Why can't we talk about IQ?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
What exactly are you arguing? IQ is one of many tools used by researchers. It should be treated as such, not as the be all and end all marker of intelligence. Like any tool, it is far from perfect and needs to be used appropriately in the context of each study.
 
IQ in relation to what, exactly?
 
IQ can be misleading. And it's definitely not a good test of intelligence in the sense that it focuses only on one kind of intelligence. There's an autistic kid known as "the human camera" who can visit a place once and draw a very detailed almost perfect panoramic drawing of that place... From memory. Don't try and tell me that's not some form of intelligence, despite his IQ being probably around 70. It can be useful. But there are even more factors that diminish its usefulness, such as if someone has practiced taking IQ tests... That person will probably score higher knowing all too well how the test is structured.
 
I'm also a bit skeptical when various scientific tests just so happen to back up ignorant stereotypes of the masses. African americans happen to have lower IQ's than whites? Let me guess, Asians have really high IQs, as well as jews? This article gives no specifics, only generalities so I can't do better than generalities in return.
 
I don't see what relevance this has to pre-allo.

We already had these kind of discussions. People who believe that Bell Curve is a great book without any flaws will support it, others will oppose it.

Okay, I read the article. It is crap.
 
IQ is an outmoded criteria from a different understanding of intelligence. I doubt you'll see many use it in academic circles. A person's actual ability to succeed is inherently dependent on much more than intelligence too. You can be the smartest man of woman in the world and go unheard of because you are unable to convey your ideas effectively. Christopher Langan is a perfect example of this. He was unable to adapt to society so excluded himself from it: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

The person with the highest recorded IQ writes a column where she solves problems but was relatively unknown before the test: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant

Neither of these people have radically changed the world as one might imagine if IQ was the sole indicator of success.

(Sorry for the links not being properly formatted. I'm on my phone)
 
Yeah, the Unabomber supposedly has an IQ of 167, so who cares?
 
I don't think intelligence can ever successfully be quantified, atleast not in our lifetime
 
Mornhavon said:
People don't like talking about IQ because you start getting into Identity politics.

It doesn't matter if IQ is accurate or not, you are going against the religion of egalitarianism, and the human mind will rationalize (doublethink?) it away.
Click to expand...

By "identity politics," do you mean "racism"?
 
sliceofbread136 said:
I don't think intelligence can ever successfully be quantified, atleast not in our lifetime
Click to expand...
Agreed.

In light of IQ as a potential 'measuring stick.' Might as well debate about working memory (aka. random access memory).
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10513398)
(http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.30)
(https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap:10:0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:case1301710207)
And for kicks: (http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation...ents-for-a-child-prodigy-video/Working-memory) (http://www.lumosity.com/)
 
I know the scumb*g that wrote this dissertation. And, the whole paper reeks nonsense all over. No wonder why it was voted to be retracted. I will give my vote 10/10 times again to pull this piece of garbage and throw it to the fire where it belongs.

/end of rant
 
am I the only one a little weirded out by the resident posting IQ blogs in the pre med section?
 
Mr Avante said:
I know the scumb*g that wrote this dissertation. And, the whole paper reeks nonsense all over. No wonder why it was voted to be retracted. I will give my vote 10/10 times again to pull this piece of garbage and throw it to the fire where it belongs.

/end of rant
Click to expand...

SpecterGT260 said:
am I the only one a little weirded out by the resident posting IQ blogs in the pre med section?
Click to expand...
Right on!

Then again, browser tab says: Opinion: Why can't we talk about IQ? - Jason Richwine - POLITICO.com. And with 1750+ comments on that 'article,' was there any need for it here on SDN?😕
 
Last edited:
SpecterGT260 said:
am I the only one a little weirded out by the resident posting IQ blogs in the pre med section?
Click to expand...
Just noticed that it says resident when you said that. If true, kinda strange.

So how did this article make no mention of The Mismeasure of Man, which was republished in an updated form in response to The Bell Curve?

Also, it really doesn't matter what kind of averages you can draw about groups - ethnic or whatever, as any application to an individual would be committing the ecological fallacy.
 
I'm fascinated by IQ, and I think that the blogger made some interesting points, although I am also very skeptical of his motivation, especially given his political agenda. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/heritage-foundation

I would like to see more honest discussion of IQ as an indicator of ability, but I doubt that will happen. Ever.

Perhaps interestingly, there is evidence that the highest-performing people (as our society gauges professional performance) are neither at the high end nor at the low end of normal, but between one and two standard deviations above average. If this is true, most of us are better off not being geniuses, but rather, just above average.

Because we tend to treat intelligence as something you can choose, we tend to place value judgments on those who have lower intellectual capacity. After all, if you can choose to be smart or not, you must be bad if you choose to be not-smart... right? So people who fall victim to scam artists or make poor decisions are to blame for their choices, and therefore deserve them. At least, that's how we tend to view things, and that's how many "smart" people justify taking advantage of "suckers".

I don't know, I find the whole blog post reprehensible. The proposal that immigration be tied to IQ testing is also pretty repugnant, as is the unjustified implication that the average IQ differences between U.S. blacks, whites, and Hispanics are genetic, permanent, and functionally significant.
 
Sephiroth said:
Just noticed that it says resident when you said that. If true, kinda strange.

So how did this article make no mention of The Mismeasure of Man, which was republished in an updated form in response to The Bell Curve?

Also, it really doesn't matter what kind of averages you can draw about groups - ethnic or whatever, as any application to an individual would be committing the ecological fallacy.
Click to expand...

Look at the OP's posting history. It somewhat explains why something like this would find its way to pre allo.
 
Mornhavon said:
What I mean is that some issues involve how people see themselves.
If you are skeptical of those issues, and you criticize them, you end up criticizing not only the issue but the identity of those people who have those views.

If I believe in God and consider myself one of god's children and blah blah blah, and you want to debate the existence of god with me, there is much more on the line for me than the actual matter of god's existence, you are also in some sense attacking my existence, and I'm not going to be able to have a reasonable/rational conversation with you because I feel I'm being personally attacked.
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point. I know what identity politics are. I'm saying that the particular IQ discussion the author of this article wants to have is racist and massively offensive. That's why people don't wanna hear it, not because it challenges their self-concept. Basically, the problem with it is this right here:

Psychologists have tested and long rejected the notion that score differences can be explained simply by biased test questions. It is possible that genetic factors could influence IQ differences among ethnic groups, but many scientists are withholding judgment until DNA studies are able to link specific gene combinations with IQ.
Click to expand...

It seems like he's just trying to find a fancy way of saying "asian>white>hispanic>black because science!" IQ heritability is about 0.50, but he's just hand-waiving away all of the other potential reasons for these group differences and going straight to the conclusion that some races have genetically superior intelligence. BUUUUUUULLLLLSSSSSHHIIIIIIIIIIIIT.
 
I feel like all the arguments against using IQ scores apply to the MCAT as well. :ninja:
 
Mornhavon said:
He's not saying any group is better than another, just that they have different average IQ's and that it is genetic. There's no reason to be so butthurt about it.
Click to expand...

No, he's saying that they have different IQ's, that it's genetic, and that IQ is a non-biased measure of intelligence.

Are you saying that being more intelligent isn't better?
 
Mornhavon said:
He's not saying any group is better than another, just that they have different average IQ's and that it is genetic. There's no reason to be so butthurt about it.
Click to expand...

There are links posted to Mismeasure of Men and Ecological Fallacy. It would be a good read for you.
 
Mornhavon said:
He's not saying any group is better than another, just that they have different average IQ's and that it is genetic. There's no reason to be so butthurt about it.
Click to expand...

Indeed, not many reasons to be butthurt about something that's about as factual as creationism.

Also LOL about the MCAT/SAT part. "How to pull facts out of your bottom 101."
 
Mornhavon said:
He's not saying any group is better than another, just that they have different average IQ's and that it is genetic. There's no reason to be so butthurt about it.
Click to expand...

But he is wrong. The IQ differences are not genetic. Do you understand what heritability is?
 
Mornhavon said:
IMO, it's kind of silly to believe that genetics are heavily involved in diseases a person can have, height, skin color, temperament, immunocompetence, blood type, etc...and yet believe that somehow intelligence is some special trait that is totally determined by a person's environment and nothing else.
Click to expand...

🙄 Lol, you're such a troll. Genes do not affect every trait to the same degree or in the same way. Google heritability. You'll have to learn how these things work eventually if you want to become a doctor.
 
Mornhavon said:
The correlation between SAT and IQ is something like .85, and I imagine it's very high for the MCAT as well.

People are already sorted by IQ, using stand-ins like admission tests that are heavily g-loaded, or an ivy league degree (which requires high scores on g-loaded tests to gain admission).
Click to expand...

Exactly...this is my concern with the IQ test being used as a correlate for 'intelligence' rather than 'testing aptitude'. I mean, of COURSE the SAT and the IQ test have a high correlation, they're both: standardized exams which rely little on prior knowledge and primarily reflect testing aptitude.

This also could explain some of the disparities between racial/cultural groups: populations with higher poverty rates tend to have lower literacy rates, which is a major confound for these sorts of aptitude tests, as most testing is predicated on reading comprehension to some degree. I'd need better evidence to conclude that it was a) actually measuring intelligence (however you define that) or b) actually a genetic effect rather than a cultural/socioeconomic one.
 
Mornhavon said:
One study I saw showed that a person's chance of losing their virginity by the age of 19 was much lower if they had a higher IQ. An IQ of 130 meant a person had 1/5th the likelihood of someone with an IQ of 100. :naughty:
Click to expand...

Did you by any chance come across a study that showed people in low 10% IQ having hard time controlling their bonner all the way into adulthood?
 
IQ means nothing when you don't pair it with hard work.

High IQ + hard work >>> hard work >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> high IQ (these are usually those losers that are like "I'm smart, just lazy")
 
Plue00 said:
IQ means nothing when you don't pair it with hard work.

High IQ + hard work >>> hard work >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> high IQ (these are usually those losers that are like "I'm smart, just lazy")
Click to expand...

Completely agree. I hate when people drop that line, demonstrates a lack of modesty and an inability to own their own lack of (or limited) success. "It's not that I couldn't do it, I just didn't want to". Suuuuure.
 
The guy who wrote that is just trying to push his anti-immigration agenda.
 
mornhavon said:
one study i saw showed that a person's chance of losing their virginity by the age of 19 was much lower if they had a higher iq. An iq of 130 meant a person had 1/5th the likelihood of someone with an iq of 100. :naughty:
Click to expand...

bs
 
Strikes me as a little ridiculous to compare two concepts that are as notoriously difficult to adequately define as race and intelligence; even more so to try to craft policy or something on the basis of these comparisons.

That said, I still think Stanford-Binet IQ testing is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it puts everyone on the same scale. While it's true that that scale is flawed in how it organizes people, and that the metric it evaluates has a nebulous definition, if we accept and understand its limitations I think it can still be at least somewhat informative. Second, it organizes people into a normal distribution with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. This allows quick estimation of the rarity of a given IQ.

Even so, I think it's mostly interesting as a sort of novelty.
 
BlueLabel said:
Strikes me as a little ridiculous to compare two concepts that are as notoriously difficult to adequately define as race and intelligence; even more so to try to craft policy or something on the basis of these comparisons.

That said, I still think Stanford-Binet IQ testing is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it puts everyone on the same scale. While it's true that that scale is flawed in how it organizes people, and that the metric it evaluates has a nebulous definition, if we accept and understand its limitations I think it can still be at least somewhat informative. Second, it organizes people into a normal distribution with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. This allows quick estimation of the rarity of a given IQ.

Even so, I think it's mostly interesting as a sort of novelty.
Click to expand...

I think it's absolutely a decent measure of test-taking ability. I'm not so certain that that is a great stand-in for intelligence. I feel as if most great test-takers are highly intelligent, but not all highly intelligent people are great test-takers, so if you're using TTA to stand in for intelligence, you're going to have a high incidence of false negatives.
Of course, this is all just me going with my gut; I have no real stats to back this up, except for the fact that poor education, poor English (if you're not a native speaker), and other factors which do not reflect intelligence can lower test-taking ability and IQ measurements.
 
I always like humbleness.

"I'm speaking from experience. My Harvard Ph.D..."
It sounds like, "yo , i went to betta skull than u so u should her me out dawg".

Instead of high IQ, I prefer cure for diseases. Instead of Harvard Ph.D., I prefer some reliable data.
 
Mornhavon said:
Without tests how do you make decisions?

Even if a test is a poor judge (like the MCAT for actual aptitude to be a doctor) how do you discriminate between candidates?

Why do we have SATs and MCATs at all? They are IQ tests in all but name.

Of course you can make it a holistic process where you get points for being attractive and vocal about how hard you supposedly work, but that is entirely subjective.

IQ/SAT/MCAT are the only real fair measure, because everyone takes the same test.
Click to expand...

I never argued against using tests or anything of the sort...besides, that would screw me over, as standardized testing is probably the single best skill I have! :meanie: I simply said that I don't believe that test-taking ability = intelligence, and that there are some situations where intelligent people would score poorly on these aptitude tests. Now, test-taking is a strong measure of scholastic aptitude (especially as the success of a student is often determined by more testing), and I think it's fine as an objective measure for entrance...I just think that the IQ test in particular is misleadingly labelled as an 'intelligence' test, and that it could lead to false negatives when being used as a diagnostic for intelligence.

Sidenote: I also don't really consider the MCAT to be equivalent with the SAT or the IQ test, as there is a substantially higher knowledge threshold before 'testing aptitude' becomes the predominant factor in score determination.

PS is your username from the Green Rider? I've been meaning to ask since I first saw you around this site!
 
IQ was never intended to be measured among a group of people, such as electrical engineers or biologists.

Basically, "which major has the highest IQ?" was never what IQ tests were intended for.

I hope the OP understands this. This is a measure of individual intellectual performance, although I do not believe it is truly a measure of success among other things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
should we talk about why we pursued x activity in the activity section?
Replies
1
Views
453
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Y
Should I talk about my time ?
Replies
2
Views
764
Goro
Goro
C
Is it disingenuous to talk about research opportunities for the "Why Us" section if I don't have any research experience?
Replies
10
Views
1K
catalyst1000
C
vex10
Question about Additional Info Essay (hobby vs. why us)
Replies
8
Views
914
vex10
vex10
K
talking about prior authorization in MA experience
Replies
2
Views
507
LizzyM
LizzyM
Top