6 ms·

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

by 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.
      - barrkel 13y ago
        FWIW, you're replying to Paul Lutus: http://www.arachnoid.com/administration/ http://www.arachnoid.com/administration/ ; I think you can assume he can read.
- 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.

by sejje 13y ago

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.
    - barrkel 13y ago
      FWIW, you're replying to Paul Lutus: http://www.arachnoid.com/administration/ http://www.arachnoid.com/administration/ ; I think you can assume he can read.
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.