasant-to-working class immigrants from other societies with less specialization and mobility are less likely to be so sorted out, and so there is more likelihood of people rising dramatically from humble origins.
The good news is that ours really still is a land of opportunity, character and hard work still account for much, and less economically ‘fortunate’ kids may be less sheltered, protected, etc., and so develop more of the kind of initiative that leads to independently-secured success.
Someone without elite academic intelligence may not be likely to start the next biotech Microsoft, but with drive and initiative he or she could build a successful company in a large number of fields.
IQ makes for a great discussion topic but the measure of a man is his character and whether or not he’ll do the right thing.
Of course, it’s a given that working class people have a lower IQ and will give birth to lower IQ’d children.
As long as some lefty (or American Democrat) doesn’t start advocating for forced sterilization, I’m okay with anything the academics have to say on the subject.
If you understood the concept of private property and if our laws protected private property with the tenacity and integrity the Founding Fathers intended, the lower IQ’d citizens would have nothing to fear.
America is still a meritocracy. The low IQ’d citizen can still achieve his goals in life. In Britain, if you score low on the state administered IQ tests, you won’t be admitted into higher education at all, much less Oxford.
Yours truly,
The Woim
The IQ curve may not be the issue in this discussion. Given that high IQ children can and do occur in families with lower IQ scores, is not the real issue whether a high IQ child is able to actualize the potential which such an IQ inherently confers?
In short, do the better schools admit based on IQ and performance? Or has socialism inspired political correctness been allowed to force admission of those who can not possibly be graduated without lowering academic standards?
You are the one who misrepresented what I said and yelled at me in post 56 when all along I have said that Dr. Charlton is the one who said it. Dr. Charlton went on to say that scientists who know this will deny it. That's what you are doing. That is Dr. Charlton's position. Yell at him.
"Stating this is hardly a “freak-out”; you are saying I (and others)believe something that I (and presumably many others)do not. Are you a mind reader?"
You are misrepresenting me again. I didn't say you believed anything. Dr. Charlton is the one who said, "That is why such obvious scientific truths have not so far been stated clearly, or have actually been denied." and "(This theory is] accepted among those who know and understand the research."
You are freaking-out and projecting your opinion of Dr. Charlton onto me. He's the one who says that it is 'accepted among those who know and understand the research'. Not me.
Please stop projecting your opinions of Dr. Charlton onto me.
a) that I believe it
b) that I deny that I believe it
c) that I am therefore a liar
Can you follow this rather simple logic?
I hope you forgot to close your sarcasm tag.
If not, that’s just absurd.
And don't we have more than enough examples to support that! The universities are filled with educated morons (mostly within the faculty).
Are there any stupid people with smart children here who can attest to this? Any smart people with stupid children? C'mon, be honest.
a) that I believe it
b) that I deny that I believe it
c) that I am therefore a liar
Please, please take a deep breath and calm down.
I must repeat that Dr. Charlton said, "That is why such obvious scientific truths have not so far been stated clearly, or have actually been denied." and "(This theory is] accepted among those who know and understand the research." because you insist on misrepresenting me and claiming that I am saying these things when I am not. I have repeatedly asked you not to misrepresent me, but you insist on it.
Now you claim that I am calling you a liar. You really need to calm down. I have said none of the things you have attributed to me. I am forced to re-post Dr. Charlton's comments because of your constant attempts to pin them on me. I want it to be crystal-clear that this is an evolutionist who is making these claims, not me.
Dr. Charlton is an evolutionist and is the one saying these things.
Dr. Charlton is a Psychiatrist. Evolutionist is a term used by those who fear and do not understand Science. Dr. Charlton has shown no particular knowledge or expertise or training in Evolution, his degree is in Psychiatry.
Because you seem to be unable to follow a cogent argument I will use analogy.
Dr. C says “Many Scientists beat their wives, and those that do will deny it.”
I say “I am a Scientist and I do not beat my wife.”
You say “See Dr. C was right, Scientists who beat their wife will deny it.”
Therefore it is you who are making the claim that...
a) I beat my wife
b) I deny beating my wife
c) I am therefore a liar.
Infantile arguments such as this are the last refuge of the intellectually bereft.
The article says he is an 'evolutionary psychiatrist'. ("Bruce Charlton, an evolutionary psychiatrist at Newcastle University...") Dr. Charlton is the one who claims to be an evolutionist. No one is afraid. No need to demonize anyone as being 'fearful' or lacking understanding. Be calm.
"Because you seem to be unable to follow a cogent argument I will use analogy."
Again, you seem to have a deep-seated need to demonize me for comments made by an evolutionist. You can make up any analogy you want and I understand that you need to do that to keep the demonization going, but that doesn't mean that it is relevant to the comments made by Dr. Charlton.
"Dr. C says “Many Scientists beat their wives, and those that do will deny it.” I say “I am a Scientist and I do not beat my wife.” You say “See Dr. C was right, Scientists who beat their wife will deny it.”
"Therefore it is you who are making the claim that..."
a) I beat my wife
b) I deny beating my wife
c) I am therefore a liar.
I have made no such claims or arguments. You are the only one who is frantically making such claims so that you can demonize me. Again, Dr. Charlton is the one who is saying, "That is why such obvious scientific truths have not so far been stated clearly, or have actually been denied." and "(This theory is] accepted among those who know and understand the research." I must defend myself against misrepresentation so that it is clear that I have not said these things, but am being demonized and constantly misrepresented.
"Infantile arguments such as this are the last refuge of the intellectually bereft."
I agree. I would never use an analogy like that as an argument.
Obviously an elitist, liberal position. He might even think some of us are bitter.
Anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence.
Lord McCain who is second to none in his personal presentation of himself on this planet, does NOT indicate any elements of having higher than average IQ. And he got to his present position with the votes of liberals and supposed independents also known as the moderate elites....
So what is the literal point of IQ measurements when the results seem to indicate it is more about bragging rights than any self accomplished achievement?
I have found it is cheaper to hire a lawyer than a plumber, so who is the ‘smarter’ of the two professions. What about all those unionized workers, I have been told to hope that any thing I purchase was not made on a Friday or a Monday by unionized workers.
Given what places like Harvard and Yale etc., produce, Obamas and Clintons what good is their reputation anymore anyway.
“Apparently evolutionists all believe this but are keeping quiet about it.” GDan Post#51
“According to Dr. Charlton, you are in the denier camp. If that infuriates you, take it up w/ him.” GDan Post#61
“It is obvious that Dr. C believes this, what is not so obvious is your contention that all “evolutionists” believe this.” Me Post#65
“but he [Dr. C] made some statements about what evolutionists believe and either don't say or just deny. You're denying it, which is what he said evolutionists did.” GDan Post#69
“you insist on misrepresenting me and claiming that I am saying these things when I am not.” GDan Post#87 (please refer to Post #6 and #51, yes, they are exactly the same, you repeat yourself, and then deny you said it.)
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Post #14 indicates this guy has no particular training in Evolutionary Biology. The article calls him a “Evolutionary Psychologist” if there is such a thing, maybe Dr. Charlton is one; but Ive seen nothing to indicate it.
Moreover he makes reference to no particular data set or study that I can check the methodology of.
Without any apparent expertise in the subject, and without reference to any particular study, all we are left with is the opinion of a British Psychologist that there is no reason to make room for (presumably qualified) “working class” students at elite Universities because they score lower on IQ tests as a group and that is somehow because of “bad” genetics instead of a host of other cultural and environmental factors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.