4 ms·
> Either you assume that IQ is 100% not genetic, or you have to admit that race seems to be correlated. Or, bear with me here, you have to admit that IQ tests
by Skunkleton 7y ago
> Either you assume that IQ is 100% not genetic, or you have to admit that race seems to be correlated.
Or, bear with me here, you have to admit that IQ tests can only measure trained skills that correlate loosely to raw intelligence.
- fastball 7y agoThat is literally what I said -- "you must assume IQ is 100% not genetic or..." == "IQ is purely measuring trained skills". The issue is that I think there is very little evidence to suggest that IQ is only measuring trained skills. Otherwise people could get much, much better at IQ tests given practice, but this does not seem to be the case.
- Skunkleton 7y agoHave you taken a professionally administered IQ test? The types of questions asked can't be prepared for in the same way as you might prepare for the ACT. But if your first exposure to IQ-test-like questions is an IQ test, there is no way you will achieve your maximal score.
- fastball 7y agoI'm not a big fan of anecdotal evidence, but I'll bite. I have taken multiple (3) professionally administered IQ tests, and my highest score achieved was on the first of those, when I was eight years old. I don't think that means anything, but there you go.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- squirrelicus 7y agoIQ definitely does not measure anything learned. Malnutrition and genetics appear to be the dominating factors.