3 ms·

> continue to exist after you correct for experience/education No doubt there is also discrimination. Especially if there's a real effect, it's easy for people

> continue to exist after you correct for experience/education No doubt there is also discrimination. Especially if there's a real effect, it's easy for people to be aware of that and exacerbate it with discrimination. Same as women can't do X man's job until they could. > dramatically better pre-adolescent test results. Childhood interventions to raise IQ are known to wear off at adolescence. It's not necessarily because of the adult world but perhaps because the interventions are just bringing out latent childhood abilities that normal kids don't get the opportunity to use or something like that. I don't know but you have to look at post-adolescent IQs for the effect on adult-income.

danShumway 5y ago
> No doubt there is also discrimination. Then what are you arguing about? You're calling into question the entire concept of equality activism for job/housing/education opportunities, and you don't disagree that discrimination exists? > but perhaps because the interventions are just bringing out latent childhood abilities that normal kids don't get the opportunity to use That is an extremely worrisome trend if you're trying to argue that IQ tests measure innate intelligence and not training. The whole point of an IQ test is that you shouldn't be able to "cram" for it, you shouldn't be able to "cheat" and temporarily influence the results so that they don't accurately reflect intelligence. So at the very least, this puts your claim that IQ is a permanent number that can be accurately measured before adolescence into question. You're admitting here that you don't believe IQ is a static number. You're suggesting that external interventions can bring out latent abilities that won't be captured or accounted for in a normal IQ test. That's an idea with pretty big implications. Essentially, what you're saying is that given the right environment/early-education/nutrition/etc, that test results can be artificially primed. So given that claim, why are you so certain that IQ is set in stone before preschool? How do you know that there aren't external factors that can lower IQ over time? What makes you sure that an oppressive or high-stress environment couldn't suppress or encourage those latent abilities even later in life? You don't really have any way to know that IQ tests given later in life wouldn't be subject to environmental effects that could dampen or inflate results, do you?
- exporectomy 5y ago
  > your claim that IQ is a permanent number that can be accurately measured before adolescence Not my claim. As you surely know, IQ tests are scaled by age according to how normal people develop. So an individual who undergoes unusual life experiences can easily have their IQ change with age since their development would deviate from what the rest of the population has. If every person had all the best IQ enhancing interventions, then I would expect IQ scores to be more consistent with age since the environmental factors are controlled, leaving the inherent factors to dominate. But that's not the world we live in, and you can "train for the test".
  - danShumway 5y ago
    > Not my claim. > That won't work. We know from science that the IQ gap appears before school age so it's not caused by school. I'm not going to waste my time on this if you're not going to stand by your claims. The IQ gap that appears and is measured before school age can be reduced by external intervention. Therefore, if the tests are accurate, then something is happening to those kids as they age to make their skills regress. If the early tests are not accurate, then it stands to reason that adult tests could suffer from the same problems and should be similarly distrusted. Either way, your claim that IQ tests prove that the sole cause of gaps must be introduced before children reach school age is unsubstantiated.

danShumway 5y ago

> No doubt there is also discrimination. Then what are you arguing about? You're calling into question the entire concept of equality activism for job/housing/education opportunities, and you don't disagree that discrimination exists? > but perhaps because the interventions are just bringing out latent childhood abilities that normal kids don't get the opportunity to use That is an extremely worrisome trend if you're trying to argue that IQ tests measure innate intelligence and not training. The whole point of an IQ test is that you shouldn't be able to "cram" for it, you shouldn't be able to "cheat" and temporarily influence the results so that they don't accurately reflect intelligence. So at the very least, this puts your claim that IQ is a permanent number that can be accurately measured before adolescence into question. You're admitting here that you don't believe IQ is a static number. You're suggesting that external interventions can bring out latent abilities that won't be captured or accounted for in a normal IQ test. That's an idea with pretty big implications. Essentially, what you're saying is that given the right environment/early-education/nutrition/etc, that test results can be artificially primed. So given that claim, why are you so certain that IQ is set in stone before preschool? How do you know that there aren't external factors that can lower IQ over time? What makes you sure that an oppressive or high-stress environment couldn't suppress or encourage those latent abilities even later in life? You don't really have any way to know that IQ tests given later in life wouldn't be subject to environmental effects that could dampen or inflate results, do you?

exporectomy 5y ago
> your claim that IQ is a permanent number that can be accurately measured before adolescence Not my claim. As you surely know, IQ tests are scaled by age according to how normal people develop. So an individual who undergoes unusual life experiences can easily have their IQ change with age since their development would deviate from what the rest of the population has. If every person had all the best IQ enhancing interventions, then I would expect IQ scores to be more consistent with age since the environmental factors are controlled, leaving the inherent factors to dominate. But that's not the world we live in, and you can "train for the test".
- danShumway 5y ago
  > Not my claim. > That won't work. We know from science that the IQ gap appears before school age so it's not caused by school. I'm not going to waste my time on this if you're not going to stand by your claims. The IQ gap that appears and is measured before school age can be reduced by external intervention. Therefore, if the tests are accurate, then something is happening to those kids as they age to make their skills regress. If the early tests are not accurate, then it stands to reason that adult tests could suffer from the same problems and should be similarly distrusted. Either way, your claim that IQ tests prove that the sole cause of gaps must be introduced before children reach school age is unsubstantiated.