3 ms·
That would be more convincing if someone came up with a supportable notion of what intelligence is and then validated that some testing instrument could reliabl
by vajrabum 7y ago
That would be more convincing if someone came up with a supportable notion of what intelligence is and then validated that some testing instrument could reliably measure it across cultures. So far not so much. IQ tests have their uses but they don't exactly measure intelligence.
- UnFleshedOne 7y agoBut suppose they did? Suppose we find a well defined and a very valuable trait. And got a well validated test for that. And uncovered a fact what some group of people are worse off in that trait in general than some other group. What should be done about those particular findings and that research in general if group of people in question is historically disadvantaged? And that trait is applicable to the areas they are disadvantaged in? Suppose you want to improve the situation and make outcomes more equal (or opportunities more equal, or say you are evil and want the opposite, or whatever actual effect you want to achieve). Do you think you would have better success knowing the facts or not knowing them? You can say it might be better not to know some facts because they give people who want opposite things more leverage. Sure. I disagree with that tactics, but it might work if not for the following: how would you know which facts to deny them if you don't know what the facts are? Only way that move can make sense if you secretly suspect what the outcome of the research would be and think that it will be detrimental to your preferences.