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. Phill Banned Banned

    Messages:
    144
    I'd like to apologise for all of the garbage posting in this thread. You are addressing the topic. In emotional subjects like this people tend to resort to cheap diversion tactics to avoid the issue, compounded by what seems to be a sense of their moral superiority in their undemonstrated egalitarian beliefs. It's almost like a religion.

    Anyway, you bring up some anecdotes, and your main point seems to be that cognitive abilties are not correlated, which impugns a general factor. That is a valid argument, but it rests on data establishing that. Do you have some?
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,099
    Reread the OP. The IQ scores of "races and nations" is the topic right there in the beginning, and your sole topic of discussion since.

    You haven't even bothered, for example, to address the claim that IQ scores are the best predictors of success or failure in real world "cognitive tasks". It's not worth your time to even find an example. Whereas you have spent many paragraphs and wasted links and so forth on your pet notion that IQ scores measure the extent to which the sociological races vary genetically in their cognitive abilities.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2016
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Phill Banned Banned

    Messages:
    144
    It's only you that's talking about "sociological" races. Please at least bash your irrelevant strawman in the correct thread.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Just like you don't get to control the lives of the people you think are inferior, you don't get to control the content of this thread. Treating racism as if it is just a matter of personal preference contributes to racism.
    I have been. I have been pointing out that you seem to be using the topic to promote the idea of specific racists.

    Why don't you address the topic and show us your examples of real world cognitive tasks closely related to IQ tests? The ones with success so well predicted by IQ tests?
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,099
    Do I have to quote your own OP post back to you? Races and nations - your terms - are right there. And the relationship of IQ scores to them is your sole topic of discussion since.
     
  9. Phill Banned Banned

    Messages:
    144
    You are a liar.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,099
    More unsupported assertion. The thread's right in front of you - show, don't tell.
     
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,436
    Ice baby
    You are responding in this thread as though it were the other thread.
    Feeling a tad demented today are we?
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,099
    While remaining accurate and relevant. Amazing coincidence. You'd almost think I was replying to the same poster and the same bs.
     
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,436
    same poster, different threads different queries.
    If I were to ask you how tall your horse was, and on another day ask if your daughter was married, to which you answered 14 hands, I might think you quite mad.
     
    trevor borocz johnson likes this.
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,099
    If they are so different, how come my accurate and relevant and specifically written responses remind you so much of the other thread?

    Read the OP. The topic is the average IQ of races and nations - and never mind the nations.
     
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,061
    Mod Note

    Here is a quick reminder of the Phill's opening post in this thread:


    I have highlighted the part that is relevant to this particular discussion in that one (Phill) is denying he ever said it and the other (sculptor) doesn't seem to have read and understood that the OP is really just the same discussion as in the other thread Phill posted.

    Disturbingly, Phill has made various claims in his OP that are not supported in any way, shape or form. For example, despite studies that clearly showed that what it means to be intelligent differs greatly across all cultures, Phill makes an erroneous claim without any form of scientific support. To remind Phill, each culture is different and as was clearly evidenced in this and the other thread, "race" is a social and political construct and the science clearly supports this. To wit, what one considers intelligent in one culture, another culture will not consider it to be the same.

    If Phill needs a reminder, here are some scientific papers that deal specifically with the concept of intelligence and how it is perceived between different cultures:


    http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligence.aspx

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1693428/

    http://www.wwu.edu/culture/Sternberg.htm

    In looking at the last page and a half of this thread, Phill has done everything but discuss this thread's topic as per the OP and has instead insisted on resisting discussing the points he raised in his OP. Since this thread is pretty much exactly the same as the other thread he has started, I don't see the point in keeping it open when the person who started the thread refuses to discuss the points he raised in his OP and is instead, trying to change the subject of the thread because he either:

    a) Does not understand his own argument.
    b) Cannot remember, either deliberately or mistakenly, his own comments in the OP.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page