Looks Like Young Might Ride The Short Bus

Ok, lets try this again.

Iq tests are created to try to assess someone's ability or potential. These tests are used by corporate america, political entities, social services, military, etc etc. All across soceity people want and use these types of tests. These "compassionate intellectuals" arent forcing their work on anyone. Ppl are seeking these tools out.

However, after creating these tests what people have realized is that there is gap between scores between two groups of people. What these "compassionate intellectuals" are doing is trying to figure out what the gap is and to try and explain it. So far, the lack of conclusions is an inability to conclusively settle why the gap is there.

But the fact that the gap exists is conclusive. It wasnt designed to be there. No one designed the tests trying to create some sort of biased gap. Now the question of why that gap exists is still debatable. Race is only one factor in that gap. Its the factor that you are focusing on-- heavily. But it is only one factor. SES (socioeconomic status) is also a factor. It also isnt the only factor. Why are these factors- thats a good question and one worth exploring so that we can better understand the results of specific individuals.

You keep trying to turn this into an argument about race. I dont get it. Yes, race is involved. That doesnt mean it is racism.

racism

n 1: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races 2: abusive behavior towards members of another race

Now actually what these people are trying to do is determine what this gap is and in so doing, showing that one race is not superier to another. That this gap- that no one intentionally created- exists for other reasons besides race. Now, as of yet, that I am aware of, there is not conclusive information on why the gap exists- but it does exist. There is no debate on that fact.

So here is my question for you Tide. If you are smarter than all these ppl- why do you think this gap exists? Do you think Mcnair is below average intelligence?

Here is why it matters. Because if these tests are going to be used in all these different fields to help screen individuals (and they are, all the time-by everyone from social scientists to business executives), and if the tests consistently and inaccurately score a particular group of ppl lower than other groups- then those who are using the tests are inadvertently and unfairly discriminating. So if these tests are going to be used at all then this gap needs to be explained- so that the tests and how we use them can be more accurate.

Now, if your argument is to not use iq tests and standardized tests at all. :ha: Then you have a much bigger argument on your hands and your going against about about 102 years of precedent and many many professionals in various fields.

But if that is the argument you want to make then let us shift and get off this racism obsession that you have, because though there may be some valid points on not using those types of tests- there are so many more to use them.

As far as looking at the individual over the groups- you're talking about the differences of psychology and sociology. Psychology is actually the study of the individual. For example- this whole argument began as a way to better undertand the results of an individual's score.

If we were talking about sociology we would care much more and want to study much more why various groups have different scores and how that effects socieity. We only care about that at in this point to better understand the score of the individual.
)

 

It is largely money. But it isnt only money. I can try to find look back at some studies. But another consideration are values and beliefs. A family that pushes education and enriched persuites and high career goals, I think, can also effect how the economic advantages effect the kids.

For example, a rich family that doesnt believe in higher education and doesnt believe in enriched pursuits for their kids won't instill those goals and values on their kids- who are less likely to take advantage of the economic benefits that they have.

A poorer family that believes in higher education and those type of enriched pursuits can instill in their children values of and goals so that they can better take advantage of more limited opportunities that they have.

My wife is an example here- her grandparents would be considered low SES. But my wife's mother and her grandmother pushed her toward getting a higher education and on high career goals. Grades were highly stressed and for example her grandmother had her saying her abc's and writing them before she stared pre-k. Those types of values can offset- someone- lower SES.

So its a whole mess of things, which is why it has been hard on scientists to conclusively say what has created this gap. Our abliity to combine stats in a holistic method are only now starting to advance. Our statistical methods are more adept at parsing out data than looking at holistic effects.

 

So you're saying that this gap is a natural thing? That we should look at these tests scores and this gap as completely accurate and not give credence to the professionals that say such tests can unfairly score individuals?

That is what this analogy says. It is saying that you think wonderlic scores are just as accurate as 40 times- and so that a person who scores lower than somone else on the the wonderlic must be looked at as less intelligent.

That, to me, would be racist and elitist. . -unfair discrimination based on race and place in society.

 

Worse yet we might pass on players like Mcnair because a we thougt a test was more accurate than it was. :doh: :ha:

 

I'm familiar with the Bell Curve. Most of their assertions revolve around the importance of the construct of intellegence. What I am discussing is more the validity of intelligence tests. They are related but slightly different- though i'm sure they touch on similiar topics.

Personally, I havent read it. Mostly because when it came out I was still in school and was reading mostly journal articles- not pop books.

Now I'm ambivelant about reading it. I'm a little leary of books published such as these. Because the authors decided to publish their work and conclusions in a mass media market rather than publishing such work in traditional scientific journals- where their assertions and theories could be more thoroughly challenged and evaluated.

But I still may read it- right now I'm in the middle of a biography of Ben Franklin.

The others I had to look up to remind myself. Basically, they are ones who come down in the other camp on the gap that I have been talking about. They say the reason for this gap is simply genetic differences. I believe their arguments are generally the least accepted, though they themselves are widely recognized and accomplished individuals.

Personally, I don't believe they fully take into accout the fallabilty of the tests they are using. They cover statistical bias and think they cover all the bias in the tests- but they dont address what the school psychology article was refering to as fairness. I think they overestimate the role of genetics and underestimate the role of social learning and environment. I dont feel like looking it up right now. But there are numerous articles that have tried to separate genetic effects on who we are and our abilities and environmental effects- refering mostly to the g factor. I dont beleive there are any conclusive arguements- and remember for a scientists a conclusive argument is hard to find. If anyone wants, I can dig and find several of those articles- I have them around here somewhere.

However, most developmental psychologists and developmental theories point to the strong influence of our social environments on the development of who we are.- and that those environments build on what we are originally given.

That does not mean that IQ is fluid and changes over time, but it does mean that our ability to reach our potential can be fluid and can change based on the experiences and opportunties that we have.

Also, the idea that IQ is innate is shared by both groups. However, the ability of the tests and instruments we have to truly reflect that innate ability is the real sticking point.