And those who believe they are "above" the vast majority are too arrogant to discuss the issue rationally. Simply, if you believe that IQ measures intelligence, you lose 80 IQ points.
back
3 comments
if you believe that IQ measures intelligence, you lose 80 IQ points.
Expand on that thought, please. Is your disagreement with the word "measure," with the word "intelligence," or with both?
IQ can't measure intelligence because intelligence is qualitative, not quantitative. It's not like height or weight, it's like beauty. People can generally agree on it, but there's no concrete way to measure it.
IQ is useful, and only useful, in its "industrial" capacity, meaning where it's used statistically over large sample sizes. To explain this better, let's use the analogy of a Beauty Quotient (BQ). It would be calculated to give a higher value to large eyes, high cheekbones, etc. This could be used in aggregate to understand why so many female models come from the Czech Republic, but to apply it individually is meaningless. There are people with big eyes and high cheek bones who look like freaks of nature, and people with smaller eyes and lower cheekbones who are stunning. BQ doesn't exist because what it would measure is self-evident; you could just look at someone saying, "I have a BQ of 180! I'm gorgeous!" and agree (or laugh). IQ, however, measures something that can't be so quickly assessed, and so many grasp onto it to validate themselves. That's an abuse of the purpose and displays a lack of understanding of the difference between qualitative and quantitative, thus my jibe at losing 80 IQ points.
I agree with you. It's exactly like the race debate. People who think that statistics are useful for judging individuals are dumb.
Simply, if you believe that IQ measures intelligence, you lose 80 IQ points.
Your comment is a self-negating insult. If IQ does not measure intelligence, than saying "you lose 80 points" is not derisive.
Or, it's an especially clever insult, since it'll only matter to those he insults.
I thought it was clever and funny, but that doesn't justify it. Clearly I offended people here and for that I apologize.
His IQ isn't high enough for him to have picked up on that.
the degree to which IQ correlates with the traits that we find desirable and are measuring for is a valid debate, but I don't think the debate gains anything by having people who don't understand things like standard distributions and standard deviation participate.
It's easy to spot. They mention mean IQ's without bothering with the bare minimum needed to make that information useful (standard deviation). Even people in business math learn that mean without a SD is fairly worthless, but even more so when you're trying to compare two means. I refuse to listen to people who refuse to meet the bare minimum requirements of proper scientific reasoning.
The reverse is easy to spot too, an honest analysis will simply show you the model they are using and explicitly state what assumptions are built into that particular model. an honest debate can follow.