Originally posted by lukster
Which goes back to how you measure "smartness". If it is an absolute and quantifiable "ability" then one race that is on average taller than another should on average be smarter. Perhaps their theory doesn't take into account other factors which may be more relavent.
They mentioned something about cognative tests. I'm assuming that these are variations on the IQ tests that many of us are familiar with where the subject is asked to complete a pattern of numbers, letters, designs, or something of the like. There're also ways to measure short-term memory, as well as the ability to mentally organize pieces of information, to make logical conclusions based on loosely-related facts, or to draw parallels from totally different situations(anyone here ever take the LSAT?). All these tests, however, generally measure different types of intelligence, of which there are several (linguistic, logical-mathematical, kinesthetic, spatial, musical, intepersonal, intrapersonal
link). It has been proven, however, that the most successful people are those who take these innate talents and combine them in the most pragmatic ways. Put plainly, somebody who is mathematically brilliant, but an inter/intrapersonal moron, might not do as well as somebody with less mathematical ability but a better pre-disposition for activities like marketing (Bill Gates is a perfect example of how it's better to combine than to merely specialize).
Personally, I think this study is questionable at best. Being tall is definitely a social advantage--which I think accounts for most of whatever disparities were observed. On the flip side, you take a look at most of the world's mega-successful individuals, from Alexander the Great to Bill Gates, I'd be willing to bet that they're of average if not below average stature. The reason is simple:
An inferiority complex coupled with too much testosterone and tempered with a decent intellect will get you farther than raw brains alone.
