Chris Woodhead= Cnut

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
So you believe that intelligence can be objectively measured?

Even though there is huge amounts of data to suggest that IQ tests measure only the ability to take IQ tests

You believe that vocabulary is a measure of intelligence?

Yes - though there is a problem in that it can only really be measured in relation to other people's measurements. Psychologists are looking for an objective metric and various candidates appear: eg. reaction time, inspection time etc

Post the data!

Vocab size correlates positively with intelligence, generally speaking.
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
Assesing someone's potential as a humanities student seems to rely a lot more on intangible impressions, though, which makes the process more susceptible to favouring people who know how to talk the talk. Whereas afaik Cambridge still base a lot of their maths interview process on 'give them some hard elementary problems, see how they get on with them / give them an exam full of hard elementary problems, see how they get on with that.'

I agree to a great extent- maths and physics are two subjects where an entrance exam is still the most important factor in selection. I don't think that has much to do with what we're talking about though, because in the main working class kids will have been selected out of that process long before any admissions test.
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
Yes - though there is a problem in that it can only really be measured in relation to other people's measurements. Psychologists are looking for an objective metric and various candidates appear: eg. reaction time, inspection time etc

Post the data!

Vocab size correlates positively with intelligence, generally speaking.

ok, I would disagree wholeheartedly- IQ tests do not measure innate intelligence. Nor does vocab size

See: Klineberg (1969), (1971); Vernon (1969), various responses to the work of Hernstein and Murray.

There have been a couple of (long) threads here about it over the years.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
ok, I would disagree wholeheartedly- IQ tests do not measure innate intelligence. Nor does vocab size

See: Klineberg (1969), (1971); Vernon (1969), various responses to the work of Hernstein and Murray.

There have been a couple of (long) threads here about it over the years.

These are very old!

It's odd: social science has (partly) decided long ago that IQ is meaningless, whilst vast swathes of psychology and neuroscience plough on ahead with it. Go figure...

Vocab size is a reflection of intelligence. Why would it not be?
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
This argument would be plausible if, on retesting, people's rank within the tested sample changed randomly.

However, reasoning scores are pretty consistent over time and over retesting (this consistency is what test-makers aim for):

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/c...strand_2004_bjep_consistency_in_reasoning.pdf

Again, I question the assumption that such tests are measuring intelligence. They are not.

I think you are going even further than Woodhead- at least he sneaks in a 'nurture is important too...' qualification
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Again, I question the assumption that such tests are measuring intelligence. They are not.

I think you are going even further than Woodhead- at least he sneaks in a 'nurture is important too...' qualification

Well, okay, they 'measure the likelihood of doing well in intellectual tasks'.

But that's pretty much the same thing. ;)

btw These reasoning tests are usually used, within schools, to upvalue not devalue individual pupils: a teacher would sooner think 'ooh, this one, from their CATs score is underperforming' than 'whytf is he doing so well when his score is 105?'

Of course nurture is important BUT there have been projects aimed at boosting IQ (with typically underwhelming outcomes)
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
These are very old!

It's odd: social science has (partly) decided long ago that IQ is meaningless, whilst vast swathes of psychology and neuroscience plough on ahead with it. Go figure...

Vocab size is a reflection of intelligence. Why would it not be?


That they are old suggests how long ago IQ tests were demeaned.

I don't think the number of people ploughing on with something can be taken as a measure of the ideas accuracy.


vocab size not equalling intelligence: if you don't come into contact with people with large vocabularies for one
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
That they are old suggests how long ago IQ tests were demeaned.

I don't think the number of people ploughing on with something can be taken as a measure of the idea's accuracy.

No, but perhaps of its usefulness. It's useful to psychology because it's a way of organising data; it's of no use to sociology because it minimises environmental factors and discussion thereof!

Even Chelsea had their players' IQs tested recently. ;)

vocab size not equalling intelligence: if you don't come into contact with people with large vocabularies for one

Yes, but given two children with identical backgrounds, the more intelligent one will notice and pick up more of their environment than the other. Ceteris paribus innit
 
Last edited:

matt b

Indexing all opinion
Well, okay, they 'measure the likelihood of doing well in intellectual tasks'.

But that's pretty much the same thing. ;)

btw These reasoning tests are usually used, within schools, to upvalue not devalue individual pupils: a teacher would sooner think 'ooh, this one, from their CATs score is underperforming' than 'whytf is he doing so well when his score is 105?'

Of course nurture is important BUT there have been projects aimed at boosting IQ (with typically underwhelming outcomes)

Obviously, they are not the same thing.

They are also used in streaming and banding etc, and also in the 'well he's only a 105...' manner, so can clearly have the opposite affect to the one you mention.

I don't really understand your last point
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Obviously, they are not the same thing.

They are also used in streaming and banding etc, and also in the 'well he's only a 105...' manner, so can clearly have the opposite affect to the one you mention.

I don't really understand your last point

Did you not read my explanation of how the tests came about? They are precisely the same thing!

In my experience, it's more of the former than the latter, that's all.

With streaming, it's probably fairer and more 'socially just' to band by reasoning scores than SATs results, as the prep-schooled pupils will have been hot-housed beyond their natural level, whilst the sink school ppl will have underperformed. It can serve as a corrective.

That environment is not all-important; that given equally rich soil, one seed will grow into a stronger plant than the other.
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
No, but perhaps of its usefulness.

Even Chelsea had their players' IQs tested recently. ;)



Yes, but given two children with identical backgrounds, the more intelligent one will notice and pick up more of their environment than the other. Ceteris paribus innit

Why do you keep changing your frame of reference?

We are talking about social class and intelligence. You have stated that working class people are less intelligent than middle/upper class kids, thus explaining all the inequalities in both the education system and in wider society.

On average (and without making a value judgement) there is plenty of evidence to suggest that working class kids come into contact with fewer words than middle class kids. That doesn't make them less intelligent, and it highlights the foolishness of using vocab as a measure of intelligence.

It does however, allow us to put one small piece of the jigsaw in place that helps us to build the picture explaining why working class kids do less well in school.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
We are talking about social class and intelligence. You have stated that working class people are less intelligent than middle/upper class kids, thus explaining all the inequalities in both the education system and in wider society.

By saying that I didn't mean to 'explain' (away) the inequalities of the education system and society at large. It may have, comparatively speaking, very little bearing on these, but I still contend that it is true (albeit for somewhat banal reasons).
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
By saying that I didn't mean to 'explain' (away) the inequalities of the education system and society at large. It may have, comparatively speaking, very little bearing on these, but I still contend that it is true (albeit for somewhat banal reasons).

you must have been the star of your debating society
 
Top