Ah, right. Yeah, there are some age-old criticisisms of IQ test like translating into a different language can skew the result, or relying on concepts that are cultural but not obviously cultural (like the way buildings are shaped) can skew the result. I’m not generally interested in comparing IQ results between countries or even for people of differing first language though so these don’t especially concern me so long as I can be sure a study averts the issue.
From the paper you linked:
there exists a gap in what they are believed to measure and what they do
Hard agree. IQ cannot be said to measure intelligence. But for instance, it correlates well with success (level of education (eventually) reached, or $ in a capitalist society) and I’d be surprised to find any major journal publishing a paper which disputes that.
I’m not generally interested in comparing IQ results between countries or even for people of differing first language though so these don’t especially concern me so long as I can be sure a study averts the issue.
My point is the variability between test groups calls into question the reliability of IQ as a concept as a whole. If IQ is an innate measurement of intellect for humans in general, then the reliability of the test shouldn’t be culturally constrained.
for instance, it correlates well with success (level of education (eventually) reached, or $ in a capitalist society) and I’d be surprised to find any major journal publishing a paper which disputes that.
Yes, but I could make the same claim about a plethora of other correlations with more confidence like having wealthy parents.
IQ is not a measurement of human intellect in general.
I don’t think there’s a scientific consensus of what IQ really measures.
Regarding correlation with success, I should have specified that the correlation still exists even when controlling for birth environment.
I would say that would be extremely difficult to definitively prove. IQ is more of a social study than a hard science, typically this kinda data is more suggestive than it is definite.
An intelligence quotient (IQ) is a total score derived from a set of standardized tests or subtests designed to assess human intelligence.[1]
What exactly are you claiming? That it’s not a test to measure intellect? That IQ is pseudoscience? Or that it’s not specifically generalized intellect?
It’s polite etiquette to mention what you’re quoting.
Scores from intelligence tests are estimates of intelligence. Unlike, for example, distance and mass, a concrete measure of intelligence cannot be achieved given the abstract nature of the concept of “intelligence”.
It’s polite etiquette to mention what you’re quoting.
It’s obviously a common definition of IQ… It doesn’t really matter where it’s from as it shows that general definitions of IQ claim it’s a test of generalized intellect.
Your quote doesn’t really refute my argument, or clarify what claim you are making?
I’d say IQ is an attempt at concretizing a notion of intelligence. There’s little consensus on what intelligence really means, so there’s not much more to say than that. In other words, IQ is just a number. More relevant is what IQ can be found to correlate with.
Ah, right. Yeah, there are some age-old criticisisms of IQ test like translating into a different language can skew the result, or relying on concepts that are cultural but not obviously cultural (like the way buildings are shaped) can skew the result. I’m not generally interested in comparing IQ results between countries or even for people of differing first language though so these don’t especially concern me so long as I can be sure a study averts the issue.
From the paper you linked:
Hard agree. IQ cannot be said to measure intelligence. But for instance, it correlates well with success (level of education (eventually) reached, or $ in a capitalist society) and I’d be surprised to find any major journal publishing a paper which disputes that.
My point is the variability between test groups calls into question the reliability of IQ as a concept as a whole. If IQ is an innate measurement of intellect for humans in general, then the reliability of the test shouldn’t be culturally constrained.
Yes, but I could make the same claim about a plethora of other correlations with more confidence like having wealthy parents.
IQ is not a measurement of human intellect in general. Also, the fact that the test is flawed does not mean it is not useful in some contexts.
Regarding correlation with success, I should have specified that the correlation still exists even when controlling for birth environment.
I don’t think there’s a scientific consensus of what IQ really measures.
I would say that would be extremely difficult to definitively prove. IQ is more of a social study than a hard science, typically this kinda data is more suggestive than it is definite.
There may not be scientific consensus on what IQ measures, but IQ=intellect is widely considered pseudoscience.
What exactly are you claiming? That it’s not a test to measure intellect? That IQ is pseudoscience? Or that it’s not specifically generalized intellect?
It’s polite etiquette to mention what you’re quoting.
It’s obviously a common definition of IQ… It doesn’t really matter where it’s from as it shows that general definitions of IQ claim it’s a test of generalized intellect.
Your quote doesn’t really refute my argument, or clarify what claim you are making?
I was quoting the same page you were quoting.
I’d say IQ is an attempt at concretizing a notion of intelligence. There’s little consensus on what intelligence really means, so there’s not much more to say than that. In other words, IQ is just a number. More relevant is what IQ can be found to correlate with.