An Open Letter to White Privilege

[mistermack]

I really don't see why Americans should be so obsessed with intelligence anyway, coming from the country that values it so low.

What other country would VOTE in a moron like Bush as president?
And anyway, intelligence is not one thing, that you can measure like height. IQ tests are bollocks, they only measure the ability to do that particular IQ test.

It's a completely sterile argument.
Compare Tony Blair and George Bush. Blair, whether you like him or not, is highly intelligent.
Bush is a moron. But they both put their countries in the same tub of shit.
And they both believe in invisible magic men in the sky.

How sterile can the intelligence argument get, when such a huge gap in intelligence resulted in identical performance, in running two of the most powerful countries on the planet, or working out that religion is a con?

[Mr.Samsa]

Thank you Google:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62jZENi1ed8

Steve Hsu

[pErvinalia]

I really don't see why Americans should be so obsessed with intelligence anyway, coming from the country that values it so low.

What other country would VOTE in a moron like Bush as president?

Australia!

And anyway, intelligence is not one thing, that you can measure like height. IQ tests are bollocks, they only measure the ability to do that particular IQ test.

It's a completely sterile argument.
Compare Tony Blair and George Bush. Blair, whether you like him or not, is highly intelligent.
Bush is a moron. But they both put their countries in the same tub of shit.
And they both believe in invisible magic men in the sky.

How sterile can the intelligence argument get, when such a huge gap in intelligence resulted in identical performance, in running two of the most powerful countries on the planet, or working out that religion is a con?

Yeah, this is pretty much my view. It all depends on how we define intelligence and how we justify one definition over another.

[Mr.Samsa]

Just a note on the IQ test claim - it's actually an incredibly valid and accurate measure of intelligence that predicts a whole host of important things, and the idea that it only measures how well you do on IQ tests is a popular myth that has been debunked by practically every study on intelligence over the last few decades.

[pErvinalia]

The point still remains, though. How we define intelligence (and justify one definition over another) is probably just as important as any test to assess it.

[tattuchu]

I really don't see why Americans should be so obsessed with intelligence anyway, coming from the country that values it so low.

What other country would VOTE in a moron like Bush as president?
And anyway, intelligence is not one thing, that you can measure like height. IQ tests are bollocks, they only measure the ability to do that particular IQ test.

It's a completely sterile argument.
Compare Tony Blair and George Bush. Blair, whether you like him or not, is highly intelligent.
Bush is a moron. But they both put their countries in the same tub of shit.
And they both believe in invisible magic men in the sky.

How sterile can the intelligence argument get, when such a huge gap in intelligence resulted in identical performance, in running two of the most powerful countries on the planet, or working out that religion is a con?

Don't forget we very nearly had Sarah palin (Caribou Barbie) in high office. Bush looks like a Mensa member by comparison. And my ex brother-in-law voted for her. Our conversation went like this:
Him: She's hot!
Me: Holy shit, dude, she's a fucking moron!
Him: But she's hot!
Me: But she's an imbecile!
Him: But she's hot!
Me: She's dumb as dirt!
Him: But she loves guns!
Me: Yeah, like I said, she's--
Him: And she's hot!
Me: But she's--
Him: What about Joe Biden?!
Me: Huh? What about him?!
Him: He's dumb!
Me: And what if he is? Do you want someone even stupider in office?!
Him: But she's hot!
Me: She's so stupid she's in a class all by herself. There's no one as stupid as this dumbass!
Him: She's actually really smart!
Me: What?!
Him: She loves guns!
Me: You've gotta be--
Him: If you really listen to her, she's smart!
Me: If I really listen to her, it's pretty goddamn obvious that she's fucking--
Him: And she's hot! And she loves guns! And she's hot!

[pErvinalia]

[mistermack]

Just a note on the IQ test claim - it's actually an incredibly valid and accurate measure of intelligence that predicts a whole host of important things, and the idea that it only measures how well you do on IQ tests is a popular myth that has been debunked by practically every study on intelligence over the last few decades.

That's bollocks. Psychologists would say that. Nobody overclaims like pyschologists, except climate scientists. But of course it's circular reasoning.
How do you know it's an accurate measure of intelligence? Because that's how we measure intelligence, that's how.

[piscator]

I really don't see why Americans should be so obsessed with intelligence anyway, coming from the country that values it so low.

What other country would VOTE in a moron like Bush as president?
And anyway, intelligence is not one thing, that you can measure like height. IQ tests are bollocks, they only measure the ability to do that particular IQ test.

It's a completely sterile argument.
Compare Tony Blair and George Bush. Blair, whether you like him or not, is highly intelligent.
Bush is a moron. But they both put their countries in the same tub of shit.
And they both believe in invisible magic men in the sky.

How sterile can the intelligence argument get, when such a huge gap in intelligence resulted in identical performance, in running two of the most powerful countries on the planet, or working out that religion is a con?

Don't forget we very nearly had Sarah palin (Caribou Barbie) in high office. Bush looks like a Mensa member by comparison. And my ex brother-in-law voted for her. Our conversation went like this:
Him: She's hot!
Me: Holy shit, dude, she's a fucking moron!
Him: But she's hot!
Me: But she's an imbecile!
Him: But she's hot!
Me: She's dumb as dirt!
Him: But she loves guns!
Me: Yeah, like I said, she's--
Him: And she's hot!
Me: But she's--
Him: What about Joe Biden?!
Me: Huh? What about him?!
Him: He's dumb!
Me: And what if he is? Do you want someone even stupider in office?!
Him: But she's hot!
Me: She's so stupid she's in a class all by herself. There's no one as stupid as this dumbass!
Him: She's actually really smart!
Me: What?!
Him: She loves guns!
Me: You've gotta be--
Him: If you really listen to her, she's smart!
Me: If I really listen to her, it's pretty goddamn obvious that she's fucking--
Him: And she's hot! And she loves guns! And she's hot!

Sarah Palin was a breath of fresh air after incumbent Chief Crook Frank Murkowski pulled 19% of the popular vote in his own Primary. That faded quickly, and when John McCain tapped Palin for VP, it was just so wrong.

Alaska is one of the crookedest states in the US, and all candidates and public officials work for Big Oil here. So you may as well vote for the crook you think looks best.

[JimC]

Just a note on the IQ test claim - it's actually an incredibly valid and accurate measure of intelligence that predicts a whole host of important things, and the idea that it only measures how well you do on IQ tests is a popular myth that has been debunked by practically every study on intelligence over the last few decades.

That's bollocks. Psychologists would say that. Nobody overclaims like pyschologists, except climate scientists. But of course it's circular reasoning.
How do you know it's an accurate measure of intelligence? Because that's how we measure intelligence, that's how.

While agreeing that Samsa was overstating both the importance & accuracy of IQ tests, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. They provide at least some measure of cognitive ability, even if there are valid arguments about both the degree that it reflects education rather than innate ability, and the degree to which it is optimised for certain cultural norms.

[Mr.Samsa]

Just a note on the IQ test claim - it's actually an incredibly valid and accurate measure of intelligence that predicts a whole host of important things, and the idea that it only measures how well you do on IQ tests is a popular myth that has been debunked by practically every study on intelligence over the last few decades.

That's bollocks. Psychologists would say that. Nobody overclaims like pyschologists, except climate scientists. But of course it's circular reasoning.
How do you know it's an accurate measure of intelligence? Because that's how we measure intelligence, that's how.

...Is this the Metatron?

But seriously, it's not "psychologists" who claim this but scientific evidence.

That's bollocks. Psychologists would say that. Nobody overclaims like pyschologists, except climate scientists. But of course it's circular reasoning.
How do you know it's an accurate measure of intelligence? Because that's how we measure intelligence, that's how.

While agreeing that Samsa was overstating both the importance & accuracy of IQ tests, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. They provide at least some measure of cognitive ability, even if there are valid arguments about both the degree that it reflects education rather than innate ability, and the degree to which it is optimised for certain cultural norms.

How am I overstating things? I simply said that it's a valid measure that accurately predicts a whole host of things besides how well you do on IQ tests, and the idea that it only measures your ability to perform on IQ tests has been heavily debunked - all of which are undeniably true and basically constitutes the opening paragraph or chapter of any paper and book on intelligence. The idea that it only measures cognitive ability is heavily understating its power. Just look at the now-debunked concept of "multiple intelligences" where things like musical ability were found to actually be better predicted by general intelligence, or the fact that it predicts your job success (regardless of career choice, position, etc).

As for the last bit, yeah I don't know anyone who would argue that IQ is simply a measure of innate ability.

[JimC]

Mr.Samsa wrote:

I simply said that it's a valid measure that accurately predicts a whole host of things besides how well you do on IQ tests...

...and the idea that it only measures your ability to perform on IQ tests has been heavily debunked...

To take the second point first, I agree that this throw-away line by anti-IQ folk is a definite exaggeration, and that measured IQ will have some degree of correlation with at least some other cognitive functions.

However, your first statement depends on how absolutely you want to use the terms "valid" and "accurately". Validity in the sense of being neutral in terms of culture and position in society is by no means absolute, and can be challenged when people want to use IQ figures to make points about population differences...

[pErvinalia]

Just a note on the IQ test claim - it's actually an incredibly valid and accurate measure of intelligence that predicts a whole host of important things, and the idea that it only measures how well you do on IQ tests is a popular myth that has been debunked by practically every study on intelligence over the last few decades.

That's bollocks. Psychologists would say that. Nobody overclaims like pyschologists, except climate scientists.

Here we go...

I'm fucking amazed you can even function in the day with all your science denialism.

[piscator]

If, given the choice between purple or orange in a hypothetical broad-based population sample where 90%+ of males chose orange and females purple, one could fairly reliably determine respondent's gender by his answer. There's a name for this type of test where a response to a seemingly unrelated question can reveal much more than the respondent is aware of, but I don't remember what it is.
Aren't these X questions often salted in IQ tests and used to weight scores?

[Mr.Samsa]

Mr.Samsa wrote:

I simply said that it's a valid measure that accurately predicts a whole host of things besides how well you do on IQ tests...

...and the idea that it only measures your ability to perform on IQ tests has been heavily debunked...

To take the second point first, I agree that this throw-away line by anti-IQ folk is a definite exaggeration, and that measured IQ will have some degree of correlation with at least some other cognitive functions.

Good to know.

However, your first statement depends on how absolutely you want to use the terms "valid" and "accurately". Validity in the sense of being neutral in terms of culture and position in society is by no means absolute, and can be challenged when people want to use IQ figures to make points about population differences...

Validity refers to construct validity (how well it measures the thing it claims to measure), content validity (how well it measures all facets of that thing), and criterion validity (how well it predicts outcomes based on that measure) - and IQ tests score very highly on all three. That's not an overstatement, just a simple summary of the evidence. The tests also score highly on various tests of reliability, thus demonstrating the claim about accuracy.

Even if we ignored all that, your concerns aren't really that damning for two reasons:

1) even if they were imperfect and affected by things like cultural bias, that doesn't necessarily stop it from being highly valid, and

2) the concerns about things like cultural bias aren't that problematic these days. The worst offender was an old form of the WAIS which has been fixed following research into the problems behind it, and of course there are culturally-neutral IQ tests (like the Raven's matrices) which correlate highly with tests like the WAIS indicating that cultural biases are minor, if still existent.

When people want to make claims about population differences, the better response is to highlight the fact that they have no evidence for their claim rather than attempting to criticise a valid measure, in my opinion.