What I.Q. doesn’t tell you about race - why comparing it fails...

[Pr⊕phet]

/set mode +FlipIT protect
/set mode +ModMove protect


"IQ has suddenly become a hot topic again, owing to a certain DNA-discovering Nobel laureate putting his foot in his mouth and the publication of a couple of books on the subject. Malcolm Gladwell has written a great article for the New Yorker that summarises many of the recent arguments and suggests why comparing IQ scores of different races is doomed to failure"
-mindhacks





One Saturday in November of 1984, James Flynn, a social scientist at the University of Otago, in New Zealand, received a large package in the mail. It was from a colleague in Utrecht, and it contained the results of I.Q. tests given to two generations of Dutch eighteen-year-olds. When Flynn looked through the data, he found something puzzling. The Dutch eighteen-year-olds from the nineteen-eighties scored better than those who took the same tests in the nineteen-fifties—and not just slightly better, much better.

Curious, Flynn sent out some letters. He collected intelligence-test results from Europe, from North America, from Asia, and from the developing world, until he had data for almost thirty countries. In every case, the story was pretty much the same. I.Q.s around the world appeared to be rising by 0.3 points per year, or three points per decade, for as far back as the tests had been administered. For some reason, human beings seemed to be getting smarter.

Flynn has been writing about the implications of his findings—now known as the Flynn effect—for almost twenty-five years. His books consist of a series of plainly stated statistical observations, in support of deceptively modest conclusions, and the evidence in support of his original observation is now so overwhelming that the Flynn effect has moved from theory to fact. What remains uncertain is how to make sense of the Flynn effect. If an American born in the nineteen-thirties has an I.Q. of 100, the Flynn effect says that his children will have I.Q.s of 108, and his grandchildren I.Q.s of close to 120—more than a standard deviation higher. If we work in the opposite direction, the typical teen-ager of today, with an I.Q. of 100, would have had grandparents with average I.Q.s of 82—seemingly below the threshold necessary to graduate from high school. And, if we go back even farther, the Flynn effect puts the average I.Q.s of the schoolchildren of 1900 at around 70, which is to suggest, bizarrely, that a century ago the United States was populated largely by people who today would be considered mentally retarded.

For almost as long as there have been I.Q. tests, there have been I.Q. fundamentalists. H. H. Goddard, in the early years of the past century, established the idea that intelligence could be measured along a single, linear scale. One of his particular contributions was to coin the word “moron.” “The people who are doing the drudgery are, as a rule, in their proper places,” he wrote. Goddard was followed by Lewis Terman, in the nineteen-twenties, who rounded up the California children with the highest I.Q.s, and confidently predicted that they would sit at the top of every profession. In 1969, the psychometrician Arthur Jensen argued that programs like Head Start, which tried to boost the academic performance of minority children, were doomed to failure, because I.Q. was so heavily genetic; and in 1994 Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, in “The Bell Curve,” notoriously proposed that Americans with the lowest I.Q.s be sequestered in a “high-tech” version of an Indian reservation, “while the rest of America tries to go about its business.” To the I.Q. fundamentalist, two things are beyond dispute: first, that I.Q. tests measure some hard and identifiable trait that predicts the quality of our thinking; and, second, that this trait is stable—that is, it is determined by our genes and largely impervious to


more and rest at
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/12/17/071217crbo_books_gladwell

[Skeptik]

Does this explain why those on the African continent are quite low in IQ generally AND the continent is in a mess. Perhaps there is a correlation after all.

[Pr⊕phet]

if you bombard ppl with crap like takelami sesame bull twan VS proper interesting and stimulating learning programs - who do you think is going to be more well off ?

besides most IQ test relies physical learnt knowledge - who any one in their right can study, better and remember to score better and good results.

...only good populace is a stupid one

[Skeptik]

LOL

I don't think the results should change dramatically between races. If anything, education has become homogenised.

[Messugga]

Over a period of time it'll all even out, but one of my lecturers at varsity actually told me privately that they have some problems with their study programmes and statistics because different cultures learn different things at a very young age, which influences the results of IQ tests later on, which then in turn makes it difficult to predict whether your courses are on standard or not. Give it a generation or two and things should be quite a bit more even than they are now. In SA at least.

[ghoti]

Only the old fall into the the myth of modern social degradation. Kids are getting smarter... thats good.

[cerebus]

I remember seeing a documentary about the history of IQ. Apparently it was originally used to justify some very dubious behavior, like ethnic separation of children and so on - educative privileges, that sort of thing.

The real issue is how much of IQ is genetic predisposition and how much is cultural and educational? There still isn't a clear consensus, but the fact that a person can easily manipulate their IQ score with a bit of practice suggests that it is largely the latter.

[Skeptik]

If they can manipulate the score then it probably would be by an insignificant amount.

[cerebus]

^^^ My aunt was able to get hers up by over 10 points with a bit of practice. I'd hardly call that insignificant.

[Hoof-Hearted]

^^^ My aunt was able to get hers up by over 10 points with a bit of practice. I'd hardly call that insignificant.

how much practice? I can sing better if I practice... but i still empty a room:)

[cerebus]

how much practice? I can sing better if I practice... but i still empty a room:)


Lol I honestly don't know how much practice. I can always ask her for specifics if you like. But I'm fairly sure there are statistics showing that IQ raises when people are in intensive study situations like university, and lowers when they enter more sedentary phases of life. It's a very flawed measurement scale, because what is it actually supposed to be measuring?

[Hoof-Hearted]

Lol I honestly don't know how much practice. I can always ask her for specifics if you like. But I'm fairly sure there are statistics showing that IQ raises when people are in intensive study situations like university, and lowers when they enter more sedentary phases of life. It's a very flawed measurement scale, because what is it actually supposed to be measuring?

i agree but isn't it the same with anything... if you train you get better at something. some people though just seem to have a built-in natural talent so they start from a higher base. in this case, you're exercising your brain

[Picard]

I recently got access to a many of my classmates' IQ results in the archive at the primary school where I now work. I wasn't in this primary school as a child but I met up with these kids in highschool. The interesting thing was that the 2 kids with highest IQs (138) were the top two acedemic candidates straight through untill matric. And the ones with the lower IQs were generally the losers in high school. So to a large degree IQs are an acurate indicator of your acedemic potential (I do however understand that culture can influence an IQ test negatively but only to a small degree IMO)

But there is also some margin for error. My best friends IQ was also in that list and I saw to my shock and surprise that he is well below our highschool's star athelete. But athletics was basically all he was good for. He had to take a couple of subjects at lower grade just to pass matric. My friend on the other hand is currently doing his Ph.D (doctorate) at a European university in Cellular Biology (or something in that area). He lands in South Africa in 10 days' time to come and visit me and would be shocked if he found this out. Of course I will keep my mouth shut.

[Messugga]

That just goes to show, IQ doesn't mean EVERYTHING, but it sure as helps a bit. A whole lot can be achieved with tons of hard work, having the points behind you just makes that time required, less. 138 isn't freakishly high though...kinda surprised that that was the highest score in your year.

[Hoof-Hearted]

That just goes to show, IQ doesn't mean EVERYTHING, but it sure as helps a bit. A whole lot can be achieved with tons of hard work, having the points behind you just makes that time required, less. 138 isn't freakishly high though...kinda surprised that that was the highest score in your year.

eerrrm.... 140 is genius or near genius dude... only around 1 in 500 people rate at genius level (and we're talking world-wide here, not just in some school in africa). where were you that a whole lot of people tested got higher than that?

[Claymore]

eerrrm.... 140 is genius or near genius dude... only around 1 in 500 people rate at genius level (and we're talking world-wide here, not just in some school in africa). where were you that a whole lot of people tested got higher than that?

In my high-school class, I reckon there were at least 5-10 well over that.

[Syndyre]

In my high-school class, I reckon there were at least 5-10 well over that.

I could probably say the same.

[Messugga]

It's dependant on the test, but the ones used in SA has genius rated at 160+. 140 is simply gifted/superior. I didn't say it was absolutely common, but it's not THAT rare. When you're looking at 160+ it gets pretty rare. I feel strongly that IQ has a large source in genetics. My gf's grandad was insanely intelligent. Her uncle and aunt and dad are also crazy smart(M's and phd's in chemical engineering and the like) and she and her siblings aren't exactly stupid either.

[Picard]

The guy with 138 in my school was a real surfer dude. He went to study electrical engineering at Stellenbosch. Just after that he went surfing in Indonesia and Australia for a 2/3 years. The last I heard of him he was a ski instructor at an American resort up in the mountains. He has never done one day of engineering work in his life.

The girl is now an CA in Cape Town.

[cerebus]

Actually I'm a bit confused about the measurement of IQ as well. The value of the number seems to differ in the countries that I've been to, or they changed it or something.

[Messugga]

Nah, it does differ depending on the test taken. Some tests have the average at 90, some at 100. We use the one where 90-110 is "normal" with 100 as the mean. 100+ is allegedly required to pass matric, although I find that hard to believe these days.

[Chris]

100+ is allegedly required to pass matric, although I find that hard to believe these days.

You'd be correct ;). I think a person with an IQ of 50 could pass the matric exam papers, except Maths and Science Paper 2.

[Picard]

You'd be correct ;). I think a person with an IQ of 50 could pass the matric exam papers, except Maths and Science Paper 2.

Uhm, and accounting in 1995. Damn it was close. My worst subject. Scraped through with 50.

[Messugga]

Picard, we meant these days ;) Back in 95 things were still on standard and you could actually fail even though you weren't just slacking. I find a crazy IQ isn't too great if you don't really have the memory to support it though...

[ToxicBunny]

From having a dad who does these tests all over the province of Natal....

An IQ test is hugely cultural as well.. they ask questions that for us "westerners" are simple, but for a person of zulu upbringing are just not simple at all.

The example that I can think of is something along the lines of "what grows on a tree that you can eat" and it gives options like Leaves, bark, twigs etc etc.... for a zulu person its just not so obvious that you should say leaves (even though technically us westerners eat the bark of certain trees as well)

[cerebus]

^^ That's true also. I have read quite a bit on the subject, and IQ seems to be a very flawed measurement of anything.

[Picard]

^^ That's true also. I have read quite a bit on the subject, and IQ seems to be a very flawed measurement of anything.

No. It is not very flawed. It is only somewhat flawed. I see, on a daily basis, a substantial correlation between IQ and actual work output at my school.

[cerebus]

No. It is not very flawed. It is only somewhat flawed. I see, on a daily basis, a substantial correlation between IQ and actual work output at my school.


That's the problem though Picard. IQ is very accurate at measuring an individual's capacity for a certain type of brain work - that inculcated by the Western educational system. It doesn't measure any other type of capability or potentiality, and doesn't factor in cultural differences of learning.

[Picard]

That's the problem though Picard. IQ is very accurate at measuring an individual's capacity for a certain type of brain work - that inculcated by the Western educational system. It doesn't measure any other type of capability or potentiality, and doesn't factor in cultural differences of learning.

Well, those cultures better assimilate themselves into our modern lifestyle and the modern way of learning or remain in the 'stone age'.

They will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. :rolleyes:

[cerebus]

Ya sux to be them huh.

[Picard]

Ya sux to be them huh.

http://www.angelfire.com/nj2/startrek3/sound/fcborgrework.wav

http://www.angelfire.com/nj2/startrek3/images/soundlocutus.wav

[rwenzori]

That's the problem though Picard. IQ is very accurate at measuring an individual's capacity for a certain type of brain work - that inculcated by the Western educational system. It doesn't measure any other type of capability or potentiality, and doesn't factor in cultural differences of learning.

IQ tests measure what IQ tests measure. No more, no less. IMHO they're a lot of complete crap.

[Picard]

IQ tests measure what IQ tests measure. No more, no less. IMHO they're a lot of complete crap.

**Sigh**

No, they are not crap. For some people they are a very helpful tool.

There are some limitations because we are dealing with the human brain, and our understanding of it is quite limited. But a lot of effort, through the years, has gone in to the design of these tests and they are helpful to people that actually work with children.

[rwenzori]

No, they are not crap. For some people they are a very helpful tool.

Well maybe they should be renamed to "western school predictors" or something like that. Using them to rate human intelligence is like using a chainsaw for brain surgery.

Ooops! I forgot the:

**sigh**

LOL!

[Picard]

What did you say? I can't read it, you're on my ignore list.

[rwenzori]

What did you say? I can't read it, you're on my ignore list.

LOL! Thanks for the compliment!
:D

[noxibox]

If there is cultural bias, then the tests are invalid as a comparison between groups with different cultural backgrounds. It does not mean one group is stupid.

[Jonny Two Shoes]

Would it not be right to assume then that this Western/European test of intelligence based on Western measures to live and succeed in a Westernised environment only goes to show why we fail in SA to live up to Western/European standards? It does seem to add up. That is all that really stands out for me in the article.

[Jonny Two Shoes]

To further elaborate, we all agree that just about everything we see insofar as development is concerned in SA were brought by "Westerners"/Europeans, I'm sure then you should all agree that this is why the cultural differences between African's and non-African's show us the huge bugger up we have in Government and most parts of Africa. The former has been thrown into something they are simply forced to deal with but by no means adept at because they have a totally different approach to things not suited to their situation.

Not that it is a bad thing, western society is not all that good in many aspects either. However it is a major problem when forced to deal with Globilisation as well as inhabitants who all have the same wants. Money!!

[arf9999]

No. It is not very flawed. It is only somewhat flawed. I see, on a daily basis, a substantial correlation between IQ and actual work output at my school.

...but I'm guessing that your school is largely homogenous wrt to culture... which is where IQ can be relevant.

[noxibox]

Would it not be right to assume then that this Western/European test of intelligence based on Western measures to live and succeed in a Westernised environment
It would be incorrect to assume that. It wouldn't be based on western measures to live and succeed either. There really is no reason to change the questions to suite the cultural background of those taking the test.

[mercurial]

look how smart american kids are. compare them to our kids. no comparison.

[noxibox]

look how smart american kids are. compare them to our kids. no comparison.
American kids just don't measure up?

[noxibox]

It is easy to confuse lack of/inadeqaute education with stupidity.

[cerebus]

^^^ That's exactly the problem with IQ tests.

[Eugene66]

It is easy to confuse lack of/inadeqaute education with stupidity. Education started due to the industrial age.

The schools are not set on teaching you to be a well balanced life loving human being. They are set on making you a marketable comodity that might fit into some industrial system.

Most people ask you what you can do with your subjects one day instead of asking you if they make you happy.

Don't bother with IQ. Are you happy? Then you are a genius in my book. It's time we learn to live for ourselves instead of dying for some system of values that was not even part of our doing. We were only born recently in the greater scheme of things.

[Picard]

Education started due to the industrial age.

The schools are not set on teaching you to be a well balanced life loving human being. They are set on making you a marketable comodity that might fit into some industrial system.

Most people ask you what you can do with your subjects one day instead of asking you if they make you happy.

Don't bother with IQ. Are you happy? Then you are a genius in my book. It's time we learn to live for ourselves instead of dying for some system of values that was not even part of our doing. We were only born recently in the greater scheme of things.

Unfortunately due to the industrial age, if you don't have a job you die of hunger. I can't see any happiness in that.

[Pr⊕phet]

...writing was reserved back in the way back day only for select few as to learning it self.