4 ms·

>IQ tests standardized? IQ tests can't be standardized across cultures. Even something like Raven's Progressive Matrices has a cultural component. https://www.

>IQ tests standardized? IQ tests can't be standardized across cultures. Even something like Raven's Progressive Matrices has a cultural component. https://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligence https://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligence Also China has some issues with the way they report scholastic achievement that make their results appear higher than they should. China is very selective about which students take standardized tests that are used for global comparisons--they aren't random samples.

kingkawn 7y ago
Seems hilarious to assume they can be standardized within a culture too, whatever a culture may be.
- glofish 7y ago
  but that's what IQ test are, standardized tests. not sure where hilarity comes into play ... it has well defined statistical properties perhaps you mean that the results of IQ tests can be, and often are grossly misinterpreted, that is not related to standardization
- cookiecaper 7y ago
  Yeah, the reality is that you'll never be able to get reliable/unadulterated data on something that is both as personally impactful and as loosely defined as "intelligence". Everyone is going to bias toward interpreting the mode of thought that is most similar to their own as the definition of "intelligent". Very few adults are comfortable with the idea that any substantial group of people are objectively more intelligent than themselves, because admitting that comes uncomfortably close to relinquishing autonomy, at least in contemporary Western understanding that says the more intelligent should rule. European history throughout the 20th century shows the horrifying, depraved danger in capitulating to a ruling intelligentsia. We should earnestly hope that no group allows their self-interest, protected by native instinct, to be overridden by the despotic, unfeeling ideologies of "intelligent" rulership. That philosophy has shown itself over and over again to be a quick route to starvation, genocide, and widespread desolation. Nevertheless, IQ is the most general/objective measurement we have, and it seems to be a reasonably good approximation on aggregate.
  - svara 7y ago
    > European history throughout the 20th century shows the horrifying, depraved danger in capitulating to a ruling intelligentsia. If you're referring to communism and national socialism here, those were rabidly anti-intellectual (the later particularly so).
- 8bitsrule 7y ago
  Yep. And that helps many IQ tests to be biased (consciously or not) in favor of the interests (and assumptions) that create the tests. EG a written test will inaccurately 'measure' the abilities of people who (for whatever reasons) can't read well. Those who are well-fed and -slept, secure, unfraid, healthy, and enjoy lots of educational opportunities will arrive for the test with an advantage.
glofish 7y ago
All IQ tests are (ought to be) standardized for the target population. The median IQ should be 100, with a standard deviation of 15. If the median IQ is not 100 over the population, the test is flawed.
- INGELRII 7y ago
  Intelligence researches don't use normalized IQ when they compare intelligence across target populations or across different times. They use raw IQ score data.
zionic 7y ago
Just because a test might have some component you can vaguely articulate as having some cultural influence does not make the test itself invalid for comparison across cultures. Claims that basic pattern recognition is somehow not a valid means of assessment across cultures are dubious at best.
- learc83 7y ago
  >does not make the test itself invalid for comparison across cultures If you can't accurately quantify the cultural component, then yes it does. >Claims that basic pattern recognition is somehow not a valid means of assessment across cultures are dubious at best. Basic pattern recognition isn't the only thing that's being measured--that's the problem. Even something as simple as how often a student has been exposed to a matrix of rows and columns has an impact on performance. Repeated exposure to similar tests also increases performance.
  - georgeburdell 7y ago
    If it’s the best thing we have, then it’s worth using. You are proposing no alternative.
    - learc83 7y ago
      If you have only one poll with an unknown margin of error and it shows Candidate A at 51 and Candidate B at 49, then assuming Candidate A is winning just because it's the best thing we have is worse than just admitting we don't know. Wrong information is often worse than no information. That's one of the problems with PISA results. Policy makers look at other countries with higher scores and try to emulate them without understanding why their scores are higher. In that case it's just cargo culting education. This doesn't mean that standardized testing is completely useless, but you have to know the limitations, and comparing results between cultures is one of the limitations.

kingkawn 7y ago

Seems hilarious to assume they can be standardized within a culture too, whatever a culture may be.

glofish 7y ago
but that's what IQ test are, standardized tests. not sure where hilarity comes into play ... it has well defined statistical properties perhaps you mean that the results of IQ tests can be, and often are grossly misinterpreted, that is not related to standardization
cookiecaper 7y ago
Yeah, the reality is that you'll never be able to get reliable/unadulterated data on something that is both as personally impactful and as loosely defined as "intelligence". Everyone is going to bias toward interpreting the mode of thought that is most similar to their own as the definition of "intelligent". Very few adults are comfortable with the idea that any substantial group of people are objectively more intelligent than themselves, because admitting that comes uncomfortably close to relinquishing autonomy, at least in contemporary Western understanding that says the more intelligent should rule. European history throughout the 20th century shows the horrifying, depraved danger in capitulating to a ruling intelligentsia. We should earnestly hope that no group allows their self-interest, protected by native instinct, to be overridden by the despotic, unfeeling ideologies of "intelligent" rulership. That philosophy has shown itself over and over again to be a quick route to starvation, genocide, and widespread desolation. Nevertheless, IQ is the most general/objective measurement we have, and it seems to be a reasonably good approximation on aggregate.
- svara 7y ago
  > European history throughout the 20th century shows the horrifying, depraved danger in capitulating to a ruling intelligentsia. If you're referring to communism and national socialism here, those were rabidly anti-intellectual (the later particularly so).
8bitsrule 7y ago
Yep. And that helps many IQ tests to be biased (consciously or not) in favor of the interests (and assumptions) that create the tests. EG a written test will inaccurately 'measure' the abilities of people who (for whatever reasons) can't read well. Those who are well-fed and -slept, secure, unfraid, healthy, and enjoy lots of educational opportunities will arrive for the test with an advantage.

glofish 7y ago

All IQ tests are (ought to be) standardized for the target population. The median IQ should be 100, with a standard deviation of 15. If the median IQ is not 100 over the population, the test is flawed.

INGELRII 7y ago
Intelligence researches don't use normalized IQ when they compare intelligence across target populations or across different times. They use raw IQ score data.

zionic 7y ago

Just because a test might have some component you can vaguely articulate as having some cultural influence does not make the test itself invalid for comparison across cultures. Claims that basic pattern recognition is somehow not a valid means of assessment across cultures are dubious at best.

learc83 7y ago
>does not make the test itself invalid for comparison across cultures If you can't accurately quantify the cultural component, then yes it does. >Claims that basic pattern recognition is somehow not a valid means of assessment across cultures are dubious at best. Basic pattern recognition isn't the only thing that's being measured--that's the problem. Even something as simple as how often a student has been exposed to a matrix of rows and columns has an impact on performance. Repeated exposure to similar tests also increases performance.
- georgeburdell 7y ago
  If it’s the best thing we have, then it’s worth using. You are proposing no alternative.
  - learc83 7y ago
    If you have only one poll with an unknown margin of error and it shows Candidate A at 51 and Candidate B at 49, then assuming Candidate A is winning just because it's the best thing we have is worse than just admitting we don't know. Wrong information is often worse than no information. That's one of the problems with PISA results. Policy makers look at other countries with higher scores and try to emulate them without understanding why their scores are higher. In that case it's just cargo culting education. This doesn't mean that standardized testing is completely useless, but you have to know the limitations, and comparing results between cultures is one of the limitations.