For the past centuries a number of authors and researchers have made a number of determinisms, some based on correlational data about the relationship between the concepts of IQ, intelligence, race and other social factors. Many of these determinisms have been viewed as very problematic by other researchers because the views they take are very flawed and have been politically utilized to justify prejudiced agendas against immigrants, individuals of lower socioeconomic status and people of socially perceived differing racial attributes such as skin color. Most of the evidence purported to support these agendas are based on very limited and biased viewpoints of amassed scientific data. This scientific data isn’t fake data but data that has been twisted to fit into an ideological scheme that has pervaded human society since the middle ages or even before. That a select minority of the population are superior in terms of genetics, intelligence, beauty, strength, etc. and therefore are more deserving of higher positions of authority, power, wealth, prestige and status.             One of the greatest false premises is the notion of the concept of intelligence. Human society is obsessed with categorizing things and putting them in their proper places and this obsession is even applied to abstract concepts such as intelligence and social concepts such as race. (Gould, 1995) Everyone has their own definition of what constitutes intelligence. Psychology has attempted to operationalize intelligence in its attempt to objectively measure an abstract concept, give it some type of form and make it measurable and discernable. These attempts have produced many different theories about intelligence but one of the most prevalent is the notion that intelligence is biological, inherited and therefore fixed. Humans are born intelligent and not made. This is most recognizable as general intelligence or g factor, which is based on correlation data, taken and analyzed from different types of intelligence tests that have been designed and applied. G factor has even been correlated with race and other social factors to indicate that statistically the most intelligent of the population are white and wealthy. The biggest problem is that one can’t forget that correlation is not causation. Just because it correlates well statistically does not mean that it causes it. Also for a correlation to be considered statistically significant it need not be high. A correlation of just .25 or 25% might be considered statistically significant, even though that number would normally be considered rather low.             This correlation data has been utilized to continually justify a status quo mentality that the rich and powerful deserve to be where they are and it’s a waste for those from lower classes or lower scores of intelligence to even aspire to more. Biology completely determines one’s intellectual ability, nothing can be done about it but resign oneself to one’s place in life.

1. For the past centuries a number of authors and researchers have
made a number of determinisms, some based on correlational
data about the relationship between the concepts of IQ,
intelligence, race and other social factors. Many of these
determinisms have been viewed as very problematic by other
researchers because the views they take are very flawed and
have been politically utilized to justify prejudiced agendas
against immigrants, individuals of lower socioeconomic status
and people of socially perceived differing racial attributes such
as skin color. Most of the evidence purported to support these
agendas are based on very limited and biased viewpoints of
amassed scientific data. This scientific data isn’t fake data but
data that has been twisted to fit into an ideological scheme that
has pervaded human society since the middle ages or even
before. That a select minority of the population are superior in
terms of genetics, intelligence, beauty, strength, etc. and
therefore are more deserving of higher positions of authority,
power, wealth, prestige and status.
One of the greatest false premises is the notion of the
concept of intelligence. Human society is obsessed with
categorizing things and putting them in their proper places and
this obsession is even applied to abstract concepts such as
intelligence and social concepts such as race. (Gould, 1995)
Everyone has their own definition of what constitutes
intelligence. Psychology has attempted to operationalize
intelligence in its attempt to objectively measure an abstract
concept, give it some type of form and make it measurable and
discernable. These attempts have produced many different
theories about intelligence but one of the most prevalent is the
notion that intelligence is biological, inherited and therefore
fixed. Humans are born intelligent and not made. This is most
recognizable as general intelligence or g factor, which is based
on correlation data, taken and analyzed from different types of
intelligence tests that have been designed and applied. G factor
has even been correlated with race and other social factors to

2. indicate that statistically the most intelligent of the population
are white and wealthy. The biggest problem is that one can’t
forget that correlation is not causation. Just because it
correlates well statistically does not mean that it causes it. Also
for a correlation to be considered statistically significant it need
not be high. A correlation of just .25 or 25% might be
considered statistically significant, even though that number
would normally be considered rather low.
This correlation data has been utilized to continually
justify a status quo mentality that the rich and powerful deserve
to be where they are and it’s a waste for those from lower
classes or lower scores of intelligence to even aspire to more.
Biology completely determines one’s intellectual ability,
nothing can be done about it but resign oneself to one’s place in
life. And biology itself is completely separated from influence
from the environment.
This is a completely false premise. Nisbett, Aronson, Blair,
Dickens, Flynn, Halpern & Turkheimer give a great example of
how social factors such as moving a child from a lower
socioeconomic environment (SES) to a higher SES can affect IQ
scores:
Adopted children typically score 12 points or more higher than
comparison children (e.g., siblings left with birth parents or
children adopted by lower SES parents), and adoption typically
moves children from lower to higher SES homes (2012, p. 136).
In another example “natural experiments in which children are
deprived of school for an extended period of time show deficits
in IQ of as much as 2
SD
” (Nisbett et al, 2012, p. 137). So clearly something other than
biology clearly has an effect on IQ scores.
Moving back to the accepted conceptualization of intelligence,
there truly isn’t any accepted conceptualization of intelligence.
“Theorists of intelligence do not themselves agree on what
intelligence is” (Sternberg, Grigorenko, Kidd, 2005, p. 47) The
only thing that has been accepted or better said assumed is that

3. since most tests designed to measure intelligence and produce a
score, such as IQ, have shown to correlate well statistically with
each other it’s assumed then they must be measuring the same
thing, intelligence. Therefore intelligence’s operational
definition has been defined by what correlates well with test
measurements. This is not an adequate way to determine what
intelligence is. Intelligence has many conceptualizations
worldwide and it is not something that can be easily measured
nor completely reduced to an IQ score from on a test.
Now intelligence tests can be very useful “when applied in a
thoughtful and transparent manner” (Nisbett et al. 2012, p. 131).
Nisbett et al (2012) assert however that “it is important to
remain vigilant for misuse of scores on tests of intelligence or
any other psychological assessment and to look for possible
biases in any measure” (p. 131). But unfortunately bias are
prevalent and have been repeatedly used to continue to
subjugate those we perceive as different.
Race has all too often been connected to intelligence and IQ.
And just as intelligence, race has been perceived to be
intimately connected to biology. This is not accurate however.
Our perception of race is much more tied to a social perception
then a biological reality. The perceived differences in skin
color, hair texture, nose shape, etc. have been considered by
most, if not all of human society, to literally categorize other
homo-sapiens as a completely different species. Though there
are macroscopic physiological differences at the genetic level
we are all the same race, we reproduce viable offspring. Our
conception of race is a folk conception based on a history of
conqueror and conquered. The conqueror is superior to the
conquered. The “race” that is viewed as the most beneath all the
others is the “Black African Race”. The “White European Race”
enslaved them for centuries. While this is commonly held view
in the Americas it is not entirely accurate since even in Africa,
Africans do not consider themselves the same. Neither for that
matter do Europeans, North Americans, South Americans or
Asians consider themselves all the same even though they share

4. the same continent and the majority might share similar skin
tones or colors. Race is a social construct and it has been
correlated to intelligence in order to further justify the
conquerors having superiority over the conquered. (Sternberg et
al, 2005; Gould, 1995).
It was simpler back in the middle ages I presume. The
conquered had been defeated and had to acquiesce to the
demands of their conquerors or face death. Now the descendants
of the conquerors seek new evidence for their superiority. Not
attributing at all the differences to cultural or societal factors it
has been widely assumed that the descendants of conquerors are
just born superior to the descendants of the conquered or
foreign races. And the correlations in data are the purported
evidence for this assertion. So now those that come from so
little must accept their lot in life just as the peasantry of the
middle ages. We find a proposal for “a world in which people
[are] slotted into places that fit their cognitive ability, in which
each…will be respected for what they actually are and can be
(which [amounts] to more or less the same thing)” (Fenwick,
1995, p. 5) Public education is a complete and total waste of
resources that could be more properly invested in helping the
elitists continue to hold their dominance over the lower classes.
We must expand beyond the old paradigms of aristocracy and
peasantry. Advances in scientific research have shown that we
are much more similar biologically then we appear to our naked
eyes. And even our legislature has evolved to include more
rights and freedoms for all. The old paradigms still exist and
have dominated a worldview that is not at all based on scientific
fact but on a prejudiced bias where we seek to categorize
everyone as a thing with a purpose that has been determined at
birth instead of recognizing the enormous potential that exists
within each of us and valuing the plentiful amount of ways that
intelligence is expressed internationally through different
cultural perspectives.