Johanna writes:

> I haven't been following this discussion, so I don't know the context  of 
> the argument that one shouldn't explain or one shouldn't group 
> more-proficient with less-proficient students.

In fact, there was no discussion to follow.   There was Scott's post and my 
response.

As to IQ, I used it simply as short-hand for those more capable of engaging 
in rule problem solving.

I do not think that we should allow ourselves to lose the thread by getting 
embroiled in the racial IQ argument.   This said, however, I have no problem 
with the possibility, for example, that the Chinese and Japanese have proven 
to be more capable than Caucasians on a number of IQ-related tests.

Just as the extreme feminists were wrong to pillory anyone who suggested 
that men and women might have different genetic dispositions***, it is wrong 
to label anyone as racist who 'dares' to raise the possibility that all 
racial groups are NOT equally capable in, for example, doing certain types 
of tasks requiring abstract thinking.

In fact, given the evolutionary disposition of all species and sub-species 
and sub-sub-species etc for change, wouldn't it be extremely surprising if 
racial groups and sub-groups etc had not manifested some sort of 
differential change.

Ron Sheen

***By the way, I have recently found myself involved in social discussions 
with women (and that includes my wife and three daughters) who are quite 
(heatedly) convinced that women are better at multi-tasking than men.   . 
So heated, in fact, as to doubt the fact that I regularly watch TV, practise 
the guitar and play speed (admittedly ten minute blitz) chess at the same 
time.

It's also of interest that in the memory Olympics (memorising, for example, 
a deck of cards in less than 30 seconds), men have always dominated. 

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/