Is IQ a good measure of intelligence?

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Phill, Mar 31, 2016.

?

Is IQ a good measure of intelligence?

  1. Yes

    40.0%
  2. No

    60.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,529
    Sexist= The belief that one gender is superior to the other.
    Dogist= The belief that one breed of dog is superior to the others.
    Climate-ist= The belief that one climate is superior to others.
    Computerist = belief that one computer is superior to others.
    Heigthist = the belief that one height is superior to others.
    This could get silly-----(maybe already has?)
    Just add a "ist" or an "ism" to damned near anything..........

    Then ask yourself just exactly what is the quality on which you have focused.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,529
    sculptor said:
    Superior race, for average score on Iq tests = whatever race you ascribe to the Chinese.

    As previously mentioned : The construct "race" is too broad a brush to yield precise results".
    The construct "race" was "formulated" long ago when we knew much less. Time to refine or move on.

    Accurate or not? I am reasonably convinced that eventually, we will know how to spot future superior abilities in embryos.
    Then, in potential combinations of specific genetic materials. (it seems most likely that people are already trying to do this---with limited success)
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,665
    I'll say 'yes' for the same reason that Side Show Bob gave: If intelligence is whatever IQ tests supposedly measure, then IQ tests will be a good measure of it simply by definition. Of course the problem with that is that it's circular.

    So my more considered response is going to be 'no'. I have several reasons.

    One is that I've known a number of very proud Mensa members who didn't particularly impress me, despite their supposedly high IQ scores.

    And on a more theoretical plane, I think that human cognition is composed of a number of rather different skills. There's mathematical reasoning, which is very different than verbal skills. The ability to read, write and interpret text in one's native language is different than the ability to learn new languages. There are skills associated with visual and geometrical imagination and there's musical talent. The ability to make sound decisions in conditions of distraction, confusion and uncertainty is clearly an extremely important cognitive skill. (More likely a set of related skills, such as the ability to prioritize sensory inputs, assign informal weights to intuited probabilities and so on.) Creativity is probably complex too and has different flavors involving different sub-skills. There are social skills, athletic prowess and many more.

    My experience, both personally and in observing others, is that these various cognitive and behavioral skills aren't distributed equally and often aren't highly correlated with each other. Two individuals with equal IQs might have very different psychological abilities. Some people are good at some things and not very good at others. I have a personal talent for philosophical reasoning and score very well (top few percent) on verbal skills in English. But I'm no better than average in mathematical talent and my social skills, athletic coordination and ability to learn new languages are all probably below average.

    "Hard science academics" often requires considerable mathematical talent, especially if we are talking about physics and its cognate subjects. That's why the introductory calculus sequence is such a rite-of-passage and weeds out so many would-be physics majors who lack sufficient cognitive skills in abstract mathematical reasoning. But I'm not sure that's the same thing as "IQ". Many of those weeded out might have considerable talent for other subjects that emphasize their strengths.

    Are you suggesting that IQ is correlated with 'cultures'? Or are you imagining that it's biological and innate? Those aren't necessarily the same thing, unless the cultures represent distinct biological lineages.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2016
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,665
    The idea that all perceived differences in ability and success between human populations are the result of sociological as opposed to biological variables, and hence can be attributed to moral unfairness in how society is organized. (In the Marxists' case, to evil economic class relationships.) Contemporary race-class-gender theory has expanded this Marxist-derived doctrine out to encompass race and "gender" relationships as well.
     
  8. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Look, we know that you like to trust the claims of racists, but most people would like to know if the position that they are investigating is one that racists use to try to convince people to adopt their political positions and further their aims. For most people, they want to take extra care to make sure that they aren't adopting racist positions.
     
  9. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    It got silly right from the start, since sexism is more than simply a belief. It's nice to pretend that there aren't actual real-world consequences for racism, but it doesn't do any good.
     
    sculptor likes this.
  10. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,665
    It's just intellectual laziness, where people imagine that use of a single perjorative word to dismiss ideas they don't like can replace having to intelligently address those ideas.
     
    Phill likes this.
  11. Phill Banned Banned

    Messages:
    144
    And not only that, it's also used place of having no logical rebuttal.
     
  12. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Look, the ideas that Phill is presenting us with are racist ideas: he is heavily promoting the idea that certain "races" (which he defines differently in different posts) are smarter than others because of some inherent differences in these groups that cannot be changed. He uses sources from racists: not simply people who promote this idea, but people associated with white power groups.

    It is not "intellectual laziness" to take the time to point out the content and context of these claims. It is "intellectual laziness" to pretend that there are no racists out there, that they do not have an agenda, and that they are not trying to pursue this agenda by presenting information that might deceive people into thinking that there is some scientific authority for their position.

    This is the second thread that Phill has started on this topic. It seems like an attempt to start this topic again where someone will not immediately find the analysis that people have done on his earlier claims demonstrating their racist content and sources.
     
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,529
    Of course it got silly-----------------that was the point.

    The sexism definition is straight from a dictionary----------albeit not the top line definition.

    And, depending on specificity, each is true.
    eg: dogist----------for coon hunting, my uncle's bluetick coon hound had few peers.
    The trick as always is in recognizing the strengths and weaknesses, and not assuming that the bluetick would be the best bird dog, guard dog, retriever, sheep dog, or house pet.
    As/re: Sexist, I have said: Men build houses, women build communities.----------Always, different strengths and weaknesses, some from genetics, and some from culture.
    Even if one could prove that a certain "race" were better at scoring well on one test, this does not automatically translate to "superior" in all measures.

    Broad brushes have the danger of creating blindness to real knowledge.
     
  14. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Equating the preference of one particular dog's ability over others to racism and sexism is racist and sexist.
     
  15. Phill Banned Banned

    Messages:
    144
    This thread isn't about whether or not you decide to call something "racist". Of course, anything connected to race differences is "racist". So what? Can you contribute on topic: whether IQ tests are valid.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2016
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,529
    Call 'em like you see 'em.
    Even if you're wrong, at least you're honest.
     
  17. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,397
    So, you can answer the question if you're racist or not.

    Answering would drop the question.
     
  18. Phill Banned Banned

    Messages:
    144

    At this point I am reporting this mindless garbage, for what good it'll do.
     
  19. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,397
    Cool!

    What about quantum tunneling?
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,465
    That's not your topic.

    Your topic is whether the extant sociological races you assume to be well described are equivalent to genetic races separable by IQ scores

    Nonsense.

    At least, not in real existence as a dogma. And it is not "communist". And it is incoherent as an accusation - remember this other bit of supposed "communist dogma"? -> "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need?" That's a direct presumption of varied ability.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2016
  21. Phill Banned Banned

    Messages:
    144
    I didn't realise people could only discuss one topic, defined by you. Oh wait, you are just posting garbage.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,465
    You are quite welcome to abandon your sole topic here, and address more reasonable and less thoroughly rebutted ideas you may have.
     
  23. Phill Banned Banned

    Messages:
    144
    No, please address my question of your view in the thread discussing race. This thread is about IQ. Those points must be covered before the intersection can be explored. You are aware of something called "constructing an argument", which proceeds in stages? Are you unaware of that or garbage posting and wasting everybodies time?
     
    sculptor likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page