discussion about IQ tests

Post Reply New Topic

That's a great point about practicing. Flynn wrote a book about The Flynn Effect (which he popularized) which is basically the observation that IQ scores have gone up on average quite a bit since the test came into wide use decades ago. He did not think that this meant that the human race suddenly got smarter. He thinks that it is the practice effect that you describe but on a grand scale. Basically, modern educational culture steers people towards thinking about the world in a very specific way, starting pretty much from infancy (in many families) and this raises scores through practice so much that the test has had to be re-normed multiple times.

In other words, IQ scores are as much nurture as they are nature.

Not my definition, I got it from a debate I read about that took place in the late 1920s or 30s between people about what the IQ test actually measured. Hence, why a lot of people are so predictable, they are saying the same s**t that was said in the 1920s. Is there any wonder I get bored?

I love how these threads always end up with the people putting themselves on the highest pedestals in whatever applicable category posting something akin to what you just did to make fun of a position which they had no hand in defeating and in fact didn't defeat.

Go get your rear-end kicked by WilliamDelaney again please.

If the changes in the educational system were enough to shift around IQ scores between the sexes, that cuts against your argument, not for it.

Funny how people keep on starting threads about long-debunked measures of personal superiority and then whine when others don't always treat the topic respectfully.

Quoted for truth, as well as summing up everything in this thread that matters.

i don't have a definition as it is too complex for me to personally define. i don't know all of the factors that should be included. i know of a few that are definitely missed by IQ tests though. i believe intelligence is broader than the IQ tests can measure.

TM, i find it amusing that you were severely criticising psychology in another thread, yet here you are... arguing support for an artificially fabricated psychometric. in this thread you even quoted psychological studies in spite of the fact you said that the only field you trust is economics.


Tetris FTW!! ! it helped me a great deal.

I don't disagree with any specific findings of IQ measurement in the research you provided, but it is dependent on the demographic measured; it is an average of test scores and numbers, simple math; but there is too much evidence that argues against gender differences in general intelligence, even per IQ testing, to make conclusions that the fact that males score higher than females in some of these demographics in intelligence testing, provides evidence of which gender is smarter. It is dependent on the demographic measured, and what is actually being measured.

Interestingly, the study on height you provided that suggested that taller people score higher on standard measures of IQ than shorter people, may not have measured countries where IQ is measured at the highest levels on average.

The individuals in countries reported with the highest average IQ, fall close to a half foot shorter, per nationwide averages on height, than in other developed countries among those averaged with the tallest heights.

So, if that study on height and intelligence has inherent validity, culture provides close to a 10 point boost in IQ, over some countries where the tallest individuals in average height are measured, per example of Norway with an average nationwide height of 5' 11 1/2"M/5' 6 1/2"F with a nationwide IQ average of 98 vs. Hong Kong with an average nationwide height of 5' 7 1/2"M/5' 2 1/2"F with a nationwide IQ average of 107.

Even if the average IQ score for 5 foot 2 1/2" height women from Hong Kong were to score 4 points lower than average males in that country at an IQ of 105, women still score an average of 5 points higher than average IQ scoring males in Norway scoring at a potential 4 point higher spread than females in Norway.

Test score results and averages are what they are, so per IQ tests and a 4 point gender spread given for males and females the average 5 foot 2 1/2" women from Hong Kong scores an average IQ of 105 vs. an average IQ of 100 for males who are close to 6 feet tall, on average in Norway.

Does this mean that on average shorter women in Hong Kong are smarter than taller men in Norway? If one considers a five point spread in IQ as providing an accurate measure of whom is smarter, along with average measures of height, it is the much shorter women, on average, in Hong Kong over the much taller men, on average, in Norway.

If there are any inherent differences as to which gender is overall smarter, per measures of average IQ scores, or even height, environment easily overcomes them, per statistics on average IQ scores and average height, as compared between countries; male vs female, given a 4 point spread of IQ measured within each country among the genders.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#Average_height_around_the_world
http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm

Just as evidence of how this a moving target, per demographic:

The latest Dutch and Belgium studies show no significant differences in general intelligence among the genders, attributable to different scores on subsets of intelligence testing, as well as specific differences measured in cognitive abilities.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000851



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000049

You know what your post is missing? An actual rebuttal to the claim that Mensa do nothing useful.

Could it be because they really did not do anything useful ever since founded?

If you are always so right, why do you always end up being the guy that puts a Herculean effort actually avoiding to actually handle the other side's arguments?

Since you are a man and ergo you have high IQ. Please use your superior imagination to picture me putting "ha ha ha" 600 times.

With respect, you have demonstrated nothing of the kind. What you have demonstrated is the willingness to extrapolate research demonstrating specific findings, and pretend that it supports more general conjectures, which is a fundamental error. Research stands for the propositions that it proves, not the conjectures that remain unproven.

I will certainly agree with you that androgens have a demonstrable impact on some facets of cognition dealing with spatial reasoning. However, that's not what you claimed. You said,



and earlier:



You have presented only one study (not the multiple studies that you claim to have read), on the subject of androgens (not gonadal steroids, generally). You have not presented evidence that all gonadal steroids (or even all androgens, for that matter) have the impacts that you claim. Furthermore, your second statement that I quoted presents the implicit assumption that because males have higher levels of androgens that this automatically means that men receive a proportionately higher benefit from them. And it also presents the implicit assumption that other gonadal steroids do not confer similar cognitive benefits.

Now, it may well be that you actually have evidence to support these assumptions. But you have not presented it, so your assertions are--as yet--nothing more than mere conjecture.

Your posts have not demonstrated that you have read any farther into the text of the literature that you cite than the abstracts. You have demonstrated yourself to be nothing more than a dilettante. You might be more, but your posts have yet to demonstrate that.

Last edited by visagrunt on 04 May 2012, 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

It's mostly because your and the people who share your point of view do not make it a herculean task by a Sisyphean one.

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

http://www.mensafoundation.org/linkserv ... howMeta/0/

After all, why should I do the work of collecting sources and making arguments when you blatantly disregard anything which you disagree with. For instance, you made an idiotic assertion that Mensa has done nothing with no sources backing you up on it, I just now quoted you multiple sources showing that Mensa have indeed done things to better the world, yet I expect you to reply in your normal manner with a post that has no value.

You're one of those people who expect others to make sound arguments and come with sources, yet rarely if ever do so yourself.