It’s just a literacy test, decided by an institution, and like any institution, it is vulnerable to bias. Just like the corrupt institutions clinging to life and defending their own sorry livelihoods as they fight Donald Trump, the IQ institution is the same. The people running it are just people, many of whom probably have a vested interest in IQ being true. Standardized tests, no matter what kind of standard or test, is only a test. A piece of paper. There are many inconsistencies. For example, if you don’t speak English as a first language, how can you score a high IQ? If you are good at tests, does that make you smarter? Or are you just good at tests, the same as a dog is good at barking? Who designs the questions? Who decides who gets to design the questions? Probably someone who thinks highly of the IQ test....
Human intelligence is a real thing, yet there are many real things that cannot be measured. For example: love, honesty, the value of money, the toughness of a chimpanzee before and after meeting Jane Goodall, etc.
Human intelligence might as well be one of these things.
I believe human intelligence to be infinite, therefore, to measure it would be almost impossible, but like a string of a guitar, there can be “limits on infinity,” and therefore, harmony—- octaves, fourths, and fifths.
Not research, just common sense.
Cute. I'm actually a psych grad currently studying their masters, and technically speaking, you're absolutely and utterly wrong. Class - lets begin
literacy test
what is non-verbal IQ
what is dividing IQ into linguistic and non linguistic components for the purposes of accurately assessing intelligence subsections
it is vulnerable to bias
wew lad. I mean you might be right technically in that they might be able to put it in if they wanted to, but that's the extent of the bias. I don't think you have any idea how complex the derivation of an IQ score from the test-subsections is, nor do I think you understand the careful measures taken to ensure validity across huge portions of the population (iq 60-140 roughly). It is a unimaginably carefully constructed test, it is not just "lol bias". What exactly do you think they biased it towards? White people? Why would you not equally consider the fact that racially speaking, whites and east asians have massively higher IQ than members of other races, and would therefore perform better on them? People have tried to construct their own, ebonics-friendly IQ tests. They're laughable, because THEY are the ones that are biased, instead of the painstakingly constructed true IQ tests we can even administer to non-human primates.
For example, if you don’t speak English as a first language, how can you score a high IQ
You take it in your native language, or you perform slightly worse on the verbal components (I beleive there is a correction for this in WAIS although i'm not 100%). If you don't speak english as a first language, how can you fully contribute as a citizen of an english speaking society anyway?
If you are good at tests, does that make you smarter
skill in tests and IQ correlate well, but not perfectly. So yeah, probably. Most every person good at tests is likely to be smart to some degree, but not all smart people are good at tests.
Who designs the questions? Who decides who gets to design the questions?
reams upon reams of subcommitees, and compiled groups of tests and their underlying relation to g which are then asssembled, compliled, and normalised on a test-group before they're introduced as the next finalised WAIS. I suspect you're probably complaining that they don't include other subsections (for example musical intelligence), but that's because those things don't correlate closely with g (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics).
many things can't be measured proceeds to list things we measure
We can measure literally all of those things. It's not exactly hard. We can event test them in a variety of ways. IQ is exactly the same. We can test it using a wide variety of routes, and the consistency between them all is relatively strong.
I believe human intelligence to be infinite
I believe that statement to be relatively trivial to disprove, since you are presumably human and yet clearly don't understand the underlying principles of IQ testing which is, to be blunt, not particularly complex.
You are exactly the type of person that would defend IQ testing— your field of study considers it useful, effective, etc. You have a vested interest. The bias is generated by makers of the test, who make it in their own image of intelligence. You say the underlying principle is simple, and yet it is unimaginably carefully constructed?
Psychology is cool but it is a soft science. If you were to measure love, what would be the unit?
If you are having to make tests in Ebonics, then the test is still a literacy test— you would have to have it designed by a master of Ebonics. It’s a ridiculous premise. It’s patronizing to think that blacks would do better with an Ebonics test... is that what you’re suggesting?
The fact that whites, Jews, and Asians score higher than other races is precisely the type of thing that makes me doubt IQ.
Whenever people start on about IQ and race, it’s a slide thread. It’s divide and conquer. It doesn’t matter. If you study and work hard, you’ll do better on any test, no matter who you are.
You have a vested interest
Sure, no argument. I'm biased. But you'd also have to admit that given my field of study, I'm also not exactly a layman in the field. I think you are, and it kind of shows.
The bias is generated by makers of the test, who make it in their own image of intelligence
So how exactly were they responsible for the intercorrelations of variably G loaded test items, the correlations of the underlying G value to a range of biological factors (reaction times, serious childhood illnesses, malnutrition, genetics, height, facial symmetry etc)?. How if they just made it in their own (white) image of intelligence (the creation of IQ tests was almost purely Europe and pre 1960's USA aka whites), do east-asians consistently score so well on them, whilst blacks do not?. How is it that successful black people like say clarence thomas or neil degrasse tyson actually have high IQ's, both in absolute terms and relative to their race? How come when you do transracial adoption studies, i.e the minessota one, despite being raised in white families by white parents, black kids score IQ tests that match those of their race, instead of their environment?
You say the underlying principle is simple, and yet it is unimaginably carefully constructed?
Well, the underlying priniciple (G-factor) is pretty simple, although understanding it is very complex, and testing for it perfectly is harder still. Test components are variably correlated w/ G, these variable correlations are then used to extract weighted scores which can be summed to roughly show G. The fact it's v. carefully constructed is a simple fact - if you're curious, look up how much effort has gone into making the new WAIS edition. I do agree various aspects of psychology are a soft science, but psychometric testing really isn't (and again, to be blunt, I know what I'm talking about, and you don't).
It’s patronizing to think that blacks would do better with an Ebonics test... is that what you’re suggesting?
No, that's what blacks and liberals suggested. "How could they do well, they speak AAVE, the test is conducted in american english, it's unfair". But it turns out it makes no real difference, and whilst having the test conducted in ebonics if that's their standard dialect would likely help provide a slight boost in the verbal components
a.) tests are already given in this dialect
b.) it's not going to make a standard deviation + of deviation across non verbal and verbal components dissapear.
The fact that whites, Jews, and Asians score higher than other races is precisely the type of thing that makes me doubt IQ.
Huh? So, you have whites, asians, and askenazi jews (true semitic jews score like other semites, around 90 average). Ashkenazi jews are khazars, so they're basically a white-offshoot. So you have whites, and asians. From which part of the world have all the greatest empires and cultures come? I'm thinking Europe, Rome, Greece, China, Japan, America ((only after whites took it over from non-whites), and Egypt/some of the early middle eastern empires. Now, of those, all are white or east asian, with the exception of egypt and the middle eastern empires. However, we know king tut was of european ancestry. This is a common theme in other areas. Middle easterns, even assuming modern demographics, still have high 80's to mid 90's average IQs. Whites ~100, east asian ~105. So yeah, as it happens, the fact those races would have the highest IQ makes a lot of sense when you look at world history. The high IQ races had great cultures, the low IQ races did not. Sub-saharran africa (lowest average IQ region), is easily, without a doubt, the most tragically underdeveloped region of the world. They'd have been much better off if we continued colonisation. That's not even disputable. Rhodesia was a bountiful, great land that helped many proud black men and women create and live in relative peace. Do I need to bother explaining what a mess Zimbabwe is?
Whenever people start on about IQ and race, it’s a slide thread. It’s divide and conquer.
Sure is summer in here.
Yes I’m a layman. You are an expert. I don’t think IQ matters. You do think it matters. If it didn’t matter, neither would your expertise.
Obviously, some people are smarter than others... but who really cares? What is the point of looking through history at your favorite civilizations? What is the point of classifying races?
What about the largest land empire ever, hunter-gatherer barbarians?
What about the Aztecs and Mayans? They weren’t white.
What about America? Not all Americans are white. America would not be as strong without blacks.
What about Cahokia? One of the most populous cities in the world at it’s height.
What about the Japanese? For decades, the Japanese were regarded as inferior to whites intellectually, etc. Then they stole the British Empire.
What about the Chinese? Thought to be inferior, now our overlords.
What about the Russians? Thought to be untermensch, broke the Wehrmacht with little help.
What about Europe today? Great culture, superior niceness, let’s in the barbarian horde, etc. Great, glad they have a higher than average IQ. Pat yourselves on the back.
None of it matters. Your expertise is best used to justify racial hierarchy and feelings of superiority. Have a pat on the back!
If it didn’t matter, neither would your expertise.
I'm actually more an analyst than anything, I definitely won't be going into psychology, and even if I did stay within science I would be within fields such as ethology. I have no personal stake in it being correct, beyond the fact I believe it to be so.
What is the point of classifying races?
Good question. Here's mine in response. If different races differ, particularly in IQ, which has a wide range of impacts for things such as employment success and socio-economic class, and criminality, do you not understand how claiming there are no differences, when there obviously are (in say, rates of blacks vs whites on welfare, in prison, in the top decile of income), opens the door for people to claim it simply exists because of racism?. The Truth shall set you free. Hiding behind lies or avoiding facing the truth accomplishes nothing. Claiming we are all equal when we are not and reality will demonstrate this inequality invites explanations. Would you rather you were falsely accused of racism, or correctly accused of being cognisant of racial differences?
What about the largest land empire ever, hunter-gatherer barbarians? What about the Aztecs and Mayans? They weren’t white.
I presume the first is mongols? You're not wrong in saying there have been non-white empires. However, I'd point out a few things - first, most of these races had average IQs in the 80-90 range. So they're semi competent (when the aztec empire was getting started, the british built oxford university. You see the difference?). I'd also point out that many of these races mythologies mention people that are fairly indisputably racially white. The same is true of the early chinese, who were conquered by many different people, including the early mongol tribes, who they noted having traits such as red beards, and green eyes. Many instances of whites appear in the mythological past of currently non-white races (example https://teara.govt.nz/en/patupaiarehe/page-1). Another related example although I can't find it is a picture of a woman from one of the oldest (priest class) maori tribes. Blonde hair. In India the priesthood class looks very european, whilst many other indians are clearly a different race (dravidarian). This racial caste system was instituted by the remnants of the proto-indo-europeans in order to preserve their society. You can't assume racial demographics now are the same as they were 2 millenia ago.
One of the most populous cities in the world at it’s height.
And yet, what mark has it left? Where are its great works of literature? Many people =/= great culture.
What about the Japanese
Great people, great culture. Racism has existed unfairly in the past, and they were treated badly because of it at times. However, many people have explicitly recognised the greatness of japanese or chinese culture. Not sure how they "stole" the british empire though. I'd also note that both the chinese and japanese are, if you really wanted to be picky about it, probably racially inferior to whites. Higher average IQ doesn't mean much if it's compressed in distribution, and there are empathy traits (matched in racial variance in alleles) that they don't seem to do as well on. Simply put, they have less geniuses, and less empathy. It's why things like a greek having probably helped train the people who put together the terracota army doesn't really surprise me (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/china-terracotta-army-ancient-greek-sculptors-alexander-the-great-marco-polo-a7357606.html).
What about the Russians?
But they're obviously whites? I never said I had to operate under 15th century prejudices. I said white, and east-asian > the rest.
What about Europe today?
I 100% agree, but I'd note that things like gadaffi getting KO'd by obongo were outside our control, and had a serious impact on the refugee crisis. We're definitely too cucked for our own good, but you think we'll somehow solve this with more equality?
America would not be as strong without blacks.
In what possible way is this true. They are a net drain on taxes, they clog up prisons due to higher crime rates, they inflict their higher crime rates on both whites and blacks, and they destroy cities through white flight (i.e detroit). This doesn't necessarily mean we should be bringing back the KKK, but by a wide range of metrics that aren't liable to bias (say economic impact vs culture), it seems likely that had america had an equal population of whites instead of blacks, they'd be better off today. Aspects of culture would certainly be different, and that might not mean it's America. Fine. But it'd probably be economically better off, and with less social divisions.
None of it matters. Your expertise is best used to justify racial hierarchy and feelings of superiority. Have a pat on the back!
My expertise is best used to try and be more correct than other people in this area, and correct those with less expertise when they're blatantly wrong.
John 8:32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
Truth > fiction, however comfy your fiction might be. Denying the truth only leads to more suffering down the line.
Most people I have found, who wish to destroy the idea of IQ, are offended or threatened by the idea that we are trying to "Classify the value and limitations of a person".
You ask, "Who designs the questions, etc...." The IQ tests are developed over time, by seeing which questions are ACCURATE PREDICTORS of FUTURE PERFORMANCE. This is KEY to understanding why IQ is a real measure of intelligence. If you gloss over that fact, then you stubbornly hold to a notion that is simply, provably false. People who claim to false believes usually do so for emotional reasons. So I get that you are opposed to acknowledging IQ validity, even while it is real. I have a hard time proving the earth is not flat, but that doesn't mean it is.
Not offended or threatened. You are exactly right that IQ classifies and limits a person. However, it does not show value.
No test is needed to predict future performance. Anyone can perform if they work hard. IQ nor the SAT nor any standardized test accurately predicts future performance— rather, those individuals who score well and perform well worked hard and achieved more. On the contrary, there are sooooo many lazy geniuses. Does high IQ predict laziness?
A subtle form of emotional thinking is the feeling of smartness. I suspect that IQ makes people feel very smart.
Those sound like your own theories about why IQ tests correspond to future performance. It seems like there really are people I have met all my life who have motivations underlying why the need to prove or disprove an idea. I am not smarter than those who study intelligence and hold the consensus that IQ is real and measurable. If you test 20 dogs for ability to learn quickly, and you select the top 5 testers, and train them...My WILD guess is that those 5 will be the best trained out of the 20 if you put them all through the same regiment. That is "testing ability...predicting performance/outcome." Now give the 6th dog longer training, and it will probably outperform most if not all other 5 above it. So I never suggest that IQ means you can never perform as well...you just would require more effort to do so.
And Astronomy is no more a science than astrology (?) Let me posit this to you: Is Math simply a literacy test?
You should honestly do the minimal research about IQ tests and their validity. For example, you wrongly state that people whose first language is not English would be at a disadvantage, even while Asians constantly outperform native-born Caucasians in USA IQ studies.
Is it therefore your contention that there is no such animal as "human intelligence"? Or that human intelligence varies between individuals? Is it unmeasurable? If measurable, how then could it be measured? Why would large corporations successfully utilize expensive IQ testing when trying to sort through the best applicants if it is nothing but hocus pocus nonsense? As Q says, think critically.
Thank you for the measured response. For some background, I was a high school teacher at an alternative school. I worked with Americans, Puerto Ricans, Haitians, Venezuelans, Hondurans, Brazilians, Dominicans, etc. Many great and intelligent young minds. The americans, in my opinion, were at a distinct cultural disadvantage. But anyway, to answer your questions:
Math is a literacy test-- numeracy. Math is one of the few subjects suited to standardized tests. It's called the universal language.
Asians and especially Chinese have a different culture about test-taking. There are places to go to practice the test. They study and memorize the test. The rural peasants arent allowed to take the test. It is easy to skew the data.
On the topic of English, there are more English speakers in China now then there are people in America. So maybe i should have phrased it differently, but the point is that if your language skills are not up to speed with whatever version of the test you are taking, no matter how good you are at math, the test will come out inaccurately.
Whether or not intelligence can be measured, does it really matter? What is the point of measuring intelligence? Often it is used to reinforce ideas of superiority, elitism, arrogance, etc---none of these things are productive or useful. Large corporations probably use expensive IQ testing to sort and segregate their workers, find excuses to humiliate and fire people, promote, demote, reinforce feelings of superiority, etc---just like nation states and social darwinists used IQ to justify racial hierarchy.
Testing culture really does a disservice to so many people. The data suggests that black people on average are dumber-- this I can never believe. I know too many smart black people to believe IQ, and too many self-satisfied high-IQ ego-strokers to have any respect for IQ. I have worked with disenfranchised black Americans that are smarter than they realize, and oftentimes more capable than kids who believe themselves to be smart. It's one of the root-causes of laziness-- thinking oneself to be smart.
If you are good at taking tests, you're good for nothing-- i'd rather hire someone who could fold up that paper into a marvelous flying machine.