5 ms·

The consequence of not offering classes on IQ and human intelligence

2 points by noch 3y ago

zero-sharp 3y ago
IQ research is obviously valuable. But how should we interpret and apply that research? Does the average person know? Would that be part of the education? It's not hard to see that reducing people to a number can be dehumanizing.
ggm 3y ago
Who should attend these classes? Everyone? Students of what age? Educators? Doctors? Conflating opinions with facts is bad, sure, but some of the opinions about IQ testing reflect societal problems as much as problems with the test and its interpretation. Education about IQ testing could also be put in context of eugenics, social policy across history. Intelligence testing has ugly roots.
- noch 3y ago
  > Education about IQ testing could also be put in context of eugenics, social policy across history. Intelligence testing has ugly roots. I honestly don't mean to sound condescending but, as you grow older and gather more life experience, you'll understand how the above quoted paragraph is absurd, even though it sounds like a smart and reasonable statement to you now.
  - ggm 3y ago
    So .. how old are you? I'm 62. Maybe your condescension is warranted but can we establish what the relativities are in the context you set? As I've grown older it never ceases to amaze me how ugly debate online can be when a simple "I don't agree" will do.
    - noch 3y ago
      > So .. how old are you? I'm 62 Ah. Wonderful. I'm roughly a decade younger than you so we can speak more meaningfully. It's not that I don't agree with you, it's that: if we want to learn about a given phenomenon x, we don't do that by studying things that are about x but not x. We try to narrow our approach to the simplest measurable features of exactly the thing because the world is complicated and confusing! The younger set tend to always want to debate about something other than the phenomenon in question because they have a point to make that they feel strongly about and making the point is more important than the phenomenon to be studied (E.g. You try to teach a class on monetary inflation, and a vocal student immediately wants to discuss income inequality and economic justice rather than the actual math of hedonic adjustments). That was the heuristic I applied when reading your comment. So, in reference to the article, the important questions are those listed, starting with: what _is_ intelligence? (Because humanity hasn't yet even developed a sophisticated science of intelligence, we can't yet intervene to reliably increase it in individuals.)
      - zero-sharp 3y ago
        Wow your replies are disappointing. Initially you gave me the impression that you had a direct counterpoint to ggm's statement on intelligence testing. But now you're bringing the conversation down to "what is intelligence?"? Sure, there is a point to make about scientific rigor. But when you have 10-20 different, highly desirable, cognitive traits that all correlate positively with IQ, then the evidence is definitely saying something. >if we want to learn about a given phenomenon x, we don't do that by studying things that are about x but not x. But if we want to learn about x, we often have to consider the real life implications of x.
        noch 3y ago
        > But if we want to learn about x, we often have to consider the real life implications of x. You want to argue against a point no one is making so … go nuts.
        zero-sharp 3y ago
        Guy. Look at your replies. You're talking down to people while at the same time adding next to nothing of substance to the conversation at hand. It's borderline not even worth responding to.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wmlive 3y ago
Instead of learning about IQ and intelligence, the more instructive approach is to enlighten oneself about what constitutes ignorance and stupidity. Being able to relate to the resulting insights is the first step to understand what intelligence might actually be.
hackerlight 3y ago
Meh, I can think of more important things I want the general population to know. Let's start with basic statistics and data interpretation, media literacy, skepticism, theory of mind, case studies of genocides and rise of authoritarianism, civics, social and group psychology.
- noch 3y ago
  > Meh, I can think of more important things I want the general population to know. Meh, everyone has their pet causes that they believe are the more or most important thing while everything else is a "distraction". The context of the paper however is teaching of psychology students who, by definition, are required to understand human cognition. Therefore, much of your syllabus wouldn't be appropriate for them, and the rest is already taught.

2 points by noch 3y ago

IQ research is obviously valuable. But how should we interpret and apply that research? Does the average person know? Would that be part of the education? It's not hard to see that reducing people to a number can be dehumanizing.

ggm 3y ago

Who should attend these classes? Everyone? Students of what age? Educators? Doctors? Conflating opinions with facts is bad, sure, but some of the opinions about IQ testing reflect societal problems as much as problems with the test and its interpretation. Education about IQ testing could also be put in context of eugenics, social policy across history. Intelligence testing has ugly roots.

noch 3y ago
> Education about IQ testing could also be put in context of eugenics, social policy across history. Intelligence testing has ugly roots. I honestly don't mean to sound condescending but, as you grow older and gather more life experience, you'll understand how the above quoted paragraph is absurd, even though it sounds like a smart and reasonable statement to you now.
- ggm 3y ago
  So .. how old are you? I'm 62. Maybe your condescension is warranted but can we establish what the relativities are in the context you set? As I've grown older it never ceases to amaze me how ugly debate online can be when a simple "I don't agree" will do.
  - noch 3y ago
    > So .. how old are you? I'm 62 Ah. Wonderful. I'm roughly a decade younger than you so we can speak more meaningfully. It's not that I don't agree with you, it's that: if we want to learn about a given phenomenon x, we don't do that by studying things that are about x but not x. We try to narrow our approach to the simplest measurable features of exactly the thing because the world is complicated and confusing! The younger set tend to always want to debate about something other than the phenomenon in question because they have a point to make that they feel strongly about and making the point is more important than the phenomenon to be studied (E.g. You try to teach a class on monetary inflation, and a vocal student immediately wants to discuss income inequality and economic justice rather than the actual math of hedonic adjustments). That was the heuristic I applied when reading your comment. So, in reference to the article, the important questions are those listed, starting with: what _is_ intelligence? (Because humanity hasn't yet even developed a sophisticated science of intelligence, we can't yet intervene to reliably increase it in individuals.)
    - zero-sharp 3y ago
      Wow your replies are disappointing. Initially you gave me the impression that you had a direct counterpoint to ggm's statement on intelligence testing. But now you're bringing the conversation down to "what is intelligence?"? Sure, there is a point to make about scientific rigor. But when you have 10-20 different, highly desirable, cognitive traits that all correlate positively with IQ, then the evidence is definitely saying something. >if we want to learn about a given phenomenon x, we don't do that by studying things that are about x but not x. But if we want to learn about x, we often have to consider the real life implications of x.
      - noch 3y ago
        > But if we want to learn about x, we often have to consider the real life implications of x. You want to argue against a point no one is making so … go nuts.
        zero-sharp 3y ago
        Guy. Look at your replies. You're talking down to people while at the same time adding next to nothing of substance to the conversation at hand. It's borderline not even worth responding to.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

wmlive 3y ago

Instead of learning about IQ and intelligence, the more instructive approach is to enlighten oneself about what constitutes ignorance and stupidity. Being able to relate to the resulting insights is the first step to understand what intelligence might actually be.

hackerlight 3y ago

Meh, I can think of more important things I want the general population to know. Let's start with basic statistics and data interpretation, media literacy, skepticism, theory of mind, case studies of genocides and rise of authoritarianism, civics, social and group psychology.

noch 3y ago
> Meh, I can think of more important things I want the general population to know. Meh, everyone has their pet causes that they believe are the more or most important thing while everything else is a "distraction". The context of the paper however is teaching of psychology students who, by definition, are required to understand human cognition. Therefore, much of your syllabus wouldn't be appropriate for them, and the rest is already taught.