At this point in history, people’s DNA are set, as far as I know, and I am not an expert in this area.
Not set, just slowly evolving. I believe its currently thought evolution is generally slow with some spurts (though the minority will say the spurt idea is just to make up for missing evidence/fossil records).
http://mentalfloss.com/article/30795/5-signs-humans-are-still-evolving
Because of bias inherent in the valuation process re the activities high-IQ individuals are ‘good at.’
As I stated above, the people who developed traditional IQ tests were those who valued ‘cognitive worker’ traits and values. It is perhaps not surprising that the people who got to define intelligence, and write the tests purporting to measure it, tend to score well on that test.
You’re advocating phrenology as a generally legitimate endeavor? Really?
Tell us about the educational culture from which they emigrated, and you’ll have your answer.
What on earth is “true” intelligence? How is it measured? And how does it differ from the ‘false’ intelligence apparently measured by IQ tests? (And as an aside: If we know how to measure ‘true’ intelligence, why are we bothering with IQ tests?)
Dropping someone in the bush is an exercise in experience rather than intelligence. Just like handing them a cookbook in which they are illiterate.
Question
If dogs and rats can be given tests measuring intelligence, why can’t IQ tests be designed that are culture or education neutral?
The same could be said about working a math problem, couldn’t it?
Whether this can be done is a matter of debate.
For one thing, how would you go about determining it was culturally neutral?
[quote=“EyeDentist, post:799, topic:228119, full:true”]
Because of bias inherent in the valuation process re the activities high-IQ individuals are 'good at.
As I stated above, the people who developed traditional IQ tests were those who valued ‘cognitive worker’ traits and values. It is perhaps not surprising that the people who got to define intelligence, and write the tests purporting to measure it, tend to score well on that test.
'[/quote]
Just to be clear: You think IQ tests unfairly values people who are good in things such as Science, Technology, Engineering, math and unfairly undervalues people who aren’t?
[quote=“EyeDentist, post:799, topic:228119, full:true”]
You’re advocating phrenology as a generally legitimate endeavor? Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology[/quote]
Not an argument.
It’s measured by looking at g factor or general intelligence which is the horsepower behind major mental domains
BTW geneticists are now using “polygenic scoring” now to look to se whether people have specific genetic variants.
We’ll soon know how intelligent people are at birth.
I think what he means is IQ tests are usually biased into giving better scores to people that are similar to the creator of the tests, as the creators would generally not create a test that they fall in the lower echelon of.
This needs to be posted again I guess…
[quote]
ts. They found that being raised by high-SES (socioeconomic status) parents led to an IQ boost of between 12 and 16 points - a huge improvement that testifies to the powerful influence that upbringing can have.[/quote]
This was a study of 10 kids who were born to poor parents and adopted by rich parents and eight kids who were born to rich parents and adopted by poor parents. It found IQ at age 14 under those circumstances to be 58% nature and 42% nurture.
[quote]
The lower IQ scores of American Hispanics cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. They are evidence of skill deficits that sharply curtail chances for achievement and success. But contrary to the counsel of despair from hereditarians like Richwine, those deficits aren`t hard-wired. Progress in reducing achievement gaps will certainly not be easy, but a full review of the IQ evidence shows that it is possible.[/quote]
How long and how much will it costs? Because people have thrown billions at trying to close the race IQ gap and it’s been a compete failure
-Steve Sailer
Did they also purposely game the test structure to make them finish second to Asians and Jews?
More likely scenario is they picked the metrics they were the strongest at. Whether or not other groups could outscore them in these doesn’t change the metrics they needed to use to achieve the highest score for themselves.
Read the rest then get back to me.
How about you lay out an argument using the contents of the article?
So you can ignore it and then move the goal post? Hard pass on that one.
I already read it and gave criticism. I’m asking why you consider it good evidence
I can’t tell if you are being Socratic or antagonistic.
The propositions I made were to minimize education or cultural bias.
Are you refuting there being any IQ differences, other than an individual in relation to N = all humans?
So on and so forth. IQ tests are geared towards skill sets valued in western societies and can not adequately assess the intelligence of non-western cultures.
That’s good enough me because it then holds that people who don’t have high IQs (lack skill sets valued in the West) also are by extension incompatible to be here
