|
Top-level
@makeworld @viraptor @aimaz @bontchev and if that's not sufficient to convince you, then how about the Flynn effect? When modern children take the old versions of the test the average scores are significantly above 100 (which is meant to be the baseline average). An actual robust measurement of intelligence doesn't produce wildly different results by generation. IQ is just astrology for well educated white people. See also Myers-Briggs. 9 comments
 @georgepotter "genuinely objective" -- you're moving goalposts. My only point was that "entirely racist pseudoscience" is incorrect, not that that IQ is "genuinely objective", whatever that means. Furthermore, there are of course modern cognitive assessments, such as the WAIS-IV from 2008. How do you know that one is "entirely racist pseudoscience"? @makeworld you mean a particular version of an IQ test, based on a version from the 1950s, and produced by a corporation which makes millions every year by selling psychometrics (a definite pseudoscience) to businesses as a solution for making better recruitment and talent decisions? And that was weighted and configured based on a sample of Americans and Canadians only? Yeah sure, that's totally reliable and not at all biased or flawed 🙄 @makeworld you've ignored the vast majority of what I've said, refused to engage with the core concepts, failed to cite any sources, and keep on relying on fallacious appeals to (unearned) authority in place of any reasoned argument. I'm not going to engage further with someone who refuses to reciprocate. I'm sure you're a clever person so it's a shame you're choosing wilful ignorance over an opportunity to re-evaluate your social programming. @georgepotter ok, I'll stop replying then. I would have appreciated if you cited sources as well. Thanks for chatting a bit rather than just blocking me, although I could have done without the insults. As a final link, I enjoyed this piece that discusses why/when it can be useful to just accept mainstream opinion: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learned-helplessness/ @makeworld if anything I had claimed could not be sourced via the most cursory of searches then I'd have provided citations. What you seem to miss is that I spent most of my life accepting mainstream opinion about IQ, not least because that was rather complimentary to myself. The trouble is that the arguments against the validity of IQ have no good rebuttals, and you have failed to provide any yourself. Look up what an appeal to authority is, it seems to be your primary argument. @makeworld If you want to convince me that the arguments against IQ are wrong, then you need to provide actual rebuttals, not simply rely on logical fallacies to avoid questioning, or defending, your own assumptions. Have a good evening. @georgepotter there's a bunch of errors I could reply to here, but I'll just say the basic thing: you rolling your eyes and saying it's biased is meaningless. It's just your opinion. That doesn't mean it's "entirely racist pseudoscience", it just means you don't like it. Facts haven't entered the conversation yet. @makeworld there were a number of facts in what I just said, it's a shame you can't recognise them. |
Gregory's Server
@makeworld @viraptor @aimaz @bontchev or, to put it another way, if you were to attempt to devise a genuinely objective assessment for cognitive ability today then what you would end up with would look absolutely nothing like an IQ test.
The usage of IQ is just a textbook case of academic regurgitation of past assumptions, without critical analysis, based purely on appeals to historic authority. See also the theories of Sigmund Freud, which were regurgitated long after they'd been debunked.