3 ms·

I think we pretty much agree... I don't think there's really any one test that can give the complete picture. What I'm trying to get at is that it's possible t

I think we pretty much agree... I don't think there's really any one test that can give the complete picture. What I'm trying to get at is that it's possible to design tests that can indirectly measure general intelligence which don't require vocabulary and general information, or other aspects that may rely on social or economic privileges. And that these type of tests would allow us to draw comparisons on a broader scale. I'd imagine if an illiterate person performed well on spatial and memory tasks, then if they had learned to read they would've also scored high on a vocabulary test, too.

h0l0cube 9y ago
> There isn't just one test though. Like you alluded to above, there are 'culture-fair' tests, even though they may be less common. The heart of our disagreement is probably the role we see culture and genetics playing in socioeconomic outcomes. Nope. I disagree that verbal tests can be extricated from an intelligence measure, and by extension, culture. I did mention 'culture-fair' IQ tests, in quotes, and that I don't consider them to be very good. It is even suggested that such tests don't even remove cultural bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattell_Culture_Fair_III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattell_Culture_Fair_III > and even though it's a bitter pill to swallow I think we need to soberly assess the genetic component of IQ I can certainly see the moral imperative in avoiding genetic mental disabilities that have profound effects on social outcomes, burden on social services, and maybe even happiness of an individual. Otherwise, what imperative is there to do so?