If true, then it would provide a way to redistribute wealth and measure the collective impact on IQ in a quantitative way, which would indeed make it a useful statistic
If a younger kid has a lower IQ then figuring out what skills they are lacking in to help them improve. For an adult if their low IQ score comes from lack of reading comprehension then you can assist that. The tests can help target the areas of lack.
It is not a static part of you like your height or wingspan. It can increase and decrease because of a variety of factors.
Yes, absolutely. But how does an IQ test help with that? If someone has a low score, you then need to figure out what skill is lacking. That requires another test, no? How is assigning a point score helpful?
I don’t know of any education system that relies on IQ scores, yet they are usually set up to address shortcoming in skill or education. They do this via targeted tests and education programs. I don’t personally see what adding IQ would add.
Agreed, indicating deficiency requires more nuance than a single score. The only thing IQ by itself has been used to is to either “give up” on a person because low IQ or to falsely elevate a person for being “super smart” and breed obnoxious elitism. Mensa itching to tell folks with a high score on a single test that they are better than everyone else.
You can’t even tell what is wrong with the presumption that you can universalize childhood development, can you? “Target areas of lack…?” You mean like, any other fucking assessment that isn’t rooted in racist, sexist, and ableist notions of universal standards of knowledge or intelligence?
If you speak english poorly, you’ll probably score low on an IQ test. If the test uses cultural motifs that you’re unfamiliar with, you’re more likely to score low on an IQ test. There’s many ways that IQ tests can give terrible results, so it’s not really that great at gathering reliable data about someone’s intelligince.
I’ve seen enough court cases where people did not have the reasoning capability to understand the situations they were in. Not bigotry, I do believe IQ can be increased and has a lot to do with upbringing, access to info, and opportunity.
But there are people who are unfortunately dumb. Not to mock them, but understand we need to come along the simple to assist them. Because it makes for a better society.
People can have less or greater cognitive ability and understanding. Trying to quantify it as IQ does, however, results in extremely misleading outcomes.
Problem is there are better ways, more specific ways.
Frankly, in my life experience people with cognitive disabilities don’t need a specific numerical grade, a broader categorization is good. So the IQ metric just doesn’t tell us enough (no indication of specifically how the impairment would be, nor indication about potential other developmental issues that may require accommodation).
Lots of things are used to justify bigotry. If you assume that subjectively negative attributes are a result of heritage rather than upbringing, you can use anything to justify bigotry.
For native English speakers, IQ largely correlates with general intellectual ability. People with higher IQs are generally more capable of understanding more complicated topics. It’s not a moral failing to have a low IQ, and there’s no reason to assume it’s genetically heritable or innate and immutable.
The problem is that IQ is very poor at actually identifying “general intellectual ability,” as “general intellectual ability” is not a linear spectrum but a highly complex and multi-faceted phenomena.
Yeah, it is a single one dimensional number that attempts to represent a multidimensional system. But also you can pretty well predict whether someone is capable of, like, standing trial or something if that single number is particularly low. It does correlate with a real phenomenon, if not perfectly.
While the meme is funny, IQ is a bullshit statistic.
A somewhat useful statistic.
Not really, as we can dramatically increase iq with wealth.
These are not mutually exclusive statements.
For example I exfoliate with nickles because money reduces dumb dumb.
If true, then it would provide a way to redistribute wealth and measure the collective impact on IQ in a quantitative way, which would indeed make it a useful statistic
Let me know when we do wealth redistribution, lol.
Sure, so what’re its uses?
If a younger kid has a lower IQ then figuring out what skills they are lacking in to help them improve. For an adult if their low IQ score comes from lack of reading comprehension then you can assist that. The tests can help target the areas of lack.
It is not a static part of you like your height or wingspan. It can increase and decrease because of a variety of factors.
Yes, absolutely. But how does an IQ test help with that? If someone has a low score, you then need to figure out what skill is lacking. That requires another test, no? How is assigning a point score helpful?
I don’t know of any education system that relies on IQ scores, yet they are usually set up to address shortcoming in skill or education. They do this via targeted tests and education programs. I don’t personally see what adding IQ would add.
Agreed, indicating deficiency requires more nuance than a single score. The only thing IQ by itself has been used to is to either “give up” on a person because low IQ or to falsely elevate a person for being “super smart” and breed obnoxious elitism. Mensa itching to tell folks with a high score on a single test that they are better than everyone else.
You can’t even tell what is wrong with the presumption that you can universalize childhood development, can you? “Target areas of lack…?” You mean like, any other fucking assessment that isn’t rooted in racist, sexist, and ableist notions of universal standards of knowledge or intelligence?
What a circular argument.
If you speak english poorly, you’ll probably score low on an IQ test. If the test uses cultural motifs that you’re unfamiliar with, you’re more likely to score low on an IQ test. There’s many ways that IQ tests can give terrible results, so it’s not really that great at gathering reliable data about someone’s intelligince.
deleted by creator
Not really, it’s highly misleading and is used to justify bigotry.
I’ve seen enough court cases where people did not have the reasoning capability to understand the situations they were in. Not bigotry, I do believe IQ can be increased and has a lot to do with upbringing, access to info, and opportunity.
But there are people who are unfortunately dumb. Not to mock them, but understand we need to come along the simple to assist them. Because it makes for a better society.
People can have less or greater cognitive ability and understanding. Trying to quantify it as IQ does, however, results in extremely misleading outcomes.
Yup. But it is not a horrid starting point. There is always a better everything.
Just because one finds fault does not mean that one can not also find use.
The problem is with how it’s used in general, which results in ableism and bigotry.
By a few. Don’t let a few bad apples ruin the bunch.
The point of that saying is once you find bad apples it’s too late for the bunch. You have to throw them all out.
I don’t see the actual utility in IQ outside of very fringe use-cases. It’s over-utilized despite being a poor metric itself.
Problem is there are better ways, more specific ways.
Frankly, in my life experience people with cognitive disabilities don’t need a specific numerical grade, a broader categorization is good. So the IQ metric just doesn’t tell us enough (no indication of specifically how the impairment would be, nor indication about potential other developmental issues that may require accommodation).
Lots of things are used to justify bigotry. If you assume that subjectively negative attributes are a result of heritage rather than upbringing, you can use anything to justify bigotry.
For native English speakers, IQ largely correlates with general intellectual ability. People with higher IQs are generally more capable of understanding more complicated topics. It’s not a moral failing to have a low IQ, and there’s no reason to assume it’s genetically heritable or innate and immutable.
The problem is that IQ is very poor at actually identifying “general intellectual ability,” as “general intellectual ability” is not a linear spectrum but a highly complex and multi-faceted phenomena.
Yeah, it is a single one dimensional number that attempts to represent a multidimensional system. But also you can pretty well predict whether someone is capable of, like, standing trial or something if that single number is particularly low. It does correlate with a real phenomenon, if not perfectly.
When it comes to extreme outliers, it can maybe be useful for identifying that something is going on. It’s horrible as an actual metric though.