4 ms·
psychometricians largely aren’t debating the existence of intelligence, its variability, or the fact that it is heritable.
by solveinequality 9y ago
psychometricians largely aren’t debating the existence of intelligence, its variability, or the fact that it is heritable.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y agoActually... http://www.apa.org/research/action/intelligence-testing.aspx http://www.apa.org/research/action/intelligence-testing.aspx http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-funda... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/iq-test-controversies-persist/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/iq-test... If intelligence were simple we'd know how to test for it. It isn't, and we don't. Not reliably, and certainly not in ways that are absolutely independent of culture and background. The UK used to have a concept called "mental agility", which seems to be closer to the abilities measured by IQ than the much more complex quality psychologists call general intelligence. You can have exceptional mental agility - the ability to remember and manipulate symbols and parse symbolic relationships quickly - and still be an utter idiot when it comes to dealing with some or all of reality. A high IQ will not protect you from ideological beliefs, especially if you grow up with no exposure to other viewpoints, from a lack of mental openness (not to be confused with a lack of curiosity), from "moral" perspectives that are self-reinforcing prejudices, from poor socialisation, and so on.