3 ms·
> IQ is remotely relevant to actual intelligence > IQ is popularly perceived as determined by the genes and unchangeable > IQ tests have a negative effect on
by maximus-decimus 4y ago
> IQ is remotely relevant to actual intelligence
> IQ is popularly perceived as determined by the genes and unchangeable
> IQ tests have a negative effect on test takers
> IQ is often used in "scientific" racism to promote pseudoscientific social theories
1. They say IQ doesn't measure intelligence because according to them "Intelligence is the ability to solve problems". Well IQ at least claims to do that with its with its fluid intelligence component. Maybe creativity is independent of IQ, and also corresponds to better problem solving skills, but that doesn't change the fact IQ is still a predictor of problem solving skill.
2. If you can prove IQ can be boosted, that would be revolutionary. There's the n-back that improves IQ according to some studies, but that's highly controversial. But in any case, I don't see how not being able to change it makes it a bad measure. Me not being able to make myself taller doesn't make height a bad measure.
3. People not handling well knowing their intelligence doesn't have anything to do whatsoever with IQ being a good or bad measure of intelligence.
4. Again, people using metrics to be racist is an argument against measuring intelligence, not against IQ itself. You could make the same argument about literally any other system measuring intelligence.
A point I find interesting is "school improves IQ". What if the reason we can't seemingly improve people's IQ was because the school system already brought them to their full IQ potential? Maybe when we're trying to increase people intelligence, because we're testing on people already at school, it's like conducting studies on how to get muscular on people who are already maxed out gym bros. It's gonna be very hard to get them more muscular/intelligent if they're already reached max allowed by their body through intense daily workout/schooling.
- the_only_law 4y ago> A point I find interesting is "school improves IQ". What if the reason we can't seemingly improve people's IQ was because the school system already brought them to their full IQ potential? The hell kinda schools do they have around you? I promise you no school I ever attended even tried to do that. Anyone who had potential had to skirt around the school system.
- Pigalowda 4y agoI don't think your statement is disagreeing with his? Your school system elevated the students to the system's IQ upper bound. A different school system or style of education would have a different upper bound.
- maximus-decimus 4y agoMy argument is that the system is good enough to get the kids to their biological upper bound. Otherwise, we would be able to increase their IQ further through other means, but it seems we just can't. I don't think the school system is necessarily efficient at it, but kids do spend an insane amount of time in school. I imagine people would reach their athletic upper bound too if they spent 8 hours a day in the gym from the age of 5 to the age of 18.
- fredgrott 4y agoif you go back to the original goal of IQ tests, it was the measurement of learning progress and it's log tied to age of those under test.
- beckingz 4y ago> 4. Again, people using metrics to be racist is an argument against measuring intelligence, not against IQ itself. You could make the same argument about literally any other system measuring intelligence. Yeah, the real backlash against IQ is against the implied policy that people think ought to be implemented if IQ is real and determined genetically, as they believe that intelligence is related to moral worth, which raises the question of "what do we do with the worse people if we have a tool that can determine who is a better or worse human." It's a complex mixup of Equity vs Equality.