Post by ConstPost by 999Vulcanhttps://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/why-people-keep-misunderstanding-the-connection-between-race-and-iq/275876
"Let's start with the fact that there is no such thing as a direct test of general mental ability. What IQ tests measure directly is the test-taker's display of particular cognitive skills: size of vocabulary, degree of reading comprehension, facility with analogies, and so on."
Начнем с того факта, что there is.
No, iq test do not test size of vocabulary.
No, they do not test degree of reading comprehension.
Yes, they test facility with analogies, which is a definition of
a mental ability.
а, да ты просто не в курсе!
ты, наверное, думаешь, что IQ тесты - это только Raven's progressive matrices
но они меряют только nonverbal IQ
а full battery тесты типа WISC тестируют всё вышеперечисленное and more
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Intelligence_Scale_for_Children#Test_format
у меня старший сдавал, чтобы в Davidson Young Scholars записаться
недешёвое удовольствие было
потом они, правда, чуток расслабились и стали принимать коллективно administered tests, так что младшему уже достаточно было сдать Explore (middle school версия ACT) - но там тоже, как ты понимаешь, без чтения никуда
http://www.davidsongifted.org/Young-Scholars/How-to-Apply/Qualification-Criteria
...да чего там далеко ходить, даже повсеметсон используемый школами OLSAT - и тот включает verbal section
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otis%E2%80%93Lennon_School_Ability_Test
Post by Const"After all, IQ tests put great stress on reading ability and vocabulary, yet writing was invented only about 6,000 years ago - rather late in the day given that anatomically modern humans have been around for over 100,000 years. And as recently as two hundred years ago, only about 15 percent of people could read or write at all."
Again, no, they do not put ...
again: :-)
Post by Const"The Flynn effect is acutely embarrassing to those who leap from IQ score differences to claims of genetic differences in intelligence."
Кто именно и когда claims that ?
Я как бы много читал на эту тему.
Люди отдельно посвящают книги тому, как мудаки, подобные
этому автору изобретают и лгут про расовые различия.
Я на 100% уверен, что Richwine, на которого нападают,
ничего подобного не говорил.
так-так-так
давай в этом месте внимательно
- если мы считаем, что вариации IQ объясняются в основном генами, то мы have some explaining to do, ты там снизу оставил важные цитаты, но никак не отреагировал, сейчас мы их пожуём
- если мы признаём, что environment тоже очень важен, то тогда дело, наверное, не только в расах, и что IQ is, at least to a certain degree, malleable, и что, может, eugenics aren't the only answer, и что better social policies могут быть beneficial
ок, теперь давай посмотрим на цитаты
Post by ConstPost by 999VulcanA study of twins by psychologist Eric Turkheimer and colleagues that similarly tracked parents' education, occupation, and income yielded especially striking results. Specifically, they found that the "heritability" of IQ - the degree to which IQ variations can be explained by genes - varies dramatically by socioeconomic class. Heritability among high-SES (socioeconomic status) kids was 0.72; in other words, genetic factors accounted for 72 percent of the variations in IQ, while shared environment accounted for only 15 percent. For low-SES kids, on the other hand, the relative influence of genes and environment was inverted: Estimated heritability was only 0.10, while shared environment explained 58 percent of IQ variations.
Turkheimer's findings make perfect sense once you recognize that IQ scores reflect some varying combination of differences in native ability and differences in opportunities. Among rich kids, good opportunities for developing the relevant cognitive skills are plentiful, so IQ differences are driven primarily by genetic factors. For less advantaged kids, though, test scores say more about the environmental deficits they face than they do about native ability.
This, then, shows the limits to IQ tests: Though the tests are good measures of skills relevant to success in American society, the scores are only a good indicator of relative intellectual ability for people who have been exposed to equivalent opportunities for developing those skills - and who actually have the motivation to try hard on the test. IQ tests are good measures of innate intelligence--if all other factors are held steady. But if IQ tests are being used to compare individuals of wildly different backgrounds, then the variable of innate intelligence is not being tested in isolation. Instead, the scores will reflect some impossible-to-sort-out combination of ability and differences in opportunities and motivations. Let's take a look at why that might be the case.
т.е., грубо говоря, да, выше головы не прыгнешь, но куча народу не прыгает даже до головы в силу факторов, не имеющих ничего общего с генетикой
999Vulcan,
у которого IQ на несколько баллов не дотягивает до р