3 ms·

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 hi

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.

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.