(Untitled)

Mar 11, 2008 11:45

it's that time again... the time when i rant about sociology ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 3

(The comment has been removed)

gammafighter March 14 2008, 07:57:45 UTC
OMGIWASJUSTTHINKINGABOUTTHAT!

I know exactly what you mean.
When i took sociology in high school, they had us take an example of what a "black IQ test" would looks like... as in, if it were biased to inner-city black kids instead of white kids.

omg. all the questions were like "what is a crip?"
dude. that's gang trivia! that has nothing to do with IQ! It would be like "ok, here's an IQ test... what is the name of the 45th pokemon?!?!? YOU DONT KNOW THAT ANSWER?!?!?! LOW IQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
wtf! that's freaking trivia!

the only IQ test questions i've seen had to do with like... shapes and word patterns, not the meaning of words. think about it: if you don't know what a triangle is, you deserve to fail an IQ test. period.

Reply


very instructive anonymous July 7 2011, 11:45:06 UTC
What do you mean?

Reply

Re: very instructive gammafighter July 7 2011, 16:11:57 UTC
This is from several years ago, but I think i was frustrated by the bias in my sociology reading materials. I just happened to notice that sociological categories i belong(ed) to (white, male, wealthy) were cast in a very bad light while minorities were cast in a very good light to the point of comedy. For example, the last point i touch on in the post is that my textbook basically justified the crimes of the lower class by saying they were almost always motivated by feelings of hopelessness that were presumably thrust on them by society. Meanwhile, the crimes of upper class people were claimed to be caused by internal factors like greed. This is known as the fundamental attribution error. It's basically the same behavior, but it's taught that rich people do it because they are fundamentally flawed while poor people do it because society forces them.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up