andrewducker: (Alone without the stupid people)
[personal profile] andrewducker
Can anyone tell me if these kinds of results are cross-cultural and cross-temporal?

Date: 2010-07-03 02:23 pm (UTC)
matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (Default)
From: [personal profile] matgb
I have seen other evidence and datasets that can lead to similar conclusions; high acheivers in some academic fields (especially sciences), low acheivers and the prison population, etc.

It's something that needs to be looked at, but very important it's looked at carefully, just because there might possibly be far fewer females with IQ above 140 doesn't mean they can't/don't exist (given I live with one, for example).

But it also might show a bias in what IQ actually measures, it's a particularly narrow form of intelligence that I've neve given much credence to.

Date: 2010-07-03 05:26 pm (UTC)
matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (Default)
From: [personal profile] matgb
Yes, but both GCSEs and SATs judge academic intelligence, and define "jobs requiring intelligence" without making a value judgement about what intelligence is.

Seriously, I score incredibly highly on most intelligence scores, including IQ papers, but I'm useless at a lot of things others are very good at.

As an example, I'm "smarter" than my car mechanic, but he can open up the bonnet, fix the car quickly, and put it back together again.

I've helped rebuild an entire engine and it still makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Same applies to other non "intelligence" based skills; why is a very good farmer less intelligent because (s)he understands when to plant, when to fertilise, when to harvest, how to judge the weather, etc?

Date: 2010-07-04 01:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] random-redhead.livejournal.com
Anyone can learn anything with the right teaching. You have the confidence and self assurance to seek out the right teaching, not be put off by not gaining from the teaching style you are first offered.

Is solving mathematical equations learned by rote? A complex system of knowing what to apply where, which of ~16 thingies to use. Because it is on a blackboard or computer screen it is awarded more value than something in a field.

Computers are just a matter of delving into that stuff, being facscinated by it (from an early age) so of course you understand them better.

Date: 2010-07-03 03:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ms-cataclysm.livejournal.com
I did some reading about this when I had recruitment responsibilities which I dimly remember and will try to summarise.

Almost any form of IQ measurement is problematic. The "pioneer" who invented the term IQ was later exposed as faking his results.So,the first issue is whether there is actually a meaningful result in the first place.

It's generally agreed that IQ tests are culture specific and culture dependent, although some modern tests are supposed to be better than the earlier ones. Results are generally considered to be more reliable in the 90-120 range -if someone is at either end of the scale, it is much harder to assess them .

The 11 plus exams have changed over the last 80 years but the general trend is that girls do relatively better each year while boys do relatively worse.

Opinion is divided as to whether this is the result of social improvements for girls or worse social conditions for boys or something else entirely .

I'd expect a more recent Scottish result to be flatter with markedly fewer sub 90 boys , fewer sub 90 girls and more over 115 girls.






Date: 2010-07-03 07:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] parthenia14.livejournal.com
1932? Really?

Probably doesn't apply today, at least not to that extreme.

Oh wait wait wait. It's how they plotted the graph. Looks a bit neat.

Date: 2010-07-03 09:53 pm (UTC)
innerbrat: (opinion)
From: [personal profile] innerbrat
IQ is a load of bollocks.

I mean, that's my own personal opinion, but.


Sorry, just read your above comments. I don't change my opinion, but I wouldn't have commented at all if I had read the comments first. It was rash of me.
Edited Date: 2010-07-03 09:56 pm (UTC)

Date: 2010-07-04 09:48 pm (UTC)
innerbrat: (opinion)
From: [personal profile] innerbrat
I don't know where those numbers themselves come from, so I can't comment themselves.

I do know that IQ tests were originaly designed to highlight stage of educational development in order to improve teaching, which works a priori on IQ not being innate.

I do know that Cyril Burt's work on twin studies that seemed to show an innate IQ became highly controversial as it came to light the data may have been faslified.

I do know that IQ tests were developed in directions intended to 'prove' certain a priori assumptions about innate 'intelligence' being pooled in certain classes and races.

I am extremely suspicious of the idea that the diversity of human mental processes can be delineated to a singular one dimensional scale, as this directly conflicts with my experience with people. Nevertheless, this is what an 'Intelligence Quotient' claims to be able to do.

Tied into this, I have never seen 'intelligence' succinctly defined in any way that doesn't boil down to 'does well on IQ tests'.

I do know that my own IQ as tested over some years as a child varied across 30 points, which elsewhere in the scale is something like the difference between an average person and a classifiable moron, or in the other direction, a near-genius.

I also know that a number of studies on child development and learning seem to imply that the narrative of a single innate intelligence is in itself harmful to development; a child who is told they are 'clever' or have a high IQ, often proceeds to do perform less well than a comparable child who is congratulated on trying hard. I find this concurs with my own experience and anecdotal evidence from others.

It's not that it's just randomness - obviously if you have a particular ability, and the right educational background to do the kinds of English, mathematical and spatial problems that are found in IQ tests, you may benefit from the same educational processes that push you to perform well at GCSE.

Consider - I had to 'pass' an IQ test when I was twelve in order to go to Grammar school. Those of us who went to the Grammar School did better at GCSEs than those who 'failed' and went to the Comprehensive. Can you really argue that is wholey because of our innate intelligence?

Date: 2010-07-03 10:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jarkman.livejournal.com
My impression was that the idea that men had a slightly wider variance of IQ than women was moderately mainstream these days. I can't quote you anything definitive, but wikipedia has some pointers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence

September 2025

S M T W T F S
  12 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 1617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 16th, 2025 03:06 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios