In a message dated 3/27/2006 11:54:00 AM Central Standard Time,
ozarkheretic@... writes:
Has the study of genetics ever been at your expense? What does "at
my [Mira's] expense" mean? Has the study of genetics ever been at
the expense of your liberty? What does that mean? How has the
study of genetics ever been at the expense of some other person's
liberty, if you believe it has?
Funded by taxpayer money. On the latter question, do you really need to ask
it? How about Dr. Mengler, for a start?

>I believe there is private funding for research on intelligence. Do
you object to public funding for research on cancer and other
>diseases?

I can't speak for anyone else, obviously, but I do.

>Employers use intelligence tests to help in evaluating job
applicants. Employers buy all kinds of tests to help choose
>applicants who are more likely to do a job well. But anti-testing
critics have tried to stop such testing. Do employers have a right
>to try to figure out which employees will be better employees?
Don't some jobs involve complex, abstract thinking? Is everybody
>equal in the ability to do every job?

I think employers have every right to try to do this. As a manager, I can
say that any approach I've used has failed, though. If a job depends on
creativity and intelligence, I doubt any adequate test can be devised. For more
specific tasks, I believe such tests can be created, but might not have been. I
will say that tests with questions like "Which of the following describes your
behavior at a party?" are simply absurd and useless.

>Some taxpayers realize that higher education requires higher
ability. Why should taxpayers pay to educate students in
>institutions of higher education if the students do not have the
ability to learn at higher levels?

They shouldn't, but its a non-sequitor. They shouldn't pay to educate other
students either.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]