4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
        noch 3y ago
        > You're talking down to people while at the same time adding next to nothing of substance to the conversation at hand. Cool. Thanks for contributing much of substance. Or is your only contribution tone policing according to your weird standard of what constitutes discourse?
  - ggm 3y ago
    I think its not a good idea to teach the statistics and model of I.Q. and not teach the socialised history of its (mis)application. Science and society are inexorably interlinked and there is probably no field of human endeavour which does not have downsides, which therefore need to be discussed in learning about that field. I do not believe I.Q. is any different in that regard. The relationship of I.Q. to the eugenics movement, its application to social policy justifying the sterilisation of people at the low extreme, to exclude immigrants, to argue for substantive racial differences justifying laws of exclusion and difference, I really don't think can be ignored. "Importance" is in the eye of the beholder I find. If it's not important to you, so be it. I don't doubt there is a model of intelligence which an I.Q. test can try to quantify but I doubt intelligence a singleton, is quantifiable so simply, or based on the evidence to hand that rules based on the statistics of intelligence do very much good.
    - noch 3y ago
      > Science and society are inexorably interlinked and there is probably no field of human endeavour which does not have downsides Ha! You're definitely not 62. This is something high schoolers and undergrads say and think is a profound and true observation but it's trivial. An exercise: Try saying "there is probably no field of curing cancer which does not have downsides" > Importance" is in the eye of the beholder I find. No it isn't. Moral relativism will not get you far, which is what life teaches. The whole point of education is to learn to discern an objective hierarchy of importance. E.g. play video games or study for test. We then say "that person has good judgement" when they can consistently figure out what is truly important which allows them to make progress in life. The reason political battles, even if frequently silly, are so heated is because people do believe certain values are absolutely more important than those of their opponents and are willing to fight for them. Anyway, now we're digressing. But thanks for the conversation and have a good week.

by noch 3y ago

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.
      - noch 3y ago
        > You're talking down to people while at the same time adding next to nothing of substance to the conversation at hand. Cool. Thanks for contributing much of substance. Or is your only contribution tone policing according to your weird standard of what constitutes discourse?
- ggm 3y ago
  I think its not a good idea to teach the statistics and model of I.Q. and not teach the socialised history of its (mis)application. Science and society are inexorably interlinked and there is probably no field of human endeavour which does not have downsides, which therefore need to be discussed in learning about that field. I do not believe I.Q. is any different in that regard. The relationship of I.Q. to the eugenics movement, its application to social policy justifying the sterilisation of people at the low extreme, to exclude immigrants, to argue for substantive racial differences justifying laws of exclusion and difference, I really don't think can be ignored. "Importance" is in the eye of the beholder I find. If it's not important to you, so be it. I don't doubt there is a model of intelligence which an I.Q. test can try to quantify but I doubt intelligence a singleton, is quantifiable so simply, or based on the evidence to hand that rules based on the statistics of intelligence do very much good.
  - noch 3y ago
    > Science and society are inexorably interlinked and there is probably no field of human endeavour which does not have downsides Ha! You're definitely not 62. This is something high schoolers and undergrads say and think is a profound and true observation but it's trivial. An exercise: Try saying "there is probably no field of curing cancer which does not have downsides" > Importance" is in the eye of the beholder I find. No it isn't. Moral relativism will not get you far, which is what life teaches. The whole point of education is to learn to discern an objective hierarchy of importance. E.g. play video games or study for test. We then say "that person has good judgement" when they can consistently figure out what is truly important which allows them to make progress in life. The reason political battles, even if frequently silly, are so heated is because people do believe certain values are absolutely more important than those of their opponents and are willing to fight for them. Anyway, now we're digressing. But thanks for the conversation and have a good week.