I'm curious as to why you think it's a load of bollocks though. Anything with a 0.8 correlation that seems to make up 58% of maths results at GCSE, 48% of English results and 18% of Art results - there's clearly _something_ going on there. It may well be presented badly a lot of the time, but I'd find it very hard to argue that it was just randomness.
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?
To answer in no particular order (especially as you didn't number them :-> ) I don't believe the ideology behind something's development affects how close it is to the truth.
I don't believe that the effects of knowing it about it affect how close it is to the truth.
I don't believe that the misuse of an idea in a socially detrimental manner affects how close it is to the truth.
I do agree that the idea of "intelligence" is one that is frequently incredibly vaguely defined - and that "IQ" captures only one facet of this, which is easily tested in a short period, and is thus obviously going to miss out on wider issues.
I do believe that IQ is an interesting measure, which is measuring something - or rather, a group of somethings (memory, spatial reasoning, pattern matching, simple language use). And that there is _on average_ a relationship between these things and the general ability to understand things and reason about them. But also that it is going to vary from person to person.
My own IQ has been tested a few times and come out between 134 and 138 each time. I have no idea how normal that is.
I do know that it varies with education - and that the heritability increases as education levels do, so that iq is hardly heritable at all amongst those with little education, but once you provide decent levels of education the genetics seem to have more of an effect.
You seem to be attacking the idea that IQ is everything, which isn't one I'm promoting at all. I'm not an idiot, and I have done a fair chunk of reading into this (intelligence, minds, brains, etc. being one of the things that fascinate me). I totally agree that there are problems with some of the views of intelligence and IQ, and the uses of some of the data. I just don't think that that makes it anywhere near rubbish.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2010-07-03 01:24 pm
no subject
no subject
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?
no subject
I don't believe the ideology behind something's development affects how close it is to the truth.
I don't believe that the effects of knowing it about it affect how close it is to the truth.
I don't believe that the misuse of an idea in a socially detrimental manner affects how close it is to the truth.
I do agree that the idea of "intelligence" is one that is frequently incredibly vaguely defined - and that "IQ" captures only one facet of this, which is easily tested in a short period, and is thus obviously going to miss out on wider issues.
I do believe that IQ is an interesting measure, which is measuring something - or rather, a group of somethings (memory, spatial reasoning, pattern matching, simple language use). And that there is _on average_ a relationship between these things and the general ability to understand things and reason about them. But also that it is going to vary from person to person.
My own IQ has been tested a few times and come out between 134 and 138 each time. I have no idea how normal that is.
I do know that it varies with education - and that the heritability increases as education levels do, so that iq is hardly heritable at all amongst those with little education, but once you provide decent levels of education the genetics seem to have more of an effect.
You seem to be attacking the idea that IQ is everything, which isn't one I'm promoting at all. I'm not an idiot, and I have done a fair chunk of reading into this (intelligence, minds, brains, etc. being one of the things that fascinate me). I totally agree that there are problems with some of the views of intelligence and IQ, and the uses of some of the data. I just don't think that that makes it anywhere near rubbish.