Do you believe in IQ tests?

I believe that IQ tests are an accurate reflection of social realities.


  • Total voters
    18
Of course the Asians are Chinese and Japanese but i think that just means they work harder..."the old put their noses into their books".
 
IQ tests show that:

Blacks are dumber than whites who are dumber than Asians [or yellows, no idea where brown and red fit in this prism]

Thiests are dumber than atheists.

Women are dumber than men.


Do you believe these are social realities? Please explain your reasoning.

I believe that IQ test work perfectly. If you do well on them you will do well on future IQ tests - with some vagaries related to statistical anomalies. Intelligence is much broader than the abilities tested in IQ tests.

Given the issues you raised, I must point out also how much one's background and 'training' in the broadest sense can affect the results of being tested.

But more importantly, look at an IQ test and then think about how much of life intelligence is NOT BEING TESTED.
 
So do they reflect social realities? Or do they reflect something else? Can they be used for arriving at any conclusions?
 
So do they reflect social realities? Or do they reflect something else? Can they be used for arriving at any conclusions?
I would guess that certain kinds of tasks will be performed better or learned more quickly by people who do well on IQ tests.

Yes, I think they reflect social realities, the results that is.

I do think they reflect also certain current abilities in people.
 
What is your opinion of studies that compare IQ test results between men and women. . . .
I would be skeptical. Even in our relatively enlightened era, boys and girls grow up in substantively different environments with substantively different expectations.
. . . . blacks and whites. . . .
Well duh. Talk about substantively different environments and expectations.
. . . . theists and atheists? Are those results valid?
Hmm. Never thought about that one. Most atheists grew up as theists, at least until their university years. So the difference in environment and expectations isn't as strong. If anything, there's probably a strong correlation between atheism and a university education, and the whole purpose of education is to make ya smarter.
Is it possible to believe [for example] that theists are dumber than atheists on the basis of such tests, while rejecting that women are dumber than men and blacks are dumber than white based on the same tests?
Is it possible to believe that? I'm sure there are people who believe that, if that's what you're asking. Perhaps you meant to ask if it's reasonable to believe so?

I think any difference between two people that has a profound impact on their world view might possibly affect their answers on an IQ test. I don't know how much research has gone into exploring all possible sources of bias in IQ testing. Probably not nearly enough.
 
Is it possible to believe [for example] that theists are dumber than atheists on the basis of such tests, while rejecting that women are dumber than men and blacks are dumber than white based on the same tests?
i would say that IQ tests are subjective in nature.
you can take a test today and the very same test 6 months from now and get two different, sometimes very different, scores.
i would also say that the answers are an interpretation of what is being asked.

i believe the question is whether IQ tests above a certain threshold have any value.

IQ tests deal heavily in statistics. statistics can be some of the most damnable lies on the planet if you don't know exactly what you are looking at. they can be used to "prove" almost anything, you can "prove" churches are the cause of murder for example.
 
Fraggle:

They are correlation studies. Kinda like: Owning a car increases the likelihood of brushing your teeth.

I would guess that certain kinds of tasks will be performed better or learned more quickly by people who do well on IQ tests.

Yes, I think they reflect social realities, the results that is.

I do think they reflect also certain current abilities in people.

So in your opinion:

women/blacks/theists are likely to be less intelligent than men/whites/atheists is a social reality.

What conclusions do you draw from the above?
 
Last edited:
So in your opinion:

women/blacks/theists are likely to be less intelligent than men/whites/atheists is a social reality.
You cannot draw that conclusion from my posts. Well, I guess you can, since you seem to have done that, but I think you left out some of my assertions.

I do think that social reality may cut into some groups' ability to answer the specific kinds of questions asked on IQ tests. I would even go so far as to say that those tests measure a certain kind of intelligence, but have no way of determining, for example, how experienced people are with those kinds of questions, how they have been trained around self-expectations on that kind of test, let alone all the issues around which small fragment of intelligence is tested by such a test.

As far as my conclusions....

One reason the tests are the way they are is because of money.

Another is that the people who do well on that kind of intelligence test are the ones who have designed the test.

This is intelligence, other things are not intelligence.

A nice analogy for this would be the way Europeans viewed Native Americans.
 
You cannot draw that conclusion from my posts..

I derived that conclusion from your own posts that stated:

Yes, I think they reflect social realities, the results that is.


What is the difference between your assertion and my conclusion?
 
IQ tests have also shown that Semitic and Oriental races have a higher average IQ than white people. So it's not all a white conspiracy from the West to prove Aryan superiority :rolleyes:

Why is it so out of the question that there may be variation within the human race? No-one is saying that "blacks are dumber than whites" - that is an absurd and false statement made by someone who doesn't understand the word 'average'. Nor is it saying that there aren't as many intelligent black people as there are intelligent white people. All this study suggests is that the average Black Joe would have a slightly lower IQ than the average White Joe.

And FYI, IQ tests have not shown that men have a higher average IQ than women. All that has been shown is that those with the very highest IQs in society are mostly men - there is an important difference.

Why are human scientific studies only acceptable if they find 'fault' in white, straight, average men?
 
IQ tests have also shown that Semitic and Oriental races have a higher average IQ than white people. So it's not all a white conspiracy from the West to prove Aryan superiority :rolleyes:

Why is it so out of the question that there may be variation within the human race? No-one is saying that "blacks are dumber than whites" - that is an absurd and false statement made by someone who doesn't understand the word 'average'. Nor is it saying that there aren't as many intelligent black people as there are intelligent white people. All this study suggests is that the average Black Joe would have a slightly lower IQ than the average White Joe.

And FYI, IQ tests have not shown that men have a higher average IQ than women. All that has been shown is that those with the very highest IQs in society are mostly men - there is an important difference.

Why are human scientific studies only acceptable if they find 'fault' in white, straight, average men?

IOW, you believe in IQ tests as a reflection of social realities? Thats alright. As long as you consistently believe in all of them.
 
They are correlation studies. Kinda like: Owning a car increases the likelihood of brushing your teeth.
And we're all familiar with the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc, hopefully? (In English, "Correlation implies causation," which is false.) If women score lower on IQ tests, look for the reason and don't just stop because you've found the one that is obvious.
So in your opinion: women/blacks/theists are likely to be less intelligent than men/whites/atheists is a social reality.
That's not my opinion. I don't know whom you're addressing that statement to.
What conclusions do you draw from the above?
That most people--especially Americans--are innumerate, and especially bad with statistics. But I already knew that so it's not a new conclusion. :)

IQ measures the things the people who devise the tests want it to measure. It can't help but be a culturally biased measure of intelligence.

A cat chasing a mouse across complex terrain is performing some astounding calculations in three-dimensional multi-body kinematics. Why does that not make the cat more "intelligent" than the average PhD in physics? Because we don't regard that particular cognitive ability as important.
 
A cat chasing a mouse across complex terrain is performing some astounding calculations in three-dimensional multi-body kinematics. Why does that not make the cat more "intelligent" than the average PhD in physics? Because we don't regard that particular cognitive ability as important.

Also probably because I have no idea what three-dimensional multi-body kinematics are? :p
 
Example of questions in IQ test that I followed recently are like this:

1. Which one of the five is least like the other four?
Dog Mouse Lion Snake Elephant​

2. Which number should come next in the series?
1 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 5 - 8 - 13​
8 13 21 26 31​

3. Which one of the five choices makes the best comparison?
PEACH is to HCAEP as 46251 is to:​
25641 26451 12654 51462 15264​

4. Mary, who is sixteen years old, is four times as old as her brother. How old will Mary be when she is twice as old as her brother?
20 24 25 26 28​


I think (this kind of) IQ test are only a measure of logic. The higher the score you can get, the more logical the way you think, but that is all. It does not say someone is more creative, have more indurance, have more patience, can manage life better, can perform well in social relationship (which I think is an important attribute), etc.
 
I think it measures educational ability in a very limited sphere. If you do not have a concept of numbers, for example, you cannot do well in an IQ test.
 
I think it measures educational ability in a very limited sphere. If you do not have a concept of numbers, for example, you cannot do well in an IQ test.

Not really. I think it measures the way how you associate things (and its corresponding logic), reading comprehension, and general stuffs like that. One might never have formal education, but can always answer question such as in no. 4. It never asks advance math formulas.
 
Uh, not if you have NO concept of numbers. We are taught alphabets and numbers from a young age, but otherwise, it is not a concept that comes "naturally" to us. :)

How do you know "2" is "more" than "1" or "follows" it, for instance? We do not know how to think outside these concepts because we have been "brainwashed" into accepting them. In nature, there is no "number", its a completely artificial construct that humans have created because of the way they think. Same for all other symbols, like language. A foreign language is meaningless to you, unless you learn the interpretation of the symbols. Tamil has 53 alphabets, English 26. Does that make a difference? You probably could not even pronounce several Tamil words if you were not trained that way from a very young age. An interesting question to me is, do we think in patterns because our brain is naturally like that? Or because it has been trained like that?
 
Last edited:
Not really. I think it measures the way how you associate things (and its corresponding logic), reading comprehension, and general stuffs like that. One might never have formal education, but can always answer question such as in no. 4. It never asks advance math formulas.

Interesting. So basically that means that who ever designs the IQ test can change it/modify it to give him the results that he wants. Hmm, let me think about that a bit, okay? :D

Sounds quite similar to how polls are designed to give the "proper" responses of the questioned.

Baron Max
 
IOW, you believe in IQ tests as a reflection of social realities? Thats alright. As long as you consistently believe in all of them.

The average Stone Age man had a life-expectancy of 18, yet archaeologists consistently age bodies from this period as being in their late twenties and over at the time of their death. Scratch the surface and you'll find that infant mortalities were extremely high - averages can be deceiving.

This is why your OP is actually a collection of false statements, and a demonstration of how data can be twisted. No valid IQ researcher has ever said that "blacks are dumber than whites", nor will they ever.

Of course these results do not reflect 'social realities' (as much as I hate such pretentious terms :rolleyes:). Society can not be described in such simplistic terms when there is so much variation within it. In the end, you have to ask yourself, why do these results even matter? Do they change who any of us are?
 
Uh, not if you have NO concept of numbers. We are taught alphabets and numbers from a young age, but otherwise, it is not a concept that comes "naturally" to us. :)

How do you know "2" is "more" than "1" or "follows" it, for instance? We do not know how to think outside these concepts because we have been "brainwashed" into accepting them. In nature, there is no "number", its a completely artificial construct that humans have created because of the way they think. Same for all other symbols, like language. A foreign language is meaningless to you, unless you learn the interpretation of the symbols. Tamil has 53 alphabets, English 26. Does that make a difference? You probably could not even pronounce several Tamil words if you were not trained that way from a very young age. An interesting question to me is, do we think in patterns because our brain is naturally like that? Or because it has been trained like that?

I'll skip this first. I'll be back to your question if later I can find the gross enrollment ratio index among countries.
 
Back
Top