So for my English class I have to read this book called The Mismeasure of Man: The definitive refutation to the argument of The Bell Curve by a, now dead, Harvard professor named Stephen Jay Gould. Im in the middle of the second chapter and this guy is discussing some hardcore abstract shit that most people are hardlined into believing. The class is discussing the concept of "truth" and whether it actually exists (which I think it does but only for an instant before it is inevitably diluted by forgetfulness, prejudice, rationalization, and time) and whether things we commonly believe to be "true" actually are.
So the book takes hold discussing the falsities of justifications of economic status and the permanence of class and the judgments of intelligence based on physical or hereditary or even better, just general non-controllable features/characteristics. Midway through the first chapter he has debunked the concept of race and class as determining factors of intelligence, that as far back as Plato who was one of the first to devise a "logical" explanation for social structure as a product of inherent class differences and the permanence of person between generations. Oddly enough when Plato devised this plan to explain to whoever it was he said he knew he was lying saying that and that he would never convince his generation that intelligence was based on such characteristics but he would be able to do it for the next generation and the generation after that.
Other such things like race, gender, country of origin, etc have all been used to explain peoples intelligence. Just like craniometry was in the 19th century, now Intelligence as a measurable numerical quantity is in the 20th. He and I can agree on that being bullshit. How could something as immeasurable and abstract as intelligence be formulated and quantified into a simple number that would express a persons capability for understanding or give a static value to their competence. Damn the West and its insatiable craving to order and assign a numerical value to anything and everything, to need to have a ranking for all that is apparent.
I'm going to cut it short since I don't think threads with essays for OPs get alot of attention. So do you think that a persons intelligence can be measured? Do you believe in biological determination? Is it really that complicated? Do you think physical characteristics can define a persons "intelligence"? Should such assumptions be labeled as fact? Does any of this accurately represent the truth? Do we even know what the truth is? What the hell is intelligence? Who is it that defines what intelligence is and why do they have the power to make that distinction and make decisions based off of that? Should they present that as "truth"?
Discuss! http://www.stoptazmo.com/images/smilies/eusa_think.gif
