D
droid
Guest
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.
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.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
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
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.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
matt b
Indexing all opinion
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
_________________________
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
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
_________________________
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
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
_________________________
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.
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
_________________________
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
_________________________
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
a beautiful, but entirely vacuous analogy
matt b
Indexing all opinion
you must have been the star of your debating society
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
ad hominem :slanted:
btw I'm not meaning to pick on you or have a fervent debate. I'm quite phlegmatic nowadays.
matt b
Indexing all opinion
Of course it's vacuous if you don't believe in the premise.
You do? You believe that everyone starts out with equal life chances and equal access to the resources required for success?
Seriously?