3 ms·

Yeah but IQ are notoriously inaccurate and in no way a similar trait as height. Measuring height is an objective biological measurement. IQ is a measure of a

Yeah but IQ are notoriously inaccurate and in no way a similar trait as height. Measuring height is an objective biological measurement. IQ is a measure of a state of consciousness with so many different confounding factors. This is a Nature vs Nurture question and you're going 100% all in on the Nature side of the argument....some sort of inherent genetic IQ predisposition. Saying one has a permanant IQ is equivalent to saying mexicans inherently like to steal hubcabs. When it comes to measures of IQ and other states of consciousness environment plays a massive role. Google "labeling theory" and "Motivation theory". IQ tests are proven to have so many counfounding factors that they're not taken seriously. For example: 1> Groups exposed to abstract reasoning problems during school or prep courses do way better on IQ tests... 2> IQ is also shown to increase as people get older.... 3>Not to mention going to university is shown to INCREASE one's score on IQ tests.... So how accurate of a test is that? The reason it's outlawed is because it's essentially stereotyping. It's a bullshit oversimplified view of how the brain works, and factually incorrect and Nazi-ish. We can have an oversimplified filtering system, a single test that determines peoples futures.......or we can put people in an environment like university where education and learning is encouraged...and see if they meet their genetic potential. I think the second way is less insane.

Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
I would like to recommend a book to you. It is Intelligence: All That Matters by Stuart Ritchie. I would recommend reading it before forming strong opinions on this topic.
- nickthemagicman 9y ago
  I would like to recommend decades of social science research that shows that human performance is effected equally by environment as genetics. Hence the entire nature vs nurture debate. Consciouness is too complex to be summed up by any single test and any person remotely knowledgable about the subject will agree with me. But it's been interesting talking with you.
  - Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
    Decades of social science has not controlled for the heritability of cognitive ability. In light of the twin studies which proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt, most of it is worthless.
    - nickthemagicman 9y ago
      Are you seriously referencing twin studies and saying social scientists haven't controlled for heritability of cognitive ability? Like centuries of social science research haven't thought of that? Like you had a suddenly original idea that tens of thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to this field, gotten M.Ds and PhD's, hadn't thought of? And if twin studies were conclusive wouldn't it have answered the debate of nature vs nurture that we're having, once and for all? You're trying to summarize human consciousness, which is extremely unpredictable, and no one understand fully... into one test...It's extremely dumb and pretty much everyone but you agrees...and for good reasons... Maybe your educational environment is lacking..
      - Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
        Consider the idea that maybe you are wrong; read the book I'm recommending (which is short and thoroughly cited) and I will read The Mismeasure of Man a third time, which may be one of the most dishonest books ever written. It is the case that social science post 1950s largely failed to address the idea that cognitive ability is heritable (and the heritability of most mental traits). I agree, the situation is absurd and embarrassing for these fields. But this is what happened. I would like to say again, please do read the book. There were times when I was outraged by a position, to the point where I insult a person who is writing in good faith (as you have just done); this is usually a sign that I am reasoning backwards and am defending a position out of emotional attachment rather than trying to understand what is true. I would suggest this may be happening to you now. One thing to keep in mind is just because something is true doesn't make it good. You can preserve your moral outrage even as your descriptive beliefs change.
        9y ago

Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago

I would like to recommend a book to you. It is Intelligence: All That Matters by Stuart Ritchie. I would recommend reading it before forming strong opinions on this topic.

nickthemagicman 9y ago
I would like to recommend decades of social science research that shows that human performance is effected equally by environment as genetics. Hence the entire nature vs nurture debate. Consciouness is too complex to be summed up by any single test and any person remotely knowledgable about the subject will agree with me. But it's been interesting talking with you.
- Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
  Decades of social science has not controlled for the heritability of cognitive ability. In light of the twin studies which proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt, most of it is worthless.
  - nickthemagicman 9y ago
    Are you seriously referencing twin studies and saying social scientists haven't controlled for heritability of cognitive ability? Like centuries of social science research haven't thought of that? Like you had a suddenly original idea that tens of thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to this field, gotten M.Ds and PhD's, hadn't thought of? And if twin studies were conclusive wouldn't it have answered the debate of nature vs nurture that we're having, once and for all? You're trying to summarize human consciousness, which is extremely unpredictable, and no one understand fully... into one test...It's extremely dumb and pretty much everyone but you agrees...and for good reasons... Maybe your educational environment is lacking..
    - Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
      Consider the idea that maybe you are wrong; read the book I'm recommending (which is short and thoroughly cited) and I will read The Mismeasure of Man a third time, which may be one of the most dishonest books ever written. It is the case that social science post 1950s largely failed to address the idea that cognitive ability is heritable (and the heritability of most mental traits). I agree, the situation is absurd and embarrassing for these fields. But this is what happened. I would like to say again, please do read the book. There were times when I was outraged by a position, to the point where I insult a person who is writing in good faith (as you have just done); this is usually a sign that I am reasoning backwards and am defending a position out of emotional attachment rather than trying to understand what is true. I would suggest this may be happening to you now. One thing to keep in mind is just because something is true doesn't make it good. You can preserve your moral outrage even as your descriptive beliefs change.
      - 9y ago