Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by JimBowie1958, Oct 6, 2017.
That question is taboo......scientist investigate at your own risk.
A "controlled group" is not needed to measure the demographics of a population. A controlled group is needed if some sort of treatment is administered in an experiment and the effects of the treatment are to be measured (against the controlled group).
A control group is needed to determine how much IQ generated is purely from genetics vrs genetics and environment, with the control group not having the environmental effects.
Despite the qualifying subordinate clause (not shown) that ends the sentence quoted above, the essence of the question, which is what I've above quoted, isn't completely nullified. I'm amazed you're asking that question.
I am not sure what your question is.
I asked how can we do A if A' is not possible, when A is contingent on there being A'?
To say we have evaluated facet Bravo of group Sierra and determined that the Bravo undermines the value of group Sierra makes absolutely zero sense if the Bravo is not a steady repeatable quantity.
The ability of IQs to improve means that there is no valid argument for dehumanizing any group of people based on their average IQ,limiting their freedoms or treating them differently in courts of law.
That's because I didn't ask one.
The problem with IQ tests is they honestly dont predict job performane as well as say what college you went to what you majored in and reference letters from past employers.
My mother got her master's in nursing IQ 100 made 80k yr. My father IQ 130 1300 sat bachelor's accounting made 100k yr. Me IQ 110 master's degree and I drive a truck for a living . I also was diagnosed with dyslexia as a kid.
The rise in the U.S. is easily explained by immigration factors, and the far smaller rises in European scores is also explained by immigration factors, for one. The increase in mandatory education laws also play a factor over decades. I also don't think the IQ tests in 1909 are remotely like those in 2000, so what is actually being measured is questionable, particularly across different countries. What exactly does a '30 point jump' in the U.S. versus, say, an '8 point jump' in Switzerland, if the 'average' IQ is far lower in the U.S. to begin with, and the far slower rise in Switzerland is from 128 to 136, versus a jump in the U.S. from 20 to 50?
That being said, I'm sure genetics indeed play a major factor overall, but then few jobs being created these days require a high IQ, so no need to worry over it if 80% of new workers have !Q's less than 80. If the other15% have IQ's of 200, most of them will still be unemployed or flipping burgers.
Separate names with a comma.