3 ms·

Serendipity - just the other day I was replying to a comment about education and IQ and explained I didn't believed in ethnic differences of IQ, but also in IQ

by guylhem 14y ago

Serendipity - just the other day I was replying to a comment about education and IQ and explained I didn't believed in ethnic differences of IQ, but also in IQ altogether - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4680279 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4680279 At least looking for "dumb genes" is more plausible, because if IQ is an aggregate of multiple functions, some functions could be separately damaged Copy paste: The current perspective of IQ and ethnicities show that while there might be slight differences, they are dwarfed by the differences in the education process. Regarding IQ: First, I don't believe that IQ exist as a measurable quantity - IQ is too many things thrown together in a single bad. Tests group together various things which may be handled by different subsystems in the brain. If there is something called IQ, it's an aggregate. Anyway, if there was such a unique quantity, actual data shows a progression of IQ scores in time - therefore if the tests are considered accurate and unbiased, it must be a "quantity" that can evolve based on the society a person lives it. It should then be considered not as a value, but as a function depending on a variable called society. I do not know if studies have tried to measure the accuracy of repetitive measurement in low education adults enrolled in a learning program. If there are such studies and if they show inconsistent result (ie any change of IQ), then IQ should be considered as a function of 2 variables : f(society, personal experience). Now, even if we consider that at a time t it could be accurately measured and that societal bias could be removed, considering how other qualities (such as determination, work ethic, consistency, creativity, competitiveness...) influence the outcome of any human activity, it seems foolish to rank people based on just one quality - especially if we don't know the other values, and their individual ponderation in the end result. This ponderation could also be different depending on the activity, and IQ provide an absolute advantage in some activities (rhetoric?), but say determination would give an absolute advantage in other activities (startups?).

lumberjack 14y ago
>Anyway, if there was such a unique quantity, actual data shows a progression of IQ scores in time - therefore if the tests are considered accurate and unbiased, it must be a "quantity" that can evolve based on the society a person lives it. It should then be considered not as a value, but as a function depending on a variable called society. Seriously? Couldn't it just be the subjects getting used to the tests? That's not the point though. It doesn't mean subjects are getting smarter. It just means they are learning, which is natural. However if we have two subjects and subject A gets 115 IQ points the first time while subject B gets 104, 111, 113, 115 IQ points after four consecutive test respectively, it's clear that subject A is superior intellectually in that they can achieve more in less time.
- guylhem 14y ago
  That's not exactly the idea. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect Maybe a full society is getting used to the tests, or maybe the tests are biased. Even with you example (considering repetitive test at the same time on 2 person from the same society), it could show many things: a) that the measurement is flawed b) that you should retest A to see if he also get better scores c) failing that, A has a fixed IQ score while B can improve d) if A improves too what's the limit? Finally, "it's clear that subject A is superior intellectually " - even if B would get say 120 on its final test while A ends with 118??

by guylhem 14y ago

lumberjack 14y ago

>Anyway, if there was such a unique quantity, actual data shows a progression of IQ scores in time - therefore if the tests are considered accurate and unbiased, it must be a "quantity" that can evolve based on the society a person lives it. It should then be considered not as a value, but as a function depending on a variable called society. Seriously? Couldn't it just be the subjects getting used to the tests? That's not the point though. It doesn't mean subjects are getting smarter. It just means they are learning, which is natural. However if we have two subjects and subject A gets 115 IQ points the first time while subject B gets 104, 111, 113, 115 IQ points after four consecutive test respectively, it's clear that subject A is superior intellectually in that they can achieve more in less time.

guylhem 14y ago
That's not exactly the idea. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect Maybe a full society is getting used to the tests, or maybe the tests are biased. Even with you example (considering repetitive test at the same time on 2 person from the same society), it could show many things: a) that the measurement is flawed b) that you should retest A to see if he also get better scores c) failing that, A has a fixed IQ score while B can improve d) if A improves too what's the limit? Finally, "it's clear that subject A is superior intellectually " - even if B would get say 120 on its final test while A ends with 118??