>>13597964>>13597987>>13598066>>13598292>>13598305>>13598740>>13598722>>13598673>>13598656I take particular anger to the notion that "intelligence is a non cultural trait", and tests can be "culture blind".
It is well known that someone who never learned to read will be mentally stunted, verifiable by IQ tests.
It is also well known that many concepts that we know hold intrinsic value as tools in thinking, simply didn't exist a few hundred years ago, before scientists and philosophers developed the ideas, and pedagogists included them to be at least heard in classrooms, resulting in the average person being familiarized with the (then novel) thought processes.
Cultural baggage can, and obviously does, include common patterns, thoughts, deduction tools, and different forms of empathetic thinking. It's obvious that you, and any researcher, would be oblivious to this cultural baggage, as you've been completely immersed in it.
As an example I would posit that if you were to bring some scribe from mesopotamia, it would take him many many years to get him to:
>Learn what the concept of grammar was>Learn to utilize said rules>Learn about the possibility of other types of grammar.>Get him to write in some foreign language with complicated grammar, such as russian.I posit that certain cultures simply had less need for structures such as general inductive thinking, and as such, these ideas aren't as strongly reinforced. As such, IQ scores can only really have a meaning when comparing individuals of the same culture.
There are various ways to falsify my theory, but the main one I propose is that as globalization continues, the gaps between national IQ scores will lessen more than by what the Flynn effect predicts.
