GoblinCampFollower
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2018
- Messages
- 5,478
- SL Rez
- 2007
So... he talks about the very first IQ test, and then just ignores the last several decades of research and improvement.And again Adam Conover ruins the day:
The idea that taking a test could prove you're not as smart as you think terrifies people, so there is a very strong bias against IQ tests masquerading as deeper research. Modern pattern recognition tests were developed specifically to avoid cultural knowledge which was a major problem with early IQ tests.
Although I think a lot of you are misrepresenting facts, I also hardly think IQ is the ultimate measure of intelligence either. There is very little evidence that being really, REALLY good at a pattern recognition tests makes you special. However, there really is good evidence that being really bad at the test suggests disability. For example, the US Military won't let you in if you're below 85. They on two occasions experimented with training people down to 80, and on both occasions found they couldn't master basic tasks well enough to justify letting them in. Other academic research (civilian) suggests that people below 87 have a lot more trouble holding a job of any kind.
So, I think if someone is cognitively normal, they are likely to get an okay score just in the way intelligent people figure out anything. But agree with you all that it doesn't mean much beyond that.
I am willing to bet that much of the growth in IQ performance has nothing to do with people getting smarter at the high end, but more to do with efforts to prevent disability. In particular, in "the old days" it was a lot more accepted that a mother might get ten gallon drunk while pregnant. Then, once they kid is born, you beat the hell out of them and don't give them much of an education.




