3 ms·

> I fail to see how IQ tests are racially biased While there are some concerns that have been raised about bias within the tests themselves[1], in my experienc

> I fail to see how IQ tests are racially biased While there are some concerns that have been raised about bias within the tests themselves[1], in my experience the concern about testing among actual educators is usually that the tests are pitched as objectively "measuring intelligence" when in reality they measure a confluence of factors. Intelligence is certainly a major factor but external factors such as having a stable home with quiet times that are conducive to studying, good nutrition, good role models, and good teachers play a major role as well. There have been controversial attempts to control for those factors, for example by including information about the test takers socioeconomic status, but for the most part "intelligence tests" do not attempt to control for external variables. So it's impossible to tell how much of the delta in scores between two individuals reflects actual differences in their intelligence compared to differences in their environment and starting conditions. The risk of tracking students solely based on such tests is that you end up compounding the existing penalties of having a bad environment. Don't get me wrong, I think testing has an important role to play, but we should be honest and stop pretending that these are "intelligence tests". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Test_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Test_bia...

N1H1L 5y ago
Also something like the presence of lead in your drinking water has strong, demonstrated effects on IQ for example. Some of the poorest communities in the US by the way have some of the highest lead contents in their water supplies BTW.
908B64B197 5y ago
> the tests are pitched as objectively "measuring intelligence" when in reality they measure a confluence of factors. "The first practical intelligence test was developed between 1905 and 1908 by Alfred Binet in France for school placement of children. Binet warned that results from his test should not be assumed to measure innate intelligence or used to label individuals permanently." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Early_IQ_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Early_IQ...
thegrimmest 5y ago
Why would you expect someone who doesn't have a stable home life, good nutrition, or good role models to succeed in a gifted program? Why are these factors somehow distinct when determining whether a person is "intelligent"? How would failing the tests "compound" these problems if the outcome of failure is that nothing happens to you? Edit: also your link doesn't cite any serious claim that these tests are inappropriate for use within a westernized country like the US.
- asoneth 5y ago
  > Why would you expect someone who doesn't have a stable home life, good nutrition, or good role models to succeed in a gifted program? Interesting. To me it seems like intelligent students with negative environmental factors would yield the highest ROI from being admitted into a gifted program. Just look at the testimonials from commenters in this thread who came from humble beginnings and credit gifted programs with helping them climb the social ladder. Whereas sufficiently well-off kids have parents who can make sure they get excellent educational resources and will be fine regardless of how they score on some test. > Edit: also your link doesn't cite any serious claim that these tests are inappropriate for use within a westernized country like the US. To be clear, I agree that concerns about inherent cultural bias within the tests themselves are somewhat overblown. The real issue is that the tests do not solely measure intelligence and yet we act as if they do.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    How would admitting someone to a gifted program affect their nutrition, or domestic situation? Many of the testimonials from commenters read as children who were under-stimulated, not malnourished. In this case there would be no reason to expect they wouldn't be able to meet the criteria (pass the test) of these programs. Indeed placing smart kids into gifted programs does help them, that's why these programs should not be abolished. However IQ doesn't fluctuate that much over one's lifespan, so at worst we're missing some children on the edges, which is inevitable in any human system.
    - 5y ago
pjscott 5y ago
> Intelligence is certainly a major factor but external factors such as having a stable home with quiet times that are conducive to studying, good nutrition, good role models, and good teachers play a major role as well. Tests like Raven's Progressive Matrices [1] should make all of these things irrelevant except nutrition, since the tasks involved are things nobody really studies for. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices
- asoneth 5y ago
  > should make all of these things irrelevant except nutrition That certainly looks like an improvement, but I would imagine that things like poverty and the student's home situation would still play a similar role to nutrition. That is: given two children of equivalent raw "intelligence", if one has a stable home situation with loving parents who stress focus and discipline and the other bounces between homes in the foster care system with no good role models, I would expect the former to score higher on just about any test you could give them. > the tasks involved are things nobody really studies for Perhaps that is true today, but I see no reason Goodhart's law would not apply -- if you start basing a student's educational opportunities on how well they score on an RPM test, then a cottage industry of RPM test prep will emerge. There are some tests that are exceedingly hard to train for (e.g. dual n-back comes to mind) but looking at RPM it doesn't seem like something that would take much practice to pick up some reasonable strategies. Again, I still think testing is very useful, especially for spotting outliers in a similar-enough population and ensuring they get additional resources necessary to excel. I'm just skeptical about social scientists' claims that intelligence can be objectively measured by a multiple-choice test in a way that cannot be gamed by people with enough resources.
- paulpauper 5y ago
  the interesting thing is, racial IQ gaps are wider or persist more so for culture-fair tests than purportedly biased questions.
  - asoneth 5y ago
    Do you have a link? I am curious if the researchers controlled for income.

N1H1L 5y ago

Also something like the presence of lead in your drinking water has strong, demonstrated effects on IQ for example. Some of the poorest communities in the US by the way have some of the highest lead contents in their water supplies BTW.

908B64B197 5y ago

> the tests are pitched as objectively "measuring intelligence" when in reality they measure a confluence of factors. "The first practical intelligence test was developed between 1905 and 1908 by Alfred Binet in France for school placement of children. Binet warned that results from his test should not be assumed to measure innate intelligence or used to label individuals permanently." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Early_IQ_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Early_IQ...

thegrimmest 5y ago

Why would you expect someone who doesn't have a stable home life, good nutrition, or good role models to succeed in a gifted program? Why are these factors somehow distinct when determining whether a person is "intelligent"? How would failing the tests "compound" these problems if the outcome of failure is that nothing happens to you? Edit: also your link doesn't cite any serious claim that these tests are inappropriate for use within a westernized country like the US.

asoneth 5y ago
> Why would you expect someone who doesn't have a stable home life, good nutrition, or good role models to succeed in a gifted program? Interesting. To me it seems like intelligent students with negative environmental factors would yield the highest ROI from being admitted into a gifted program. Just look at the testimonials from commenters in this thread who came from humble beginnings and credit gifted programs with helping them climb the social ladder. Whereas sufficiently well-off kids have parents who can make sure they get excellent educational resources and will be fine regardless of how they score on some test. > Edit: also your link doesn't cite any serious claim that these tests are inappropriate for use within a westernized country like the US. To be clear, I agree that concerns about inherent cultural bias within the tests themselves are somewhat overblown. The real issue is that the tests do not solely measure intelligence and yet we act as if they do.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  How would admitting someone to a gifted program affect their nutrition, or domestic situation? Many of the testimonials from commenters read as children who were under-stimulated, not malnourished. In this case there would be no reason to expect they wouldn't be able to meet the criteria (pass the test) of these programs. Indeed placing smart kids into gifted programs does help them, that's why these programs should not be abolished. However IQ doesn't fluctuate that much over one's lifespan, so at worst we're missing some children on the edges, which is inevitable in any human system.
  - 5y ago

pjscott 5y ago

> Intelligence is certainly a major factor but external factors such as having a stable home with quiet times that are conducive to studying, good nutrition, good role models, and good teachers play a major role as well. Tests like Raven's Progressive Matrices [1] should make all of these things irrelevant except nutrition, since the tasks involved are things nobody really studies for. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices

asoneth 5y ago
> should make all of these things irrelevant except nutrition That certainly looks like an improvement, but I would imagine that things like poverty and the student's home situation would still play a similar role to nutrition. That is: given two children of equivalent raw "intelligence", if one has a stable home situation with loving parents who stress focus and discipline and the other bounces between homes in the foster care system with no good role models, I would expect the former to score higher on just about any test you could give them. > the tasks involved are things nobody really studies for Perhaps that is true today, but I see no reason Goodhart's law would not apply -- if you start basing a student's educational opportunities on how well they score on an RPM test, then a cottage industry of RPM test prep will emerge. There are some tests that are exceedingly hard to train for (e.g. dual n-back comes to mind) but looking at RPM it doesn't seem like something that would take much practice to pick up some reasonable strategies. Again, I still think testing is very useful, especially for spotting outliers in a similar-enough population and ensuring they get additional resources necessary to excel. I'm just skeptical about social scientists' claims that intelligence can be objectively measured by a multiple-choice test in a way that cannot be gamed by people with enough resources.
paulpauper 5y ago
the interesting thing is, racial IQ gaps are wider or persist more so for culture-fair tests than purportedly biased questions.
- asoneth 5y ago
  Do you have a link? I am curious if the researchers controlled for income.