It’s polite etiquette to mention what you’re quoting.
It’s obviously a common definition of IQ… It doesn’t really matter where it’s from as it shows that general definitions of IQ claim it’s a test of generalized intellect.
Your quote doesn’t really refute my argument, or clarify what claim you are making?
An intelligence quotient (IQ) is a total score derived from a set of standardized tests or subtests designed to assess human intelligence.[1]
What exactly are you claiming? That it’s not a test to measure intellect? That IQ is pseudoscience? Or that it’s not specifically generalized intellect?
IQ is not a measurement of human intellect in general.
I don’t think there’s a scientific consensus of what IQ really measures.
Regarding correlation with success, I should have specified that the correlation still exists even when controlling for birth environment.
I would say that would be extremely difficult to definitively prove. IQ is more of a social study than a hard science, typically this kinda data is more suggestive than it is definite.
Never studied for them, they seemed like mostly simple pattern recognition and general logic questions, which I’ve never really thought you could even study for.
There are a few different tests that are supposed to clinically measure IQ. Most of them are more complex than pattern recognition and most all of them are administered by some sort of clinician, which can also influence outcomes.
But general intellect, as far as I can tell (and maybe my understanding of it is wrong), is what influences your ability to shift to a new field and gain expertise in that. Years alone don’t cut it. In my own field, I’ve seen software engineers who can’t program for shit, let alone make any architectural decisions after a decade - and ones that are pretty competent after 2-3 years.
I would say that the ability to gain expertise is generally hard to differentiate with the motivation to gain expertise. What we can empirically prove is that time spent practicing a skill is how we gain expertise in most any skill.
In fact, it’s more like ranges of aptitudes. I have great aptitude for STEM, pretty decent aptitude for languages, and absolutely none for arts. No drawing, no singing, etc. No matter how much practice I get and how much practice I got in my childhood.
It could be that you just perceive yourself being at being better at stem because you enjoy practicing the skills required for stem. People generally gain experience faster in skill sets they enjoy or skills they perceive thems to excel at.
There’s just skills I won’t learn in 10 years of practice, and skills I pick up rapidly, and it’s been that way since childhood.
Again, this could be self fulfilling process. If you don’t think you will excel at something you may not fully engage in the process, or even self sabotage the process.
think IQ in particular unfairly prioritizes understanding of language and logic, over artful skills and, e.g emotional intelligence (which is measured by EQ I guess).
I think for this to be true your claim would have to be that emotional intellect is devoid of logic or language…which seems fairly self evidently incorrect.
My main point that I wanted to make was that some people are naturally more gifted, and just faster learners, than others.
Or people are better at learning things they are self motivated to learn about, and that society influences what skills we find valuable or “intellectual”.
In short, what we can empirically prove about intellect is usually environmental in nature, and what we can only theorize about heritability cannot be differentiated from other variabilities that may correlate with that theory.
I’m not generally interested in comparing IQ results between countries or even for people of differing first language though so these don’t especially concern me so long as I can be sure a study averts the issue.
My point is the variability between test groups calls into question the reliability of IQ as a concept as a whole. If IQ is an innate measurement of intellect for humans in general, then the reliability of the test shouldn’t be culturally constrained.
for instance, it correlates well with success (level of education (eventually) reached, or $ in a capitalist society) and I’d be surprised to find any major journal publishing a paper which disputes that.
Yes, but I could make the same claim about a plethora of other correlations with more confidence like having wealthy parents.
Wait, do people actually study for IQ tests? Why?
The same reason mensa is a thing. People like to toot their own horn.
reckon general intellect does matter. In a world where your job might not exist in 5 years because lol AI, it’s best to be able to adapt fast. Specialize, yes, but one day your specialization will be useless. Best case scenario, it’s after you’ve retired.
To a certain extent yes, but no one can be an expert at everything. There just isn’t enough time, and expertise is really what society rewards people for at the end of the day.
And going back to heritability, there’s definitely some heritability there
I would say that would be incredibly hard to empirically prove due to the problems you mentioned. At best we could speculate that heritability may be an influence, but that influence is vastly overshadowed by environmental factors.
This article does a pretty decent job pointing out some of the variabilities that make IQ test unreliable. Tbh I think the concept of IQ is fruit from the poisoned tree. There are so many people that stake their positions and identities on the efficacy of IQ that the whole data pool is kinda poisoned. For every study that makes a claim, there are other studies rebutting it.
And can you link me to the language thing? When I look up language, I’m just seeing correlation between language proficiency and IQ, which shouldn’t be surprising – I would imagine that people who measure a higher IQ are better at learning languages.
I would have to search for it, i originally read about it when I was in college over a decade ago. Basically the claim was that the vast majority of the tests originate or are interpreted from English or another western language. When certain aspects of the test are interpreted to a different language the sentence structure is modified in a way where it adds an additional barrier for the test taker.
This may be somewhat solved by the different language speakers creating their own test, but that may not overcome the problem due to the need for global standardization, orit may be a barrier to language speakers who’s cultures haven’t invested the time or resources to the idea of IQ to begin with.
I mean, the validity of IQ tests in general should be questioned when the largest variability in scoring is if you’ve previously studied for an IQ test followed by what language you speak.
Philosophically I don’t really think there’s a uniform agreement on what exactly defines general intellect, or if that general intellect even matters considering were a species that relies on specialization.
As far as heritability, I imagine that would be a horribly difficult topic to actually get enough research to rule out variables like socioeconomics and cultural differences. I mean I doubt there’s that many twin studies to establish the efficacy any particular theory.
You were the one making accusations about me specifically. Now that your argument completely fell apart, you were talking about someone else? What a fucking loser, go kick rocks.
Free speech means being able to say and support things you believe in without the threat of being murdered for it.
According to whom? You can’t just redefine legal terms to suit your argument. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, again this is just a strawman argument.
You are already legally protected from being murdered for what you say, last time I checked murder is still illegal.
Any sympathy for the murderer undermines free speech and democratic society
First of all…who was expressing sympathy for the murderer? Understanding someone’s motive isn’t the same as being sympathetic towards something. The CIA has reported that 9/11 was the result of political blowback from our previous involvement in Afghanistan. By your logic the CIA is sympathetic towards the terrorist responsible for 9/11?
Secondly, you don’t get to dictate what people get to feel or talk about. Especially while hypocritically accusing people of undermining the freedom of speech for their beliefs or statements.
Lastly you have no fucking clue what the freedom of speech clause of Constitution actually means, because as I have previously stated… you are a moron.
This is not complicated…
I’m pretty sure tying shoe laces is complicated for you, this has obviously gone over your head.
Seems like a lot of victim blaming in here. It can be very simple. Don’t murder people you disagree with.
Moralizing once again, no one here advocated for murdering anyone.
Also, free speech needs to be protected culturally as well, and not just through the government.
The idea of freedom speech is a constitutional right, it’s not a social mores. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, you are just trying to erect a strawman argument.
doesn’t need to be a discussion about understanding motives at all. It’s wrong and needs to be condemned, full stop.
Lol, kinda ironic someone who is whining about free speech is trying to get people to stop talking about someone’s motive. We can discuss whatever we want, if you don’t like it you can leave. Hypocrite.
Otherwise you don’t have a free country. You can’t hand wave it away or shrug just because you understand their motive.
Lol, free speech means stop talking about something I don’t like because of freedoms…You are a moron.
a massive false equivalence comparing what Israel has done against the murder of two individuals.
People aren’t trying to equivocate the two, that would be insulting, not only to the people who were murdered, but to the tens of thousands of people being killed in Palestine.
The guy that got murdered isn’t Israel. He’s a person with opinions, right or wrong. He got murdered for a few tweets and an affiliation with Israel.
I mean he’s a representative of the state, which is why this is a politically motivated murder.
He’s not a combatant, but a civilian. Same for his wife. People justifying these murders are flat out wrong
Explanations aren’t justifications, just because people understand and even agree with the motivations of the killer doesn’t mean the agree with how he acted upon them.
I find the cries for the sanctity of protecting civilians to be pretty meek considering the state these civilians represent have overwhelmingly killed more civilians than armed combatants.
This is the inherent problem with a state targeting civilian populations, it provokes violence upon your own civilians.
In order to have a system where free speech is protected, you can’t allow people to be murdered for their views.
Another person misunderstanding the Constitution…Free speech doesn’t protect you from the public’s reaction to your speech, it guarantees protection from the government targeting you for your speech.
This isn’t an example of someone’s free speech being violated. An actual example would be students being arrested for their protest about Israels actions in Gaza.
There is no defending these murders or trying to justify them.
Again, understanding a motive isn’t justifying. No one said they agreed that those people deserved to be murdered , you’re just moralizing.
It’s illogical to compare them from a moral perspective.
The only person doing that is you… Everyone else is trying to point out that the two events are logically connected.
You don’t get to just shoot people because they have a different perspective than you, because they were raised differently or get their news from different places than you do.
Lol, I don’t think his motivations were centered around where people get their news. There is a genocide happening in Palestine, it’s not really a matter of perspective or debate. Violence begets violence, no one is claiming that’s a good thing, it’s just inescapable blowback.
It’s not exactly whataboutism though, it’s more of a false equivalence.
No one is equivocating the two. People are just acknowledging that political violence against those who represent a state is to be expected when a state conducts a genocide.
you think he is, then you are blinded by ideology and shouldn’t be allowed to participate in democratic society.
Lol, I’ve started my statement claiming I didn’t think people deserved to be murdered. You keep trying to connect my statements to moral grandstanding because you don’t have any other kind of rebuttal.
I don’t think I would really consider it a grossly exaggerated claim, more of just a misinterpretation of a report.
“For now let me just say that we know for a fact that there are babies who are in urgent life-saving need of these supplements that need to come in because their mothers are unable to feed themselves.”
“And if they do not get those, they will be in mortal danger,” he said.
I definitely wouldn’t claim that it was a claim based on antisemitism as Weissbrod is accusing. It’s a fact that the Israeli state is starving tens of thousands of people for no justifiable reason. I don’t think a misinterpretation of the timeline is really enough to claim someone is participating in blood libel.
I mean, I don’t think you get to decide what the scope of the context is.
For this not to be contextual you would have to claim that the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians had nothing to do with the gunman’s motive. I think that would be hard to claim considering that the murders were politically motivated, considering that the two victims were diplomats.
I think people have gotten a little too comfortable with claiming anything that shares a sentence structure with a logical fallacy to be a logical fallacy. You have to remember that logical fallacies have to be illogical in the first place. It’s not illogical to assume these two claims are associated.
Whataboutism have to equivocate two different scenarios that aren’t logically associated with the events in the originating claim.
I mean context is always important. Pretty sure any murder investigation goes into the motivation of the person who killed the victims.
I think it’s important to dispel the notion that the occupation of a neighboring country is somehow an act of protection, when it’s pretty obvious that it’s sparked a lot of provocation.
I mean also…
“In his final post on social media hours before the attack, Lischinsky had shared a post from the Israeli ambassador, Amir Weissbrod, accusing UN officials of engaging in “blood libel” over claims that 14,000 children faced starvation in Gaza.”
Not saying they deserved any violence, but even once moderate Israelis have been driven pretty far right in the last couple years. Accusations of blood libel while the state is actively starving children doesn’t exactly seem to be promoting any positive dialogue.
Haha, no it’s good for me. English wasn’t my first language, so I welcome the reinforcement.
Surely attacking the musical embodiment of the working class in New Jersey will be good for the conservatives…right?
I feel like if he wanted Jersey to file articles of succession all he would have to do at this point is ban pork rolls.
Yeah… I don’t really think anyone really cares about anyone’s education anymore, at least not past your first employer.
I have to spend a lot of time teaching people in their residencies at my job, and where they went school doesn’t really bring anything to the table. In fact, a lot of the people who went to fancy private medical schools were either overwhelmed by having to talk to our impoverished patient population, or didn’t ever develop healthy ways to mitigate interpersonal conflict.