Should "IQ" Be a Dirty Word?

[DGS49]

In today's academic climate, anyone using the words "IQ" and "race" in the same sentence is presumed to be a racist.

But what if we removed the "race" element completely? What if we examined how kids are doing in comparison with their relative IQ's, ignoring race altogether?

What if "failing" schools are not failing because of the race of the majority of students, but because of the average IQ of the students? Looking at it that way, the focus would be to identify the students in those schools with the greatest potential, and see that they have the opportunity to succeed according the their abilities. As for the remainkng students, the curriculum could be tailored to their strengths and weaknesses, without fretting about whether their average test scores fall below state-wide averages. Who cares?

Take race out of the discussion. Stop reporting scores by race; there is nothing to be gained by it.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

A lot of the time, the truth is racist.

What's wrong with Race & IQ?

 

[there4eyeM]

Results show a high correlation between tested intelligence and success in life.

 

[Asclepias]

In today's academic climate, anyone using the words "IQ" and "race" in the same sentence is presumed to be a racist.

But what if we removed the "race" element completely? What if we examined how kids are doing in comparison with their relative IQ's, ignoring race altogether?

What if "failing" schools are not failing because of the race of the majority of students, but because of the average IQ of the students? Looking at it that way, the focus would be to identify the students in those schools with the greatest potential, and see that they have the opportunity to succeed according the their abilities. As for the remainkng students, the curriculum could be tailored to their strengths and weaknesses, without fretting about whether their average test scores fall below state-wide averages. Who cares?

Take race out of the discussion. Stop reporting scores by race; there is nothing to be gained by it.

IQ shouldnt be a dirty word. IQ should be ranked right up there with unicorns since no one is smart enough to devise a test that accurately measures how intelligent someone is. Intelligence is the ability to learn. Since there is no way to quantify the ability of something you dont understand its just a buzz word or a dog whistle.

 

[Cellblock2429]

In today's academic climate, anyone using the words "IQ" and "race" in the same sentence is presumed to be a racist.

But what if we removed the "race" element completely? What if we examined how kids are doing in comparison with their relative IQ's, ignoring race altogether?

What if "failing" schools are not failing because of the race of the majority of students, but because of the average IQ of the students? Looking at it that way, the focus would be to identify the students in those schools with the greatest potential, and see that they have the opportunity to succeed according the their abilities. As for the remainkng students, the curriculum could be tailored to their strengths and weaknesses, without fretting about whether their average test scores fall below state-wide averages. Who cares?

Take race out of the discussion. Stop reporting scores by race; there is nothing to be gained by it.

/——/ I think PDQ is racist.

 

[Montrovant]

The problem, I think, is that normally when one sees IQ and race spoken of together, it is to denigrate a race(s) based on IQ scores.

Of course, IQ is not a strong measurement of intelligence (something which tends to be vaguely defined, at best). A person can get a different score on IQ tests for a variety of reasons: mood, physical health, education levels, etc. IQ tests are really more a measurement of certain abilities. There's also the "Flynn effect," which another poster provided a link for in another thread: basically, IQs have been rising (in the US and other nations) at a rate which seems too fast to be accounted for simply by genetic changes.

Just what IQ tests actually measure, how accurate they are with whatever it is they actually measure, and even just what constitutes intelligence are all subjects still only somewhat understood or very much open to debate. Trying to draw conclusions about race from testing which has such issues is problematic, at best.

 

[rightwinger]

We need to require IQ tests for our presidents

 

[Asclepias]

The problem, I think, is that normally when one sees IQ and race spoken of together, it is to denigrate a race(s) based on IQ scores.

Of course, IQ is not a strong measurement of intelligence (something which tends to be vaguely defined, at best). A person can get a different score on IQ tests for a variety of reasons: mood, physical health, education levels, etc. IQ tests are really more a measurement of certain abilities. There's also the "Flynn effect," which another poster provided a link for in another thread: basically, IQs have been rising (in the US and other nations) at a rate which seems too fast to be accounted for simply by genetic changes.

Just what IQ tests actually measure, how accurate they are with whatever it is they actually measure, and even just what constitutes intelligence are all subjects still only somewhat understood or very much open to debate. Trying to draw conclusions about race from testing which has such issues is problematic, at best.

One thing we can be sure of is that IQ tests only test the depth of your assimilation into the culture conducting the tests.

 

[there4eyeM]

Intelligent intelligence testing

"So the criticism of the discrepancy model is correct, says Alan Kaufman, but it misses the real issue: whether or not intelligence tests, when properly administered and interpreted, can be useful.

"The movement that's trying to get rid of IQ tests is failing to understand that these tests are valid in the hands of a competent practitioner who can go beyond the numbers--or at least use the numbers to understand what makes the person tick, to integrate those test scores with the kind of child you're looking at, and to blend those behaviors with the scores to make useful recommendations," he says."

 

[Montrovant]

The problem, I think, is that normally when one sees IQ and race spoken of together, it is to denigrate a race(s) based on IQ scores.

Of course, IQ is not a strong measurement of intelligence (something which tends to be vaguely defined, at best). A person can get a different score on IQ tests for a variety of reasons: mood, physical health, education levels, etc. IQ tests are really more a measurement of certain abilities. There's also the "Flynn effect," which another poster provided a link for in another thread: basically, IQs have been rising (in the US and other nations) at a rate which seems too fast to be accounted for simply by genetic changes.

Just what IQ tests actually measure, how accurate they are with whatever it is they actually measure, and even just what constitutes intelligence are all subjects still only somewhat understood or very much open to debate. Trying to draw conclusions about race from testing which has such issues is problematic, at best.

One thing we can be sure of is that IQ tests only test the depth of your assimilation into the culture conducting the tests.

I think that would be dependent upon the individual test.

 

[Asclepias]

Intelligent intelligence testing

"So the criticism of the discrepancy model is correct, says Alan Kaufman, but it misses the real issue: whether or not intelligence tests, when properly administered and interpreted, can be useful.

"The movement that's trying to get rid of IQ tests is failing to understand that these tests are valid in the hands of a competent practitioner who can go beyond the numbers--or at least use the numbers to understand what makes the person tick, to integrate those test scores with the kind of child you're looking at, and to blend those behaviors with the scores to make useful recommendations," he says."

"these tests are valid in the hands of a competent practitioner"

Who is making this assumption and what are they basing their opinion on?

 

[there4eyeM]

Is IQ A Predictor Of Success?
"Is IQ A Predictor Of Success? originally appeared on Quora: The best answer to any question.

Answer by Peter S. Magnusson, SVP Cloud Development, Oracle. Formerly Snapchat (VP Eng), Google (Eng Dir), and Virtutech (Founder and CEO), on Quora.

As the question is stated, the answer is simply "yes".

If you take a "real" IQ test (see comments below), then the result is a strong statistical predictor of multiple future life outcomes - income, education level, health, even longevity. There are hundreds of studies that confirm these correlations. So in that sense, it "predicts" your future "success".

 

[Asclepias]

The problem, I think, is that normally when one sees IQ and race spoken of together, it is to denigrate a race(s) based on IQ scores.

Of course, IQ is not a strong measurement of intelligence (something which tends to be vaguely defined, at best). A person can get a different score on IQ tests for a variety of reasons: mood, physical health, education levels, etc. IQ tests are really more a measurement of certain abilities. There's also the "Flynn effect," which another poster provided a link for in another thread: basically, IQs have been rising (in the US and other nations) at a rate which seems too fast to be accounted for simply by genetic changes.

Just what IQ tests actually measure, how accurate they are with whatever it is they actually measure, and even just what constitutes intelligence are all subjects still only somewhat understood or very much open to debate. Trying to draw conclusions about race from testing which has such issues is problematic, at best.

One thing we can be sure of is that IQ tests only test the depth of your assimilation into the culture conducting the tests.

I think that would be dependent upon the individual test.

I've taken a few of them and learned to not always go with my instinctive answer but to think how would a I person that was assimilated answer the question. I could make up a IQ test that everyone would fail unless they were raised in a certain environment.

 

[Montrovant]

Intelligent intelligence testing

"So the criticism of the discrepancy model is correct, says Alan Kaufman, but it misses the real issue: whether or not intelligence tests, when properly administered and interpreted, can be useful.

"The movement that's trying to get rid of IQ tests is failing to understand that these tests are valid in the hands of a competent practitioner who can go beyond the numbers--or at least use the numbers to understand what makes the person tick, to integrate those test scores with the kind of child you're looking at, and to blend those behaviors with the scores to make useful recommendations," he says."

I'd personally prefer it to be called something other than intelligence testing. Too often people seem to believe that IQ is an accurate measure of a person's overall intelligence. IQ tests may be useful, but as the article points out, just how useful they are and in what ways is still an evolving question. The quote I prefer is from the end of the article:

"We will always need some way of making intelligent decisions about people," says Halpern. "We're not all the same; we have different skills and abilities. What's wrong is thinking of intelligence as a fixed, innate ability, instead of something that develops in a context."

 

[there4eyeM]

The U.S. Army found that those with an 83 I.Q. or less where so unable to contribute that their presence was actually detrimental.

 

[Montrovant]

The problem, I think, is that normally when one sees IQ and race spoken of together, it is to denigrate a race(s) based on IQ scores.

Of course, IQ is not a strong measurement of intelligence (something which tends to be vaguely defined, at best). A person can get a different score on IQ tests for a variety of reasons: mood, physical health, education levels, etc. IQ tests are really more a measurement of certain abilities. There's also the "Flynn effect," which another poster provided a link for in another thread: basically, IQs have been rising (in the US and other nations) at a rate which seems too fast to be accounted for simply by genetic changes.

Just what IQ tests actually measure, how accurate they are with whatever it is they actually measure, and even just what constitutes intelligence are all subjects still only somewhat understood or very much open to debate. Trying to draw conclusions about race from testing which has such issues is problematic, at best.

One thing we can be sure of is that IQ tests only test the depth of your assimilation into the culture conducting the tests.

I think that would be dependent upon the individual test.

I've taken a few of them and learned to not always go with my instinctive answer but to think how would a I person that was assimilated answer the question. I could make up a IQ test that everyone would fail unless they were raised in a certain environment.

Again, though, it depends on the test. There are probably tests that can be done that are culturally neutral, or at least nearly so. I'm not sure what such tests would be in the context of intelligence, though.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

The problem, I think, is that normally when one sees IQ and race spoken of together, it is to denigrate a race(s) based on IQ scores.

Of course, IQ is not a strong measurement of intelligence (something which tends to be vaguely defined, at best). A person can get a different score on IQ tests for a variety of reasons: mood, physical health, education levels, etc. IQ tests are really more a measurement of certain abilities. There's also the "Flynn effect," which another poster provided a link for in another thread: basically, IQs have been rising (in the US and other nations) at a rate which seems too fast to be accounted for simply by genetic changes.

Just what IQ tests actually measure, how accurate they are with whatever it is they actually measure, and even just what constitutes intelligence are all subjects still only somewhat understood or very much open to debate. Trying to draw conclusions about race from testing which has such issues is problematic, at best.

One thing we can be sure of is that IQ tests only test the depth of your assimilation into the culture conducting the tests.

So, In the USA East Asians, East Indians, Ashkenazi Jews & Polish do better in IQ than Western Europeans who invented it, Because why?

 

[rightwinger]

The problem, I think, is that normally when one sees IQ and race spoken of together, it is to denigrate a race(s) based on IQ scores.

Of course, IQ is not a strong measurement of intelligence (something which tends to be vaguely defined, at best). A person can get a different score on IQ tests for a variety of reasons: mood, physical health, education levels, etc. IQ tests are really more a measurement of certain abilities. There's also the "Flynn effect," which another poster provided a link for in another thread: basically, IQs have been rising (in the US and other nations) at a rate which seems too fast to be accounted for simply by genetic changes.

Just what IQ tests actually measure, how accurate they are with whatever it is they actually measure, and even just what constitutes intelligence are all subjects still only somewhat understood or very much open to debate. Trying to draw conclusions about race from testing which has such issues is problematic, at best.

One thing we can be sure of is that IQ tests only test the depth of your assimilation into the culture conducting the tests.

The definition of intelligence is in the eyes of the person making the test
Decoding confusing analogies does not necessarily make you smart. It just makes you good at decoding analogies

 

[JoeMoma]

In today's academic climate, anyone using the words "IQ" and "race" in the same sentence is presumed to be a racist.

But what if we removed the "race" element completely? What if we examined how kids are doing in comparison with their relative IQ's, ignoring race altogether?

What if "failing" schools are not failing because of the race of the majority of students, but because of the average IQ of the students? Looking at it that way, the focus would be to identify the students in those schools with the greatest potential, and see that they have the opportunity to succeed according the their abilities. As for the remainkng students, the curriculum could be tailored to their strengths and weaknesses, without fretting about whether their average test scores fall below state-wide averages. Who cares?

Take race out of the discussion. Stop reporting scores by race; there is nothing to be gained by it.

/——/ I think PDQ is racist.

 

[rightwinger]

Someone who can answer this question may be considered to have a high IQ

But someone who can figure out why a car keeps stalling is not considered high IQ