5 ms·

> I attribute this to: 1) IQ 3 standard deviations above. (...) A person with an IQ at or above 145, who is also fully conversant with reality, would know that

by lutusp 13y ago

> I attribute this to: 1) IQ 3 standard deviations above. (...) A person with an IQ at or above 145, who is also fully conversant with reality, would know that IQ testing has a reputation nearly as bad the field of psychology that popularized the activity in the first place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man > 2) I've been practicing hard, 25 years. A person of your age should know better than to use IQ as a point of argument -- assuming the IQ score is real and has created a tangible intellectual outcome. With all respect.

sejje 13y ago
I don't agree. I've never used my IQ as justification for anything, granted, but I had no idea it wasn't considered a solid measurement. I just assumed it was like most of the other tests I did well on, and filed it away. You're paying more attention to it than I am.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > I don't agree. Evidence trumps opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism... > I've never used my IQ as justification for anything, granted, but I had no idea it wasn't considered a solid measurement. It isn't remotely a "solid measurement", in fact it's a field surrounded by justified controversy on multiple grounds. The two primary objections are that (a) the tests favor certain population groups and discriminate against others for reasons other than intelligence, and (b) existing tests only really measure a person's ability to take intelligence tests. > You're paying more attention to it than I am. Yes, but I'm paying exactly the same amount of attention to it as the original poster, with a different perspective.
  - truthteller 13y ago
    from your link: "The American Psychological Association's report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that in the United States IQ tests as predictors of social achievement are not biased against African Americans since they predict future performance, such as school achievement, similarly to the way they predict future performance for Caucasians." so the consensus in psychometrics is that iq tests are not systematically biased against particular groups. and of course it measures a lot more than a person's ability to take intelligence tests". just look at the "social outcomes" section of the wikipedia page...
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > The American Psychological Association's report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that in the United States IQ tests as predictors of social achievement are not biased against African Americans since they predict future performance ... The flaw in the reasoning should be obvious to anyone but a psychologist -- the test outcome becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, rather than an unbiased predictor of future performance. The contempt for science among psychologists is shocking. > so the consensus in psychometrics is that iq tests are not systematically biased against particular groups. Psychologists also came to a consensus among themselves (and, as usual, without any scientific evidence) that Asperger's was a real mental illness, and that Recovered Memory Therapy was a real therapeutic method. Fortunately, and to some extent because of these credibility issues, society is in the midst of dumping psychology as a serious endeavor: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... In summary, until there is some science in brain research, all this talk about IQ testing is overreliant on effects without any clue about causes -- on descriptions without explanations. Notice the name of President Obama's recently announced program -- the "Brain Initiative", not the "Mind Initiative". The handwriting is on the wall.
      - truthteller 13y ago
        the point is that they predict future performance equally for different groups, not just that they predict performance. your language is alarmingly exaggerated and pompous for someone who lacks basic reading comprehension skills and is entirely ignorant about the subject of intelligence testing.
        lutusp 13y ago
        > the point is that they predict future performance equally for different groups ... That is false, and its falsity has been proven repeatedly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Test_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Test_bias Quote: "However, IQ tests may well be biased when used in other situations. A 2005 study stated that "differential validity in prediction suggests that the WAIS-R test may contain cultural influences that reduce the validity of the WAIS-R as a measure of cognitive ability for Mexican American students,"[123] indicating a weaker positive correlation relative to sampled white students. Other recent studies have questioned the culture-fairness of IQ tests when used in South Africa.[124][125] Standard intelligence tests, such as the Stanford-Binet, are often inappropriate for children with autism; the alternative of using developmental or adaptive skills measures are relatively poor measures of intelligence in autistic children, and may have resulted in incorrect claims that a majority of children with autism are mentally retarded." Just one sample from a large literature on this topic. > your language is alarmingly exaggerated and pompous for someone who lacks basic reading comprehension skills and is entirely ignorant about the subject of intelligence testing. Nice argument. Do give us more samples of your logically flawed reasoning. The readers of this forum will surely appreciate your credibility sacrifice.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    >> I don't agree. > Evidence trumps opinion. I understood the parent to be saying that they disagreed that "someone that smart would have known IQ is bogus", not that they disagreed that "IQ was bogus".
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > I understood the parent to be saying that they disagreed that "someone that smart would have known IQ is bogus", not that they disagreed that "IQ was bogus". Yes, and because of how the post was worded, we may never know. I suspect (and acted on the idea that) he was disagreeing about my claim about the veracity of IQ testing, but that's just a guess.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        I think the wording is reasonably clear, and you are misreading it. "I disagree" alone tells us little, but all of the support below seems to serve much more strongly to justify disagreement with "you should know ..." than with "IQ ..."
        lutusp 13y ago
        No, actually, below the ambiguous "I disagree", we find "I've never used my IQ as justification for anything, granted, but I had no idea it wasn't considered a solid measurement." That seems clearly to point to a disagreement with the presumed objectivity of IQ testing, not its application to the OP.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        Well, apparently it is not clear, because it seems "clearly" to me to mean the other. You are taking "I had no idea that X" to be a claim of "not X"; I think it is a claim that they had no idea that X - and the pragmatic purpose of this in the conversation was "... and therefore, I don't think having no idea is crazy". I think your interpretation in this context is - at least - uncharitable.
truthteller 13y ago
"the mismeasure of man" is a garbage book by the noted fraud and liar steven jay gould. it certainly should not be used as any sort of reference on intelligence testing.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > "the mismeasure of man" is a garbage book by the noted fraud and liar steven jay gould. When you post like this, do you ever stop to think how you're making psychology and its supporters look? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man#Awards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man#Awards Quote: "The first edition of The Mismeasure of Man won the non-fiction award from the National Book Critics Circle; the Outstanding Book Award for 1983 from the American Educational Research Association; the Italian translation was awarded the Iglesias prize in 1991; and in 1998, the Modern Library ranked it as the 24th-best non-fiction book of all time.[10] In December 2006, Discover magazine ranked The Mismeasure of Man as the 17th-greatest science book of all time."
  - truthteller 13y ago
    the opinions of ignorant journalists are not really relevant. it was strongly criticized by experts in the relevant area. do you realize how intellectually lazy you look when you form strong opinions on subjects without even doing basic research first?
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > ... without even doing basic research first? If self-reference were a disease, you would be in an emergency room. You know nothing about me or the research I have conducted, apart from the fact that your argument represents an all-too-common logical error. > the opinions of ignorant journalists are not really relevant. > it was strongly criticized by experts in the relevant area. So, which is it? Did journalists decide, or did experts decide? And do you know why neither of those sources carry weight in science, a field where evidence trumps eminence? Do you know why I'm playing you along, even though you have nothing to contribute to this discussion? I just want the readers in this forum to see what passes for reasoning among psychologists and their supporters.

by lutusp 13y ago

sejje 13y ago

I don't agree. I've never used my IQ as justification for anything, granted, but I had no idea it wasn't considered a solid measurement. I just assumed it was like most of the other tests I did well on, and filed it away. You're paying more attention to it than I am.

lutusp 13y ago
> I don't agree. Evidence trumps opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism... > I've never used my IQ as justification for anything, granted, but I had no idea it wasn't considered a solid measurement. It isn't remotely a "solid measurement", in fact it's a field surrounded by justified controversy on multiple grounds. The two primary objections are that (a) the tests favor certain population groups and discriminate against others for reasons other than intelligence, and (b) existing tests only really measure a person's ability to take intelligence tests. > You're paying more attention to it than I am. Yes, but I'm paying exactly the same amount of attention to it as the original poster, with a different perspective.
- truthteller 13y ago
  from your link: "The American Psychological Association's report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that in the United States IQ tests as predictors of social achievement are not biased against African Americans since they predict future performance, such as school achievement, similarly to the way they predict future performance for Caucasians." so the consensus in psychometrics is that iq tests are not systematically biased against particular groups. and of course it measures a lot more than a person's ability to take intelligence tests". just look at the "social outcomes" section of the wikipedia page...
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > The American Psychological Association's report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that in the United States IQ tests as predictors of social achievement are not biased against African Americans since they predict future performance ... The flaw in the reasoning should be obvious to anyone but a psychologist -- the test outcome becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, rather than an unbiased predictor of future performance. The contempt for science among psychologists is shocking. > so the consensus in psychometrics is that iq tests are not systematically biased against particular groups. Psychologists also came to a consensus among themselves (and, as usual, without any scientific evidence) that Asperger's was a real mental illness, and that Recovered Memory Therapy was a real therapeutic method. Fortunately, and to some extent because of these credibility issues, society is in the midst of dumping psychology as a serious endeavor: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... In summary, until there is some science in brain research, all this talk about IQ testing is overreliant on effects without any clue about causes -- on descriptions without explanations. Notice the name of President Obama's recently announced program -- the "Brain Initiative", not the "Mind Initiative". The handwriting is on the wall.
    - truthteller 13y ago
      the point is that they predict future performance equally for different groups, not just that they predict performance. your language is alarmingly exaggerated and pompous for someone who lacks basic reading comprehension skills and is entirely ignorant about the subject of intelligence testing.
      - lutusp 13y ago
        > the point is that they predict future performance equally for different groups ... That is false, and its falsity has been proven repeatedly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Test_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Test_bias Quote: "However, IQ tests may well be biased when used in other situations. A 2005 study stated that "differential validity in prediction suggests that the WAIS-R test may contain cultural influences that reduce the validity of the WAIS-R as a measure of cognitive ability for Mexican American students,"[123] indicating a weaker positive correlation relative to sampled white students. Other recent studies have questioned the culture-fairness of IQ tests when used in South Africa.[124][125] Standard intelligence tests, such as the Stanford-Binet, are often inappropriate for children with autism; the alternative of using developmental or adaptive skills measures are relatively poor measures of intelligence in autistic children, and may have resulted in incorrect claims that a majority of children with autism are mentally retarded." Just one sample from a large literature on this topic. > your language is alarmingly exaggerated and pompous for someone who lacks basic reading comprehension skills and is entirely ignorant about the subject of intelligence testing. Nice argument. Do give us more samples of your logically flawed reasoning. The readers of this forum will surely appreciate your credibility sacrifice.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  >> I don't agree. > Evidence trumps opinion. I understood the parent to be saying that they disagreed that "someone that smart would have known IQ is bogus", not that they disagreed that "IQ was bogus".
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > I understood the parent to be saying that they disagreed that "someone that smart would have known IQ is bogus", not that they disagreed that "IQ was bogus". Yes, and because of how the post was worded, we may never know. I suspect (and acted on the idea that) he was disagreeing about my claim about the veracity of IQ testing, but that's just a guess.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      I think the wording is reasonably clear, and you are misreading it. "I disagree" alone tells us little, but all of the support below seems to serve much more strongly to justify disagreement with "you should know ..." than with "IQ ..."
      - lutusp 13y ago
        No, actually, below the ambiguous "I disagree", we find "I've never used my IQ as justification for anything, granted, but I had no idea it wasn't considered a solid measurement." That seems clearly to point to a disagreement with the presumed objectivity of IQ testing, not its application to the OP.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        Well, apparently it is not clear, because it seems "clearly" to me to mean the other. You are taking "I had no idea that X" to be a claim of "not X"; I think it is a claim that they had no idea that X - and the pragmatic purpose of this in the conversation was "... and therefore, I don't think having no idea is crazy". I think your interpretation in this context is - at least - uncharitable.

truthteller 13y ago

"the mismeasure of man" is a garbage book by the noted fraud and liar steven jay gould. it certainly should not be used as any sort of reference on intelligence testing.

lutusp 13y ago
> "the mismeasure of man" is a garbage book by the noted fraud and liar steven jay gould. When you post like this, do you ever stop to think how you're making psychology and its supporters look? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man#Awards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man#Awards Quote: "The first edition of The Mismeasure of Man won the non-fiction award from the National Book Critics Circle; the Outstanding Book Award for 1983 from the American Educational Research Association; the Italian translation was awarded the Iglesias prize in 1991; and in 1998, the Modern Library ranked it as the 24th-best non-fiction book of all time.[10] In December 2006, Discover magazine ranked The Mismeasure of Man as the 17th-greatest science book of all time."
- truthteller 13y ago
  the opinions of ignorant journalists are not really relevant. it was strongly criticized by experts in the relevant area. do you realize how intellectually lazy you look when you form strong opinions on subjects without even doing basic research first?
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > ... without even doing basic research first? If self-reference were a disease, you would be in an emergency room. You know nothing about me or the research I have conducted, apart from the fact that your argument represents an all-too-common logical error. > the opinions of ignorant journalists are not really relevant. > it was strongly criticized by experts in the relevant area. So, which is it? Did journalists decide, or did experts decide? And do you know why neither of those sources carry weight in science, a field where evidence trumps eminence? Do you know why I'm playing you along, even though you have nothing to contribute to this discussion? I just want the readers in this forum to see what passes for reasoning among psychologists and their supporters.