I can’t read Murray’s rant. He consistently bores me. Skimming his article, I see passages like this –
The cognitive stratification of American society—for that’s what we’re talking about—was not a problem 100 years ago. Many affluent people were smart in 1907, but there were not enough jobs in which high intellectual ability brought high incomes or status to affect more than a fraction of really smart people, and most of the really smart people were prevented from getting those jobs anyway by economic and social circumstances (consider that in 1907 roughly half the adults with high intelligence were housewives).
From 1907 to 2007, the correlation between intellectual ability and socioeconomic status (SES) increased dramatically.
And I yawn as I wonder about how objective our methods of measuring intelligence are, and stop wondering as the topic really fails to interest me.
What bores me is that the whole approach to the topic sounds like kids playing dictator in the backyard. No kid plays “anarchist-socialist collective” until they’re older. But everyone thinks they can be the greatest general ever if they just implement the right organization. The right organization, of course, is contingent on how one sees things being dominant.
I personally like the SAT, and nowadays I like it because it’s a tradition of sorts. I think it can be worked with if one feels that equality is being threatened.
Powered by ScribeFire.