3 ms·
Er, sure, if you can define some objective measures of performance that are taken to be symptomatic of intelligence and correlate those with IQ test results --
by mjburgess 3y ago
Er, sure, if you can define some objective measures of performance that are taken to be symptomatic of intelligence and correlate those with IQ test results -- and then show test-retest validity across a wide population (etc. etc.), then you'd have a case.
But all attempts to do this, i'm aware of, show in fact IQ tests don't behave this way. That all correlation with objective measures of performs, with reliable measures, end up random >100 -- and weakly non-random <100.
So what we, in fact find, is that IQ tests only reliably correlate in the 'mental retardation' region of performance.
There is, possibly, a sort of non-objective culturally feeling to the kinds of people who might do well on IQ tests. Call these personalities, "puzzler bureaucrats" it isnt clear that even for people in this population we're percing any sort of objective intelligence-related performance.
Eg., suppose we had an objective measure of intelligence based on a deep causal model of the brain and how it interacts with body/environment. Suppose we found out that a population who score 100-110 on IQ tests were vastly more intelligent than another scoring 120-130.
Now, could we find independent measures of performance to substantiate that? Yes, trivially. Take, eg., a group of CEOs and a group of maths undergrads. The former, could by supposition, have a much higher performance on a variety of objective measures.
- sokoloff 3y ago> So what we, in fact find, is that IQ tests only reliably correlate in the 'mental retardation' region of performance. Even assuming we agree that that’s the only usefulness of an IQ test, in what way does that make them not a measure of intelligence? A ruler is still a measure of length even if it can’t measure the size of an atom or the distance to the moon.
- mjburgess 3y agoIt's more like a binary classifier: retarded, not-retarded.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoI don't understand why you're presupposing "performance" as a measure of intelligence, and what you mean by it. No one is saying that intelligence alone (above a threshold) equates to demonstrated, or even potential, life outcomes.
- mjburgess 3y agothen your definitions are circular, "intelligence is whatever the IQ test measures, assuming it measures anything" this is no way to establish validity or reliability. you need an independent theory of intelligence and a variety of indepenent objective measures -- otherwise the whole enterprise is circular
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoAgain, I wrote that I don't understand what you mean by "performance", so you can't claim a circular definition yet. In the context of intelligence or IQ the word "performance" means to me either demonstration of something (and I don't understand what you expect CEOs to be demonstrating other than attaining a particular social position), or the "performance score" of the Wechler IQ test. > you need an independent theory of intelligence Sure. We have some of these. Despite it's flaws and limitations I'm partial to portions of Guilford's Structure of Intellect. > and a variety of indepenent objective measures The various sub-tests in an IQ test are nominally independent, yes? Going back to your "CEOs", I don't see how a social position can be assumed to be objective when it is subjectively contingent on external social processes.