On the Nature of Things | Forum

Another hotbed.

Science is done on IQ and some conclude that differences in IQ scores matter. On the individual level, for groups/societies and their IQ averages, how it is distributed withing groups. Also ethnic groups show different average scores.

IQ tests measure different cognitive skills though. And then there is nature-nurture; how much of an IQ score is the result of relatively unalterable conditions like genes, how much does the environment via culture, food, education etc impact a score? And me supposes that although IQ may matter, it does so probably less than often assumed since there are more variables at work. A society is a complex as the climate and to isolate just one variable and blame-fame all that goes bad or well on it doesn't make much sense. C02 comes to mind.

Some people conclude that a lower average IQ of any society is not good for that society and can explain a lot of the poverty, crime rate and so on. The higher the average IQ score, the better it is for everybody. A good example of this viewpoint is Stefan Molineux who did a series of interviews on his youtube channel. On Dave Rubin's channel he was interviewed about it:

T0KKc6GbeNo

Just had a heated discussion with my wife, in her opinion the IQ test itself is racist. From the time that European scientists started to measure skull sizes in Africa etc. This territory shall be treated with caution.

IQ is a solid metric for success in Western academia. Western academia is a more than a bit racist so there is that connection. There are two reliable tests, the Stanford-Binet and the Wechsler, both of which are hours long and must be administered 1-1. These are the ones you see in movies with people fitting pegs in holes etc.

There are also a huge raft of simpler IQ tests which are easier and cheaper to administer and correlate well with the 2 standard tests. Mostly paper & pencil, fund of knowledge type tests. The SAT and ACT are the most widely used in the US, but there are plenty others. Most studies use one of these, and all kind of problems seep in or are magnified.

i spent alot of time with IQ tests when i was a child - i was so slow to pick things up they took me out of school and probed my brain orifices quite alot to quantify it.

in my experience the old adage that IQ tests measure how good you are at IQ tests is quite true even if its a tad simplistic.

when i was young and keen and motivated to show off how good i was at them i got completely different scores to when i got older and didnt give a lavender anymore, ditto being distracted or tired or spiteful.

humans being humans i have zero doubts that kids from non middle class backgrounds getting test papers shoved in their faces for rankings they dont care about are not getting proper quantifications of their problem solving abilities.

I think IQ measurement is definately a handy tool that helps in making decisions regarding education and future careers. But would not consider it even the best tool let alone the only one. My youngest daughter just entered her first year highschool and the level of entry was based on opinion of her primary school teachers plus her scores on a number of "cito toetsen" which is a test all kids do during their last year in primary school. They have some IQ test elements but primarly measure skills as they learned apply them in subject matters like language, math, general knowledge etc, all tailored to highschool learning. All this is not controversial obviously. The controversy arises when IQ scores are used to calculate averages of ethnic groups... err "race" which is still a no-go zone for many.

noddy wrote:i spent alot of time with IQ tests when i was a child - i was so slow to pick things up they took me out of school and probed my brain orifices quite alot to quantify it.

in my experience the old adage that IQ tests measure how good you are at IQ tests is quite true even if its a tad simplistic.

when i was young and keen and motivated to show off how good i was at them i got completely different scores to when i got older and didnt give a lavender anymore, ditto being distracted or tired or spiteful.

humans being humans i have zero doubts that kids from non middle class backgrounds getting test papers shoved in their faces for rankings they dont care about are not getting proper quantifications of their problem solving abilities.

Agreed. Motivation and specific material aptitudes are yuge factors.

I have been been placed in "slow" classes and had test results that allowed me to skip advanced classes. Flunked Calculus in high school while scoring in the 99 percentile on the math SAT. My calculus teacher was stunned.

My personal IQ test scores have varied by over 30 points (almost broke into triple digits once).

Due to the tremendous varibility in human experience, assigning a single number to allow comparative evaluation of intelligence seems as futile as assigning a single number that measures personality.

Parodite wrote:I think IQ measurement is definately a handy tool that helps in making decisions regarding education and future careers. But would not consider it even the best tool let alone the only one. My youngest daughter just entered her first year highschool and the level of entry was based on opinion of her primary school teachers plus her scores on a number of "cito toetsen" which is a test all kids do during their last year in primary school. They have some IQ test elements but primarly measure skills as they learned apply them in subject matters like language, math, general knowledge etc, all tailored to highschool learning. All this is not controversial obviously. The controversy arises when IQ scores are used to calculate averages of ethnic groups... err "race" which is still a no-go zone for many.

Evaluating individuals based on an IQ score seems as ridiculous as evaluating them based on race. Both methods require the intentional ignoring of a plethora of other variables.

I've met people who are genius in one area of thinking and childlike in other areas.

I can see the value of an IQ test in academia, as a pre-indicator of whether a specific individual has a high or low probability of getting crushed by an academic workload, similar to measuring an individual's size and strength to determine their likelihood of success as a lineman in football.

Once one employs the "race" filter to sort, one should not be surprised that the data falls out according to one's prejudices. Same with the height, weight, nationality, religious, etc filters.

This is why I say a racist is not the person who thinks one race is superior to another, but the person who thinks race should be used as a viable standard of measure or discrimination (both positive and negative).

Then when you add in the silly factor of self-determination vs. the determination of the observer......

Parodite wrote:
Just had a heated discussion with my wife, in her opinion the IQ test itself is racist. From the time that European scientists started to measure skull sizes in Africa etc. This territory shall be treated with caution.

does Mrs. P think racists score better on IQ tests than non-racists, or vice versa?

Proceed with caution.....

Simple Minded wrote:

noddy wrote:i spent alot of time with IQ tests when i was a child - i was so slow to pick things up they took me out of school and probed my brain orifices quite alot to quantify it.

in my experience the old adage that IQ tests measure how good you are at IQ tests is quite true even if its a tad simplistic.

when i was young and keen and motivated to show off how good i was at them i got completely different scores to when i got older and didnt give a lavender anymore, ditto being distracted or tired or spiteful.

humans being humans i have zero doubts that kids from non middle class backgrounds getting test papers shoved in their faces for rankings they dont care about are not getting proper quantifications of their problem solving abilities.

Agreed. Motivation and specific material aptitudes are yuge factors.

I have been been placed in "slow" classes and had test results that allowed me to skip advanced classes. Flunked Calculus in high school while scoring in the 99 percentile on the math SAT. My calculus teacher was stunned.

My personal IQ test scores have varied by over 30 points (almost broke into triple digits once).

Due to the tremendous varibility in human experience, assigning a single number to allow comparative evaluation of intelligence seems as futile as assigning a single number that measures personality.

Real IQ tests do yield several components. I remember verbal, mechanical and mathematical IQ were separate along with a couple others I can't recall.

I think I'm with noddy on this one here- at least the bit about "kids from non middle class backgrounds".

It's very, very hard (if possible at all) to get around "ways of life", without breaking the kid and their social ties down whole-heartedly (and in imperialistic fashions you get yelled at about decades down the line.)

All the pedagogical fads in the world have yet to change that.

Simple Minded wrote: Evaluating individuals based on an IQ score seems as ridiculous as evaluating them based on race. Both methods require the intentional ignoring of a plethora of other variables.

I've met people who are genius in one area of thinking and childlike in other areas.

I can see the value of an IQ test in academia, as a pre-indicator of whether a specific individual has a high or low probability of getting crushed by an academic workload, similar to measuring an individual's size and strength to determine their likelihood of success as a lineman in football.

Once one employs the "race" filter to sort, one should not be surprised that the data falls out according to one's prejudices. Same with the height, weight, nationality, religious, etc. filters.

This is why I say a racist is not the person who thinks one race is superior to another, but the person who thinks race should be used as a viable standard of measure or discrimination (both positive and negative).

Then when you add in the silly factor of self-determination vs. the determination of the observer......

Indeed. Many variables exist and all matter. To only use IQ as a measure or prediction of success is not smart. Also IQ as measured in the context of academia won't say much about your chances to survive in non-academic situations like in the wild bush, during wartimes etc.

Parodite wrote:

Simple Minded wrote: Evaluating individuals based on an IQ score seems as ridiculous as evaluating them based on race. Both methods require the intentional ignoring of a plethora of other variables.

I've met people who are genius in one area of thinking and childlike in other areas.

I can see the value of an IQ test in academia, as a pre-indicator of whether a specific individual has a high or low probability of getting crushed by an academic workload, similar to measuring an individual's size and strength to determine their likelihood of success as a lineman in football.

Once one employs the "race" filter to sort, one should not be surprised that the data falls out according to one's prejudices. Same with the height, weight, nationality, religious, etc. filters.

This is why I say a racist is not the person who thinks one race is superior to another, but the person who thinks race should be used as a viable standard of measure or discrimination (both positive and negative).

Then when you add in the silly factor of self-determination vs. the determination of the observer......

Indeed. Many variables exist and all matter. To only use IQ as a measure or prediction of success is not smart. Also IQ as measured in the context of academia won't say much about your chances to survive in non-academic situations like in the wild bush, during wartimes etc.

Yeah, or even Christmas shopping on Black Friday! Even if yer buying wine in Manhattan.....

Simple minded wrote:Evaluating individuals based on an IQ score seems as ridiculous as evaluating them based on race. Both methods require the intentional ignoring of a plethora of other variables.

The motivation for this particular metric is rather sub-intelligent. It's a means of social and breeding fitness ranking similar to expressed sexual dimorphic characteristics. Except we can't use those because un-PC, so we apply another standard for measuring length of pecker......;>...........

Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:

Simple minded wrote:Evaluating individuals based on an IQ score seems as ridiculous as evaluating them based on race. Both methods require the intentional ignoring of a plethora of other variables.

The motivation for this particular metric is rather sub-intelligent. It's a means of social and breeding fitness ranking similar to expressed sexual dimorphic characteristics. Except we can't use those because un-PC, so we apply another standard for measuring length of pecker......;>...........

another sign of oppression. I'm not even sure if I have sexual dimorphic characteristics. Guess I'll have to ak someone with a triple digit IQ....

Maybe we are just measuring the wrong thing

laOZjSFdj24

Or maybe we are all just hallucinating reality

lyu7v7nWzfo

SWAmICTFSok

Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:

Simple minded wrote:Evaluating individuals based on an IQ score seems as ridiculous as evaluating them based on race. Both methods require the intentional ignoring of a plethora of other variables.

The motivation for this particular metric is rather sub-intelligent. It's a means of social and breeding fitness ranking similar to expressed sexual dimorphic characteristics. Except we can't use those because un-PC, so we apply another standard for measuring length of pecker......;>...........

"Is your hair as dull and lifeless as your brain? Didn't work start at 9? Where's your shirt? Did you even remember to wear it? I know you, I used to be you, until I discovered chambraigne."

"Things get easier as your brain dies."

x8vclq

Space Ghost- Chambraigne (don't know if the embedded video is popping up for anyone else, it's not coming up at this end)

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/09/forbid ... elligence/

In the highly controversial area of human intelligence, the ‘Greater Male Variability Hypothesis’ (GMVH) asserts that there are more idiots and more geniuses among men than among women. Darwin’s research on evolution in the nineteenth century found that, although there are many exceptions for specific traits and species, there is generally more variability in males than in females of the same species throughout the animal kingdom.

Evidence for this hypothesis is fairly robust and has been reported in species ranging from adders and sockeye salmon to wasps and orangutans, as well as humans. Multiple studies have found that boys and men are over-represented at both the high and low ends of the distributions in categories ranging from birth weight and brain structures and 60-meter dash times to reading and mathematics test scores. There are significantly more men than women, for example, among Nobel laureates, music composers, and chess champions—and also among homeless people, suicide victims, and federal prison inmates.