3 ms·

I have one question about IQ (or the g if you prefer to make the distinction): So what? What are you going to do with this information? * IQ is fixed; a test a

I have one question about IQ (or the g if you prefer to make the distinction): So what? What are you going to do with this information? * IQ is fixed; a test at, say, 16 will give you your intelligence for the rest of your life. (16 is arbitrary because I am uncomfortable with psychological testing of young children, but you can make the argument to roll this back to 6 or 8 if you like.) * IQ is hereditary. * Skin color (and ethnicity in general) is correlated with IQ. Sex is correlated with IQ variance. (Am i missing anything here?) Here's a clarified from of Kantian categorical imperative: Would you like to live in a society based on those principles? (I forgot to add, "given human history".) IQ testing is very valuable at the low end, to identify individuals that need some form of help. I, personally, am a little uncomfortable with other policy extensions.

obvthrowaway195 6y ago
The reason why the validity of IQ as a measure of intelligence (and even the concept of "intelligence" itself in some cases) is so vociferously denied by many is precisely due to its very important implications for social policy (answers to the "So what?" question). That IQ is a valid measure of intelligence, is rooted in an individual's genetics, and that individuals and ethnic groups vary in their IQ (or average IQ, for the latter), would necessarily have to imply a complete re-evaluation of the interpretation of social inequality, and of the approaches towards mitigating it. I personally think that this re-evaluation is absolutely necessary, because the current model of social inequality, in which any differences between individuals and groups are attributed to environmental or cultural factors, cannot hope to ever lead to constructive policies aimed towards helping all people - regardless of their genetic potential for intelligence - to achieve their best. Even worse, certain policies which are now being advocated - such as the elimination of standardized testing - are actively harmful. To answer your categorical imperative: yes, I would much prefer to live in a society where genetic differences in the intelligence potential between individuals and groups is acknowledged, because it would lead to far more sensible social policies which would benefit all - high IQ or low IQ. Finally, even if you consciously choose not to care about IQ, eventually reality will rear its ugly head and force you to take it into consideration if current social policies cause a lowering of average IQ. If there is such a drift towards a lowering of IQ of the general population, whether through higher reproduction rates of the low IQ segments of the population or immigration, many of the amenities which you take for granted, such as a functioning infrastructure, which can only be supported by a population which is above a certain IQ threshold, will start to deteriorate to such a degree that the IQ problem will become impossible to ignore.
- mcguire 6y ago
  "To answer your categorical imperative: yes, I would much prefer to live in a society where genetic differences in the intelligence potential between individuals and groups is acknowledged, because it would lead to far more sensible social policies which would benefit all - high IQ or low IQ." By including groups there, are you going so far as to say, without further information, that "Group X statistically has attribute Y and individual Z is in Group X, therefore Z has (or perhaps should be treated as having) attribute Y? Further, what specific "sensible social policies" would you have in mind? Reproductive assistance for higher-IQ segments? Inhibition for lower-IQ segments? Testing for immigration? What else?
  - obvthrowaway195 6y ago
    I would never advocate for treating an individual as anything else than an individual. Just because an individual belongs to group X does not mean, obviously, that he will exhibit the average traits of group X. And of course, there is much overlap between different groups, so it would be illogical to instate policies that target all members of just one group in particular. All three of the policies you have proposed sound good to me. But I would already be more than satisfied if we stopped the current trends towards trying to "equalize through force". As a concrete example, right now there is a pressure for many high performing high schools across the USA to drop standardized testing in favor of quotas and lotteries, because of the low enrollment numbers of blacks and hispanics. The justification usually given for this is that, starting from the axiom that all groups are of equal ability on average, the discrepancy in numbers can only be due to some kind of racist bias in the methods of evaluation, namely standardized testing (a theory which is unable to explain the fact that asians are even more overrepresented than whites at those schools). I personally believe that this is a wrong interpretation of the numbers, that the reason for the discrepancy is to a great degree due not to some kind of bias in merit-based admission policies, but due to differences in average ability, and that the inevitable consequence of the lowering of standards which will result from the introduction of quotas and lotteries will be the destruction of the outstanding academic quality of these institutions.
notshift 6y ago
My understanding of the literature is that IQ generally becomes about fixed as you enter adulthood (early 20s). It's not fixed at 16, it's still subject to a high likelihood of change in one direction or another at that age. I think the main value of IQ on a societal level, besides identifying individuals that need help, is in recognizing that people just innately have differing abilities and, without any external influence necessary, will have different outcomes. There is a narrative being pushed very hard currently that differences in outcome between groups automatically implies discrimination, and fundamentally it's hard to argue with that logic unless you're able to accept that there are just innate differences between people and groups that cause them to have different abilities and make different choices.
- mcguire 6y ago
  "There is a narrative being pushed very hard currently that differences in outcome between groups automatically implies discrimination, and fundamentally it's hard to argue with that logic unless you're able to accept that there are just innate differences between people and groups that cause them to have different abilities and make different choices." Perhaps, but that is mostly due to the historical fact that differences in outcome between groups have been caused by discrimination and "innate differences between people and groups" has been the primary argument in favor of such discrimination---with the "differences" being significantly bogus. As a result, suggestions that the current status quo[1] is right and just on a scientific basis begin to smell of extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence. Don't get me wrong, but historically and, as far as I've seen, current IQ-related policy suggestions seem to come down to that. If IQ research were to determine that Aboriginal Australians had a median IQ of 160, I rather suspect the whole issue would disappear overnight.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > There is a narrative being pushed very hard currently that differences in outcome between groups automatically implies discrimination No, not usually automatically, though that's usually the straw man that opponents focus on; the usual actual position is that that is taken as a presumptive cause where there is a clear history of discrimination against the group, and there is not clear evidence that the difference in outcome at issue has a non-discriminatory explanation.

obvthrowaway195 6y ago

The reason why the validity of IQ as a measure of intelligence (and even the concept of "intelligence" itself in some cases) is so vociferously denied by many is precisely due to its very important implications for social policy (answers to the "So what?" question). That IQ is a valid measure of intelligence, is rooted in an individual's genetics, and that individuals and ethnic groups vary in their IQ (or average IQ, for the latter), would necessarily have to imply a complete re-evaluation of the interpretation of social inequality, and of the approaches towards mitigating it. I personally think that this re-evaluation is absolutely necessary, because the current model of social inequality, in which any differences between individuals and groups are attributed to environmental or cultural factors, cannot hope to ever lead to constructive policies aimed towards helping all people - regardless of their genetic potential for intelligence - to achieve their best. Even worse, certain policies which are now being advocated - such as the elimination of standardized testing - are actively harmful. To answer your categorical imperative: yes, I would much prefer to live in a society where genetic differences in the intelligence potential between individuals and groups is acknowledged, because it would lead to far more sensible social policies which would benefit all - high IQ or low IQ. Finally, even if you consciously choose not to care about IQ, eventually reality will rear its ugly head and force you to take it into consideration if current social policies cause a lowering of average IQ. If there is such a drift towards a lowering of IQ of the general population, whether through higher reproduction rates of the low IQ segments of the population or immigration, many of the amenities which you take for granted, such as a functioning infrastructure, which can only be supported by a population which is above a certain IQ threshold, will start to deteriorate to such a degree that the IQ problem will become impossible to ignore.

mcguire 6y ago
"To answer your categorical imperative: yes, I would much prefer to live in a society where genetic differences in the intelligence potential between individuals and groups is acknowledged, because it would lead to far more sensible social policies which would benefit all - high IQ or low IQ." By including groups there, are you going so far as to say, without further information, that "Group X statistically has attribute Y and individual Z is in Group X, therefore Z has (or perhaps should be treated as having) attribute Y? Further, what specific "sensible social policies" would you have in mind? Reproductive assistance for higher-IQ segments? Inhibition for lower-IQ segments? Testing for immigration? What else?
- obvthrowaway195 6y ago
  I would never advocate for treating an individual as anything else than an individual. Just because an individual belongs to group X does not mean, obviously, that he will exhibit the average traits of group X. And of course, there is much overlap between different groups, so it would be illogical to instate policies that target all members of just one group in particular. All three of the policies you have proposed sound good to me. But I would already be more than satisfied if we stopped the current trends towards trying to "equalize through force". As a concrete example, right now there is a pressure for many high performing high schools across the USA to drop standardized testing in favor of quotas and lotteries, because of the low enrollment numbers of blacks and hispanics. The justification usually given for this is that, starting from the axiom that all groups are of equal ability on average, the discrepancy in numbers can only be due to some kind of racist bias in the methods of evaluation, namely standardized testing (a theory which is unable to explain the fact that asians are even more overrepresented than whites at those schools). I personally believe that this is a wrong interpretation of the numbers, that the reason for the discrepancy is to a great degree due not to some kind of bias in merit-based admission policies, but due to differences in average ability, and that the inevitable consequence of the lowering of standards which will result from the introduction of quotas and lotteries will be the destruction of the outstanding academic quality of these institutions.

notshift 6y ago

My understanding of the literature is that IQ generally becomes about fixed as you enter adulthood (early 20s). It's not fixed at 16, it's still subject to a high likelihood of change in one direction or another at that age. I think the main value of IQ on a societal level, besides identifying individuals that need help, is in recognizing that people just innately have differing abilities and, without any external influence necessary, will have different outcomes. There is a narrative being pushed very hard currently that differences in outcome between groups automatically implies discrimination, and fundamentally it's hard to argue with that logic unless you're able to accept that there are just innate differences between people and groups that cause them to have different abilities and make different choices.

mcguire 6y ago
"There is a narrative being pushed very hard currently that differences in outcome between groups automatically implies discrimination, and fundamentally it's hard to argue with that logic unless you're able to accept that there are just innate differences between people and groups that cause them to have different abilities and make different choices." Perhaps, but that is mostly due to the historical fact that differences in outcome between groups have been caused by discrimination and "innate differences between people and groups" has been the primary argument in favor of such discrimination---with the "differences" being significantly bogus. As a result, suggestions that the current status quo[1] is right and just on a scientific basis begin to smell of extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence. Don't get me wrong, but historically and, as far as I've seen, current IQ-related policy suggestions seem to come down to that. If IQ research were to determine that Aboriginal Australians had a median IQ of 160, I rather suspect the whole issue would disappear overnight.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> There is a narrative being pushed very hard currently that differences in outcome between groups automatically implies discrimination No, not usually automatically, though that's usually the straw man that opponents focus on; the usual actual position is that that is taken as a presumptive cause where there is a clear history of discrimination against the group, and there is not clear evidence that the difference in outcome at issue has a non-discriminatory explanation.