SES means can differ by 15 or more points, and that is significant; not because there is a huge diference in performance between, for example, a person @ IQ=93 vs IQ=108; but out past the first standard deviation, to the right of the two bell curves, there are substantial differences in the number of 115-to-130 people; the "bright but not genius" level of cognitive functioning. These are the folks that sustain our steady progress, the innovative, creative minds ~ in abundance ~ that keep our technological and knowledge-based economic systems and cultural institutions functioning. Out even farther to the right are the genius and near-genius level people; and while they often make important contributions, especially on the leading edge, there are too few of them to keep advanced western civilization perking along as it has.

We can choose to ignore reality and pretend that everyone can grow up to be a doctor, or software engineer, or educator; and that all it takes is a litle bit of motivation. This leaves those with lower cognitive abilities in the lurch. They are NOT morally deficient and un-motivated; but they cannot compete at that level, and there is very little support for institutional learning or training of those just to the left of the mean. The result is a drop-out; someone who could have been successful and achieved a good standard of living, but the system arrogantly presumed it was go to university or nothing. Further, the system misses the diagnosis of the failure; attributing it to some moral or personality weakness; as in lack of motivation, or unwilling to learn, or poor attitude, and on and on. Which REALLY makes the failure complete, because it is due to some avoidable personal trait rather than a relative weakness of God-given skill.

BATHEJOHN

"Well, your assertion that measures of intelligence have the same distribution across socio-economic-status (SES) is not what the data have been telling us."

That is actually what I said, but not exactly what I meant. I was under the impression (which may be wrong) that the vast majority of the differences in inteligence is from differences in social and economic settings, and was far more dependant on nurture then nature. I do agree that some of it is genetic, but I think that the social and economic conditions play a far more important role in distinguishing intelligence levels. I think the key difference her is between potential intelligence and applied intelligence. I would definately agree that applied or measurable intelligence is NOT spread out evenly between economic and social classes. But potential or genetically predescribed intelligence is rather evenly spread out among the social and economic classes. The reasons for this are A - humans are not really being subjected to any kind of natural selection B - the relative effect of potential or genetically predetermined intelligence is much smaller then the effect of social and economic factors. I would like to see some data that suggests either way, but keep in mind IQ tests measure applied intelligence, they dont measure a genetic predisposition to learning more, faster, or better.

"It is also futile to insist that relative cognitive ability is rooted in cultural themes. This is the nature vs nurture argument; and the distribution of intelligence is most profoundly correlated with heredity. Bright people tend to produce bright kids; and while it is appropriate to point out the benefitial effect of cultural enrichment; it may effect tested IQ by maybe 8 points. Which is a lot, and should not be dismissed; but the inherited variance can be much larger. "

That is very interesting, but is an IQ test a measure of potential intelligence or applied intelligence? As far as I have seen of IQ tests, they seem to depend a lot on things already learned. Is my uncle 'smarter' then me because he has taken calc III but I have not? Does that mean he has the potential for greater intelligence then I do? How do you measure a personse predisposition for the ability to learn. And how much and how well they can learn. It would have to be a test that did not depend at all on anything previously learned. I could not even concieve of such a test. I would think that nurture conditions play a much greater role in developing intelligence then nature does, although nature prediscribes limits.

"We can choose to ignore reality and pretend that everyone can grow up to be a doctor, or software engineer, or educator; and that all it takes is a litle bit of motivation."

I do feel that is the case, just like anyone can grow up to run the 100 meter sprint, run marathons or ride bicycles in grueling events. That does not mean, however, that they can do it WELL. Olympic class atheletes are atheletes that solely exist at the very high end of the bell curve, you can train as hard as you possibly want, but that guy who has better genes that you will train just as hard and be a faster runner. The genetic facts seem to me to limit the upper potential. This is true in the case of intelligence. It is obvious that anyone can train with enough motivation to be a doctor, that does not mean they will be a good doctor though. It seems to me that the role of social and economic factors on the potential for acquiring and persuing intelligence is far more influential in society the the upper limit or speed limits determined genetically.

Matus