this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
715 points (95.8% liked)
Political Memes
5348 readers
2648 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
IQ is not an objective measure of intelligence, because intelligence is colloquial and subjective. If I told you I invented an instrument that could objectively score every human on their beauty, you'd see the problem right away.
IQ was a project of Eugenics. It's trash science.
IQ is useful for an individual to asses mental degradation. It's not useful to compare IQ to others, but to compare your own personal reaults, after something like a stroke or an accident where brain damage may have occurred.
That being said, it needs to be a proper IQ test administered by a psychologist and not a random IQ test website
Again, no, not really. There are so many different kinds of effects that brain damage can have, and IQ doesn’t cover it.
Sure, but I guess that it’s just a small part in a battery of tests to evaluate the effects of an injury. I mean, it does measure something, even if it’s just the ability to sit for a test.
Sure, but so does a polygraph test. There’s a reason we don’t use them, because they’re pseudoscientific and misleading.
If you’re measuring heart rate, breathing and sweating, I guess you could use a polygraph. If you want to measure a potential cognitive decline in a single person, you can have them do several of these tests to see if there’s a trend. There is nothing pseudoscientific about using these methods in this way. The pseudoscience comes in when we’re trying to tie the results to truthfulness in the case of the polygraph or intelligence in the case of the IQ test. Or even worse, when trying to compare two individuals from their results.
If you want to measure heart rate, you measure heart rate. You wouldn’t use a polygraph because it makes no sense.
If you want to measure cognitive decline, you use a test designed for that purpose such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment or the Mini-Mental State Examination. Cognitive decline affects so many things which IQ has nothing to do with, such as self-orientation, executive function, and so on.
It’s just not a good or useful metric for the purpose.
Next, you’ll be defending the potential applications of phrenology.
IQ is a basic tool that allows a quick interpretation of someone's mental capacity. It's like BMI. Yes, some edge cases don't fit the general rule. However, if you have room temperature IQ, there's a solid chance you're dumber than a box of rocks.
No, studies on IQ have shown that the test design often assume something about the population taking the test. If you produce a test for British students in secondary school and give it to miners in Zimbabwe, then the miners will probably achieve way lower scores than is it expected. This is because the students are more used to taking tests. IQ tests have been used in this way to promote racist ideas, when the real problem is the methodology behind IQ tests.
There’s a whole book about this, “the mismeasure of man”, by Stephen Jay Gould.
"If you use the wrong test and get bad results it means the test is wrong." No you dummy it means you don't know how to test.
I'm sorry but the guy in OP is not a Zimbabwean miner. He's a white ass man and therefore shouldn't be affected by the pretend racistness of IQ test.
I used the example to illustrate a point. The tests have a target population that they are constructed for. This is also the reason as to why modern people score really high on old tests, because they are not the target population. The thing is, people aren’t very different, neither across cultures nor across time. We should expect the average person of today to be just as intelligent as the average person of 1924, but they score differently in the test. It’s almost as if the test doesn’t measure intelligence at all! If the tests actually measured intelligence, they wouldn’t need to be specifically designed for a certain population.
When an IQ-test is designed, a number of assumptions are made, e.g., normal distribution, that an underlying factor is well described by the battery of questions and that this underlying factor is the best thing that can explain the variation seen. All these assumptions are debatable at best. I mean, it’s just factor analysis, and all the assumptions of that statistical method applies.
And yet, except very specific and rare outliers, people who score low on IQ test are generally dumber than people who don't.
No, it’s total garbage science. It’s absolutely useless for the purposes that people use it for. It has been used to give racists excuses to exclude non-white people for years.
So yeah, like BMI.
Til white people can't be fat or have low iq.
I’m trying to helping you correct your misconceptions, if you just want to be a stubborn smartass about it, that’s your problem.
BMI and IQ are perfectly valid basic estimation of weight and intelligence in 90% of the cases. Unless you are one of the rare edge cases, a BMI of 36 means you're a fatty. If your IQ is lower than average, there's a solid chance you're dumber than average.
Simple as.
You’re totally wrong, sorry. But I can’t change your mind for you. If you’re so closed off to being wrong about something that you’re unwilling to accept the truth when led directly to it, clearly discussing it with you would be a total waste of my time.
You’re totally wrong, sorry. But I can’t change your mind for you. If you’re so closed off to being wrong about something that you’re unwilling to accept the truth when led directly to it, clearly discussing it with you would be a total waste of my time.
You actually can rank people on their beauty, using an ELO algorithm
What do the Electric Light Orchestra have to do with anything?
Idk I use a different ELO rating system.
Face The Music
ELO 2
Discovery
But I was always more into Yes anyway.