More likely a fear that falling test scores would cause a cut in federal funding for LA school administrators. Based on the scores that resulted after schools in the south were integrated, it was a rational fear.

All humans can conceptualize and do so routinely. Most, even very intelligent people, do not properly conceptualize higher level abstractions from abstractions (more distant in the hierarchy from the perceptual level) because of lack of knowing the methods for proper integration. It doesn't seem to prevent them from doing well on IQ tests.

Most people don't know or care what their own IQ is; it's not a matter of hiding it. What is the source of Obama's score?

The current date does not change what consciousness is. There is no such thing as a fact being "behind the times"; consciousness has not changed what it is.

People who are not as smart have the same capacity for rationality, integrity, justice, etc. guiding their choices, but may not understand as much in applying the principles. That doesn't make them more unethical as a character trait, though errors may occur inadvertently. On the other hand a smart person of unethical character has the capacity to make faster and more subtle unethical decisions just as easily as a smarter ethical person can make ethical decisions.

Emotions are automatic reactions resulting from values already accepted. But they are not infallible indications of what one thinks is right in the whole context. One important aspect of morality is to not let emotions overtake reason just because they are strong.

The ability and willingness to do that certainly does differ between different people. The strength of thinking does, too, but it doesn't mean the intensity of emotions are less for a rational person, only the propensity for emotionalism replacing reason with emotions as a tool of cognition. Also people following their emotions are often still very much consistent with their bad ideas.

Were they afraid that they might out score everyone else or prove positively that the leftest, the progressive, treatment of black American children had failed epically.

You are really behind the times and our present understanding...it's 2019

"Self introspection" is not the "definition of consciousness". Consciousness is awareness of existence; it doesn't have to be "led" to itself. Human beings are aware of themselves, but focus and think to different degrees about everything, including themselves.

This is a false dichotomy. Not every smart person writes books at all, and he becomes smarter by reading what he doesn't already know as well as learning from experience. A "true genius" does not "know nothing".

It's even worse if a 'measuring cup' fills itself with poison.

I agree with you. The part you always have to consider in the RPG is the degree to which the plot is scripted and directed - especially in computerized versions. A completely free-form RPG like GURPS, D&D, or a variety of others can be very enlightening - and a huge challenge to the Game Master!

I think that people (ie psychologists) overlook the millions of hours of data that results from playing RPGs. This is possibly the best simulation of the different aspects of human consciousness and abilities that has been done.

This an interesting thread.
There is in the discussion a view that human behavior has two dimensions-
inteligence, and ethics. But there is as well- industriousness.

This quote is from General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord, 1878 - 1943, who was in the Hitler bomb plot-

I divide my officers into four classes:
the lazy, the industrious, the clever, and the stupid. Most often two of these qualities come together.

The officers who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments.

Those who are stupid and lazy make up around 90% of every army in the world, and they can be used
for routine work.

The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament
and nerves to deal with all situations.

But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!

Mensa has charts of approximate IQ and scores on the SAT. Older SAT scores result in higher IQ's than recent SAT scores. SAT scores have been "normalized" a couple times in the past 40 years resulting in higher SAT scores because math SAT scores were dropping too low.

Seriously, I had no idea that it was illegal to require an IQ test for employment. I took one in 1992 (upon investigation, I see the issue was decided in 1971) not thinking a thing about it.

It was actually kind of fun, especially when they told me "you will not be able to finish this test, so don't be upset when the bell rings and you are not finished."

I finished before the bell rang. :-) Got all the answers right, too.

Anyway, the owner of the company was not overly concerned about legality. He kept a shelf-full of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead for anyone visiting who wanted a copy. Learned a lot at that job, not all of it good, but it all was good FOR me.

Broaching this topic carries similar risks as smoking while siphoning gasoline... Just say'in

The IQ is only as good as the person's ability to apply it. It usually stands that those with higher IQ are better in leadership, not because of the IQ itself, but because with it comes a higher ability to perform critical thinking skills, apply that IQ. Obama's IQ was apx. 117, lower than Bush Jr., but he seemed to be low enough his critical thinking skills were compromised. Hillary ad Bill both have high IQs, but Bill seemed better able to use critical thinking. For some reason, ethnic scores for blacks vs hispanics, leaves blacks lacking. They had early access to US schools more than did hispanics, what is the reason? Why do the IQ scoers of grade school kids actually drop after up to three years in public schools? We see a lot of liberals bragging about their schooling, or intelligence, but not many flaunting their IQ.One has to wonder. My IQ is in the top 2%, our daughter in the top 1%, we seem to share an interest in almost everything, learning never stops because we love it. It does not matter which field, history, English, philosophy, science, accounting, we will read and learn and do. She is pretty right brained and creative, while i am the most left brained in our whole family. She can come up with ideas, I can analyze them. As far as ethics, I am hopelessly ethical, while she is creatively semi-ethical. I attribute that to my Catholic school education, vs her public school experience.

That could very well be, a false testing, as you say.
However, as I included in my summation, the type of test is important as well, all IQ tests are not equal. I myself scored low in grade school because I did not care but still scored high to conceptual exercises but the IQ test I took years later in the army, after already having an asso. degree, scored very high in both areas. (above average)...laughing because that meant I wasn't stupid after all and my hyperactivity was to blame.
But still, the testing in school and the testing in the army were very different. The one's in school generally tested accumulated information...which as I state, is a measure of compartmentalized neuron formations.
There is a clear delineation between bicameral activity in the brain and unicameral activity in the mind.

I’m sure that is true. I was tested quite high as a kid, look at me ;)

I was told during my time in Los Angeles that schools were not allowed to administer IQ tests to black children. Whether this was true, I never knew.

Carl, I've read several books on IQ over the years. My take-away is that IQ measures general intelligence ("G"), which I believe is the ability to conceptualize or integrate, as you put it. My general but unscientific observation is that people with valid IQs less than average (100) generally cannot conceptualize. That said, scores can be affected by the motivation of the testee, whether s/he had an adequate breakfast on the day of the test, etc. In the field of child welfare for 24 years, I had the opportunity to refer clients for such testing, review the results, and compare those to my own observations and guesstimations. For example, if a previous score was 60, and I noticed that the client could integrate information, I'd quickly refer for re-testing.

Unless I am mistaking, I have taken numerous Aptitude Tests but never taken an IQ test. Not sure if they correlate with one another. I don't believe I have ever even seen a real IQ test.

Exactly what I did, worked in the field while attending college classes. I could see from both sides that some of my superiors were brainless and also some of the professors had no real expertise in what they were teaching. If you are observant and listen you will probably learn more from the 20-30 years guys who may or may not be the sharpest tacks in the box but they know their jobs.

The discussion is about IQ, not education. I agree, there are millions of "highly educated" (if a college degree is the definition of "highly educated") people who would neither succeed in a competitive, productive environment, nor have a high IQ. A high IQ test score is no guarantee, but by definition it indicates a greater ability to analyze available information; it does not imply success when the person has no knowledge of the specific context of the problem.
College education may once have indicated a greater probability of success in the area studied, and for a few people who are diligent and have the ability to discern facts from political rubbish, that is still true, but as you said, it isn't mostly a result of education in college.
I knew that I had a lot to learn when I graduated from college. I also had 3 years of work in my field of study (a day job while taking night classes.) That experience had informed me of some of my own shortcomings, and just as importantly of the considerable shortcomings of some of the bosses I had to work for at the start of my career. A few were great to work with and to learn from. Many(college educated or not) had already risen to their level of incompetence.