|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
On July 09 2010 02:18 QibingZero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2010 01:41 Beyonder wrote:On July 09 2010 01:26 QibingZero wrote:On July 08 2010 21:41 ooni wrote:
Like this scientist I'll make a hypothesis of my own.
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. 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
The studies where they looked at differences between monozygotic twins and dizygotic twins, where some are seperated at birth and others are not (thus different environmental factors, different average genes shared) give pretty reliable estimates on what the percentage of influences for genes and environment are for the construct of intelligence measured by IQ.
What I mean is that most developed countries will show averagely higher intelligence scores. And currently several Asian countries are showing higher IQ-scores.
And tbh, the construct of intelligence is very important to measure. It is so widely used for the two most important domains. Best to know as much as possible^^
(Also, I will stop haunting this thread soon, sorry. But I've read a lot of scientific stuff on this subject and am very interested^^ Just 'investigated' the influence of intellect on skill variation in chess for my bachelor thesis as well.. so interesting^^)
|
On July 09 2010 02:15 Beyonder wrote:
More damage than good? Of course some individuals may get wrongly tested and 'suffer' thanks to it. I don't think you have an idea how much money your country saves and makes thanks to the intelligence tests. How many people get insight on their shortcomings thanks to these tests. You need an IQ above (or equal to) around 120 to do well at harder professions (i.e. doctor, professor), for example. A lot of these jobs will require an IQ-test or will require proof that you can perform at that intellectual level. You better be thankful for that.^^
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.
Well they don't really. My father was a respected doctor and later researcher and his IQ wasn't above 100. You don't need 120 IQ to do those things, because it's a learned skill, you don't need to solve logical puzzles as a doctor or as a professor. However you do need to know your subject by the bucket load. Granted it makes it easier the higher your IQ is because it shows that you've got a easier time learning these stuff than others, this doesn't mean that they can't do it. It certainly doesn't mean they are at a disadvantage once they've done so.
Let me ask you this. What good is a doctor that can't handle patients? What good is a professor who can't interact with his pupils? What good is a doctor that's to lazy to read up on any of his patients journals, or even worse keeping up with the standard proceduers that is always evolving?
I have an IQ of 131 that means my IQ is within the top 2-3% in the world, I'm a member of Mensa or rather i was since I saw no point in handing them money for no reason. Still I was far from the best in my class or in anyway exceptional, well perhaps I was because I could maintain decent grades without studying through out most of my first 9 years in school. I was busy being rebelious and lazy doing other non-school things raging against the rightwing society and protesting against stuff in far away country. I got 11 points more IQ than what you say is required to be a doctor, yet I'm probably the least suitable person in this thread to become one.
IQ is such a fragmented part of a human and discriminating people based on it is ridiculous. If someone can work so hard that they pass the same tests as someone with 120 IQ why should they be barred because not having it?
Isn't it also ironic that I suffer from dyslexia? I'm supposed to be super smart, yet my brain can't even handle to spell the same word twice.
|
On July 09 2010 01:41 Beyonder wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2010 01:26 QibingZero wrote:On July 08 2010 21:41 ooni wrote:
Like this scientist I'll make a hypothesis of my own.
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.
Yea man, when European white boys come to America they get dumb after 200 years and four generations.
I'm pretty sure the climate ruins their genes.
|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
I meant Africans btw :D oops, only just noticed that kekekek
|
The amount of ignorance and arrogance towards scientific research on topics like this where everyone feels like they're an expert never ceases to amaze me. Guys, these people dedicate their career to gain insight into an incredibly complex topic. You might consider that they understand what they're doing better than you after reading an article and thinking about it for 2 minutes.
|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
On July 09 2010 02:39 Hynda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2010 02:15 Beyonder wrote:
More damage than good? Of course some individuals may get wrongly tested and 'suffer' thanks to it. I don't think you have an idea how much money your country saves and makes thanks to the intelligence tests. How many people get insight on their shortcomings thanks to these tests. You need an IQ above (or equal to) around 120 to do well at harder professions (i.e. doctor, professor), for example. A lot of these jobs will require an IQ-test or will require proof that you can perform at that intellectual level. You better be thankful for that.^^
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. Well they don't really. My father was a respected doctor and later researcher and his IQ wasn't above 100. You don't need 120 IQ to do those things, because it's a learned skill, you don't need to solve logical puzzles as a doctor or as a professor. However you do need to know your subject by the bucket load. Granted it makes it easier the higher your IQ is because it shows that you've got a easier time learning these stuff than others, this doesn't mean that they can't do it. It certainly doesn't mean they are at a disadvantage once they've done so. Let me ask you this. What good is a doctor that can't handle patients? What good is a professor who can't interact with his pupils? What good is a doctor that's to lazy to read up on any of his patients journals, or even worse keeping up with the standard proceduers that is always evolving? I have an IQ of 131 that means my IQ is within the top 2-3% in the world, I'm a member of Mensa or rather i was since I saw no point in handing them money for no reason. Still I was far from the best in my class or in anyway exceptional, well perhaps I was because I could maintain decent grades without studying through out most of my first 9 years in school. I was busy being rebelious and lazy doing other non-school things raging against the rightwing society and protesting against stuff in far away country. I got 11 points more IQ than what you say is required to be a doctor, yet I'm probably the least suitable person in this thread to become one. IQ is such a fragmented part of a human and discriminating people based on it is ridiculous. If someone can work so hard that they pass the same tests as someone with 120 IQ why should they be barred because not having it? Isn't it also ironic that I suffer from dyslexia? I'm supposed to be super smart, yet my brain can't even handle to spell the same word twice.
If we're going to argue individuals here, then there is no point. Glad that you got to share your story.
|
On July 09 2010 02:52 Orome wrote:
The amount of ignorance and arrogance towards scientific research on topics like this where everyone feels like they're an expert never ceases to amaze me. Guys, these people dedicate their career to gain insight into an incredibly complex topic. You might consider that they understand what they're doing better than you after reading an article and thinking about it for 2 minutes.
Cesare Lombroso dedicated his whole career to gain insight into the same kind of incredibly complex topics. Does that mean he was right ?
|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
He was somewhat right in his beliefs, yes^^. But he didn't have the resources available that we have now, really... So a silly comparison.
|
wtf niger has an average iq of 69? doesn't that mean most of their population is retarded? i doubt this study
|
IQ is a reeeeeaaaallllyyyy bad way to measure intelligence, but that's a different argument
remind me to cancel my trip to Lesotho..
|
On July 09 2010 03:10 Malgrif wrote:
wtf niger has an average iq of 69? doesn't that mean most of their population is retarded? i doubt this study
no, it just means their country hasnt adopted western civilization's way of thinking.
|
|
|
To sum up my thoughts:
Poverty:
- less intelectual development
- more diseases
Wealth:
+ intelectual development
+ better healthcare
Pretty logical, huh? Also, that few arbitrary IQ numbers that South Korea has over the rest of the world does not make them better at Starcraft in anyway. The reason Korea dominates the scene is purely because everyone plays it in Korea.
The same reason why USA dominates basketball, or China dominates table tennis.
|
On July 09 2010 02:57 Beyonder wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2010 02:39 Hynda wrote:On July 09 2010 02:15 Beyonder wrote:
More damage than good? Of course some individuals may get wrongly tested and 'suffer' thanks to it. I don't think you have an idea how much money your country saves and makes thanks to the intelligence tests. How many people get insight on their shortcomings thanks to these tests. You need an IQ above (or equal to) around 120 to do well at harder professions (i.e. doctor, professor), for example. A lot of these jobs will require an IQ-test or will require proof that you can perform at that intellectual level. You better be thankful for that.^^
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. Well they don't really. My father was a respected doctor and later researcher and his IQ wasn't above 100. You don't need 120 IQ to do those things, because it's a learned skill, you don't need to solve logical puzzles as a doctor or as a professor. However you do need to know your subject by the bucket load. Granted it makes it easier the higher your IQ is because it shows that you've got a easier time learning these stuff than others, this doesn't mean that they can't do it. It certainly doesn't mean they are at a disadvantage once they've done so. Let me ask you this. What good is a doctor that can't handle patients? What good is a professor who can't interact with his pupils? What good is a doctor that's to lazy to read up on any of his patients journals, or even worse keeping up with the standard proceduers that is always evolving? I have an IQ of 131 that means my IQ is within the top 2-3% in the world, I'm a member of Mensa or rather i was since I saw no point in handing them money for no reason. Still I was far from the best in my class or in anyway exceptional, well perhaps I was because I could maintain decent grades without studying through out most of my first 9 years in school. I was busy being rebelious and lazy doing other non-school things raging against the rightwing society and protesting against stuff in far away country. I got 11 points more IQ than what you say is required to be a doctor, yet I'm probably the least suitable person in this thread to become one. IQ is such a fragmented part of a human and discriminating people based on it is ridiculous. If someone can work so hard that they pass the same tests as someone with 120 IQ why should they be barred because not having it? Isn't it also ironic that I suffer from dyslexia? I'm supposed to be super smart, yet my brain can't even handle to spell the same word twice. If we're going to argue individuals here, then there is no point. Glad that you got to share your story. tbh the point wasn't to discuss individuals but rather that it's a self fulfilling prophecy.
|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
On July 09 2010 03:26 Kaasflipje wrote:
To sum up my thoughts:
Poverty:
- less intelectual development
- more diseases
Wealth:
+ intelectual development
+ better healthcare
Pretty logical, huh? Also, that few arbitrary IQ numbers that South Korea has over the rest of the world does not make them better at Starcraft in anyway. The reason Korea dominates the scene is purely because everyone plays it in Korea.
The same reason why USA dominates basketball, or China dominates table tennis.
Read several articles which basically say the same thing. The flynn effect (global rising of intelligence) is most extreme in developing countries, most likely because of better healthcare, better education and so forth. Disease = worse healthcare = most likely worse educational system, etc, etc.
|
On July 09 2010 03:02 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2010 02:52 Orome wrote:
The amount of ignorance and arrogance towards scientific research on topics like this where everyone feels like they're an expert never ceases to amaze me. Guys, these people dedicate their career to gain insight into an incredibly complex topic. You might consider that they understand what they're doing better than you after reading an article and thinking about it for 2 minutes. Cesare Lombroso dedicated his whole career to gain insight into the same kind of incredibly complex topics. Does that mean he was right ?
There's a good chance these guys' hypothesis is completely off, after all, they chose a complex subject matter and an extremely general hypothesis. What irks me is that most of the people in this thread feel they have enough expertise on the subject to refute the study (without reading it even).
An incredible amount of effort goes into a good study, the planning, execution, methodology, everything is considered in great detail. It takes quite the amount of arrogance to assume you have the insight to see what they did wrong from reading an article about the results of the study.
On another note, IQ tests are among the most important standardized tests in psychology. Their use and limitations have been researched extensively, blanket statements like 'IQ tests suck anyway' or 'IQ's a horrible way to test intelligence' just makes you look ignorant.
|
On July 09 2010 03:10 Malgrif wrote:
wtf niger has an average iq of 69? doesn't that mean most of their population is retarded? i doubt this study
It means they're living like it's still the 17th Century or something.
|
On July 09 2010 03:19 Terranist wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2010 03:10 Malgrif wrote:
wtf niger has an average iq of 69? doesn't that mean most of their population is retarded? i doubt this study no, it just means their country hasnt adopted western civilization's way of thinking.
Although I don't doubt this, I've seen this sort of statement many times before and wonder exactly how the African country's way of thinking is different than western civilization's way. Or more specifically, what aspect of this difference causes them to score significantly lower on the iq tests (which are mostly based on identifying and continuing patterns I would presume).
|
On average a lot of things are true that are false in too many instances. Eg: red cars get into crashes "most" often, doesn't mean you can use this to draw any meaningful conclusions in your everyday life.
IQ, of course, is irrelevant, as Stephen Hawking could tell you, but even if it was truly important - the average differences shown between groups of people are so small, that you can't deduce anything about a person by their membership to such group (eg: nationality, race).
Poor health of course affects brain development, but that's also not incredibly significant, and the adaptability of the brain is very strong (perhaps the strongest of all known living systems). That means in times of severe malnourishment, for example, there could be some effect, but then it could be overcome. I only agree that the effects on very small babies pre- and post- birth could be significant. Keeping a pregnant woman malnourished is like double crime.
|
On July 09 2010 04:55 blankspace wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2010 03:19 Terranist wrote:On July 09 2010 03:10 Malgrif wrote:
wtf niger has an average iq of 69? doesn't that mean most of their population is retarded? i doubt this study no, it just means their country hasnt adopted western civilization's way of thinking. Although I don't doubt this, I've seen this sort of statement many times before and wonder exactly how the African country's way of thinking is different than western civilization's way. Or more specifically, what aspect of this difference causes them to score significantly lower on the iq tests (which are mostly based on identifying and continuing patterns I would presume).
Because they spend their days chilling in the countryside doing nothing instead of doing things like going to school/work, driving, using computers, television, phones etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
