Professor Hans Eysenck, who wrote the book, The Inequality of Man, said his research showed that the upper classes were more intelligent than the lower classes and this was the reason for their success. The ruling class loved him and he was esteemed as a world leading psychologist and scientist, but it turns out he was rather stupid, for he refused to believe that environment played any role whatsoever in the development of inteligence. He just made an assumption that his I.Q tests measured inherited intiligence. But now scientists have isolated the genes for intelligence and found that there is no difference, on average, in I.Q. between the classes. Also, Prof. Reuven Feuerstein's research showed that Hans Eysenck was completely wrong after he developed toys for children with low I.Q.
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Matias Vernengo writes Elon Musk (& Vivek Ramaswamy) on hardship, because he knows so much about it
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Klas Eklunds ‘Vår ekonomi’ — lärobok med stora brister
New Economics Foundation writes We need more than a tax on the super rich to deliver climate and economic justice
Robert Vienneau writes Profits Not Explained By Merit, Increased Risk, Increased Ability To Compete, Etc.
Also, Prof. Reuven Feuerstein's research showed that Hans Eysenck was completely wrong after he developed toys for children with low I.Q. which got them thinking as they played with them, which developed their brains. Some were even imbeciles who couldn't feed or clothe themselves, but they grew up into normal healthy adults. Sadly, the scientific community at the time ignored the work of Reuven Feuerstein, but praised Hans Eysenck instead.
Hans Eysenck also argued that the differences in I.Q. between the races was due only to genes, not the environment, but now new research shows he was wrong on this too.
When studying healthy babies from around the world - who were getting nutritious food and good mothering - scientists found no difference, on average, in their emotional and intellectual development (I.Q).
There’s still a substantial body of opinion out there in both the scientific and lay communities who genuinely believe that intelligence is predominantly determined by genes and the environment that you’re living in and that your parents and grandparents were living in and their nutritional and health status are not relevant,” says Prof Kennedy. “Well, that’s clearly not the case.”
FT - Some are born great? No, with the right start in life we all have the same chance to succeed
Prof. Reuven Feuerstein: The man who can work wonders
The least-gifted children of high-income parents graduate from college at higher rates than the most gifted children of low-income parents.
If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance.
The most successful people are not the most talented, just the luckiest, a new computer model of wealth creation confirms. Taking that into account can maximize return on many kinds of investment.
Researchers Question Link Between Genetics and Depression
The observer (life) creates the universe, but the universe creates the observer (life); the mind appears to be just as mysterious.