D
droid
Guest
'More' as in the proportion, as this would effect the average.
Do you have access to data which shows the distribution of mental disability in relation to income and fertility?
It's 'affect' not 'effect' btw.
'More' as in the proportion, as this would effect the average.
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?
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.'
Do you have access to data which shows the distribution of mental disability in relation to income and fertility?
It's 'affect' not 'effect' btw.
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.
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
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 idea's accuracy.
vocab size not equalling intelligence: if you don't come into contact with people with large vocabularies for one
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
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
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.
That environment is not all-important; that given equally rich soil, one seed will grow into a stronger plant than the other.
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).
a beautiful, but entirely vacuous analogy
you must have been the star of your debating society
Of course it's vacuous if you don't believe in the premise.