EPTIntelligence and disease and smart Singaporeans - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Hynda
Sweden2226 Posts
| ||
|
Ahseyo
Sweden80 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
On July 09 2010 01:26 QibingZero wrote: This thread really should have ended here. Bravo sir! How this kind of nonsense made it into a scientific journal, I don't know. When you use terms like 'IQ' and 'intelligence' you imply some inherent genetic difference (making the unspoken insinuation really racist). And yet, if you attribute this intelligence to education instead, the whole idea is one simple truism, hardly worth anyone's time to research and/or argue. Uh, the time where we worry about genetic differences in scientific journals is long past us. It is well accepted that intelligence has large hereditary component and that western & asian folks perform better on intelligence tests than Americans, for example. It's not racist, it's simply the way it is. They try to take this in account by creating 'culture free tests' (read: non-verbal), but even those (e.g., Raven's Progressive Matrices) don't take away the advantage people have. | ||
|
Ahseyo
Sweden80 Posts
| ||
|
YoonHo
Canada1043 Posts
On July 09 2010 01:38 Ahseyo wrote: Mindfuck me with every post you make, your retardness becomes even more and more questionable. Your posts contradict your sig.  Btw, when did they come up with this data, I'm sure I read about this few years ago. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On July 09 2010 01:36 Hynda wrote: Wait just a minute. For a person to be considered to have a retardation ie being a retard, (In it's correct form not the random internet insult) they should be under 70 IQ, some countries on that list shows an average of under 70 meaning that it claims some countries are filled with retards (there must be a better word for this, I feel like I'm insulting somone everytime I write it) to such a degree that it has become the norm. That is complete and utter bullshit. That's an excellent point. One proposed explanation in defense of the validity of those results is that the condition of "normal" and "retarded" depends on the particular human population. It's analogous to height, in that there are human tribes where "normal" height is well below 5 feet (1.52 meters) and it is purely a consequence of population genetics; i.e., it is not explained by stunted growth due to poor nutrition. Same with intelligence: what is normal for one human population may signify clinical retardation in another. | ||
|
Ahseyo
Sweden80 Posts
On July 09 2010 01:43 YoonHo wrote: Your posts contradict your sig. Btw, when did they come up with this data, I'm sure I read about this few years ago. I only have it against a few people that are smart enough not to debate about things like intelligence that has incredible holes in their theoies and are still only theories because you can't really "prove" anything with your intelligence. | ||
|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 08 2010 19:36 Cheerio wrote: Decease burden depends on the level of the country development, the level of country development defines the level of education, the level of education defines how familiar the population is with the IQ test and how to improve one's rating with it (being familiar with the IQ test increases the result. In fact most IQ test PROMOTE being familiar with it to put everyone onto even ground). Decease burden < country development > level of education > IQ results Decease burden >does_not> IQ results You must be trolling. In how many cases would it be intelligence and to not "someone just gave me a link to a perfect guide in the internet how to beat IQ test" or something like that? 1%? After beating becomes common knowledge there is no intelligence involved. P.S. this is a bragging thread really. The best part of your post is where you say "Decease burden" | ||
|
StarBrift
Sweden1761 Posts
| ||
|
Ahseyo
Sweden80 Posts
| ||
|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
On July 09 2010 01:36 Hynda wrote: Wait just a minute. For a person to be considered to have a retardation ie being a retard, (In it's correct form not the random internet insult) they should be under 70 IQ, some countries on that list shows an average of under 70 meaning that it claims some countries are filled with retards (there must be a better word for this, I feel like I'm insulting somone everytime I write it) to such a degree that it has become the norm. That is complete and utter bullshit. And that is the problem with intelligence and intelligence tests. We aren't exactly sure what it measures and means. Though the construct is capable of predicting pretty good, mostly work and school succes, the average intelligence is rising fast (Flynn effect). This means that the population in 1910 would score very low on our current test. This does not mean however that they would be mentally handicapped in any way. Same goes for those countries  Just uneducated. Mentally handicapped folks have their own intelligence tests, which is far more practical (what can and can't they do). The measurement under 70 is more of an indicator than an exact number. | ||
|
Ahseyo
Sweden80 Posts
On July 09 2010 01:50 Beyonder wrote: And that is the problem with intelligence. We aren't exactly sure what it measures. Though the construct is capable of predicting pretty good, mostly work and school succes, the average intelligence is rising fast (Flynn effect). This means that the population in 1910 would score very low on our current test. This does not mean however that they would be mentally handicapped in any way. Same goes for those countries Just uneducated. Mentally handicapped folks have their own intelligence tests, which is far more practical (what can and can't they do). The measurement under 70 is more of an indicator than an exact number. IQ is still only a shot term of what intelligence really is. | ||
|
AdamBanks
Canada996 Posts
On July 09 2010 01:36 Hynda wrote: Wait just a minute. For a person to be considered to have a retardation ie being a retard, (In it's correct form not the random internet insult) they should be under 70 IQ, some countries on that list shows an average of under 70 meaning that it claims some countries are filled with retards (there must be a better word for this, I feel like I'm insulting somone everytime I write it) to such a degree that it has become the norm. That is complete and utter bullshit. I think they use term 'developmentally delayed' now? Might depend where u live. | ||
|
Hynda
Sweden2226 Posts
On July 09 2010 01:50 Beyonder wrote: And that is the problem with intelligence and intelligence tests. We aren't exactly sure what it measures and means. Though the construct is capable of predicting pretty good, mostly work and school succes, the average intelligence is rising fast (Flynn effect). This means that the population in 1910 would score very low on our current test. This does not mean however that they would be mentally handicapped in any way. Same goes for those countries Just uneducated. Mentally handicapped folks have their own intelligence tests, which is far more practical (what can and can't they do). The measurement under 70 is more of an indicator than an exact number. That's what we get from measuring "Intelligence" from a learned skill. It's a rather ridiculous concept to begin with, the only thing it can be used for is finding people that are on the extreme end of both spectrums. | ||
|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
On July 09 2010 01:54 Hynda wrote: That's what we get from measuring "Intelligence" from a learned skill. It's a rather ridiculous concept to begin with, the only thing it can be used for is finding people that are on the extreme end of both spectrums. Is it a ridiculous concept if it's highly reliable across age and has a (relatively) high predictive validity in the most important domains? Every important intelligence test (Wechsler, Raven's, Stanford-Binet, etc) have plenty of subtests which do not use 'learned skills' | ||
|
Kalpman
Sweden406 Posts
| ||
|
Hynda
Sweden2226 Posts
On July 09 2010 01:57 Beyonder wrote: It's not really reliable unless as said for the extremes of the spectrum. Infact IQ has been dispitued to have caused more damage than good, having people beeing told they are idiots becuase they can't solve logical puzzles. Infact there has been a new test made called EQ which people with high IQ usually fail pretty badly at while some people with pretty low IQ skyrocket at, it just measures another kind of intelligence. IQ isn't being smart, or being intelligent, it's being talented in a very very narrow field of life. Is it a ridiculous concept if it's highly reliable across age and has a (relatively) high predictive validity in the most important domains? | ||
|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
It IS reliable in the sense that repeated measurements will averagely be very close to each other. The predictive validity might increase a little bit when combined with personality tests (especially conscientiousness and in a somewhat lesser form emotional stability), which are similar to 'EQ'-- but not a lot. Also, it is a myth that very intelligent people fail more at the more social aspect of life. | ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
On July 09 2010 01:41 Beyonder wrote: Uh, the time where we worry about genetic differences in scientific journals is long past us. It is well accepted that intelligence has large hereditary component and that western & asian folks perform better on intelligence tests than Americans, for example. It's not racist, it's simply the way it is. They try to take this in account by creating 'culture free tests' (read: non-verbal), but even those (e.g., Raven's Progressive Matrices) don't take away the advantage people have. Intelligence tests are by and large a terrible way to determine actual genetic differences, though. Once we have the ability to actually locate real differences in the brain, and isolate the responsible genes, then we can start talking about whether or not there is a statistically significant intelligence difference between peoples that goes beyond nurturing factors. I will bite on this mention of 'western & asian' vs 'Americans' idea you have, though. What do you really mean by that? Is 'western' meant to be western European, and not the west as a whole? Is the majority of America not actually descended from western Europe and Asia? This is a very confusing statement you're making. And obviously racism itself should not impede scientific progress, but you do have to question one's motives for using time and resources to research something like this. I can think of thousands of more relevant and useful subjects to explore. =P | ||
| ||
