The reason why people are arguing on IQ test is that the name is misled.

 
SorryForMyBadEnglish
 
Avatar
 
 
SorryForMyBadEnglish
Total Posts:  3
Joined  08-04-2018
 
 
 
08 April 2018 19:36
 

Is it just me or do the IQ test have a bad naming? And, that is the reason why people are arguing about it.

I think that the word “intelligence” in IQ is almost not related to the intelligence. The method to acquire the data is scientific, but bad naming distracts people from the real intention of the research.

Indeed, it appears that people are still happy with race and SAT score research. Thus, I believe that many IQ conflicts could be resolved by just renaming it.

For instance,
- Analogies, pattern, classification, 3D object rotation quotient test
- Specific sets of paper test
- Maybe intelligence quotient test

Perhaps, I am too naive.

 
carcajou
 
Avatar
 
 
carcajou
Total Posts:  3
Joined  08-01-2018
 
 
 
09 April 2018 07:54
 

I’ve wondered about this also

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7057
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
09 April 2018 18:03
 

I agree that the messiest part of the whole debate has to do with defining and measuring intelligence. How can you measure something if you can’t define what you’re measuring? Intelligence could easily be defined such that it’s 100% genetic, barring some kind of brain damaging accident. Or in a hundred other ways. We could define it as the ability to take intelligence tests. That would settle the argument over whether intelligence tests really measure intelligence.

 
 
SorryForMyBadEnglish
 
Avatar
 
 
SorryForMyBadEnglish
Total Posts:  3
Joined  08-04-2018
 
 
 
09 April 2018 18:46
 

In addition, renaming is not a political correctness. It is vocabulary correctness.

And, it is already happening it many scientific fields.
Borderline personality disorder was renamed to emotionally unstable personality disorder.

Even some hard science had also modified it term when people discovered a better explanation.
Physics => classical physics

 
BAWRFRS
 
Avatar
 
 
BAWRFRS
Total Posts:  5
Joined  26-02-2016
 
 
 
10 April 2018 06:03
 

https://youtu.be/8wcSSLo9TIs

pay particular attention to 2:42 - 4:00. I’ve not seen Sam address (or even acknowledge) these four underlying assumptions*, and whether they are valid.

5:44 - 6:30 is worth noting as well**.

I read Murray’s book. He tries to address these, but I was unconvinced. It became evident that he built questionable proxy upon questionable proxy, to the point that the cumulative probability that his ending measure was a valid measure of his original variable of interest was practically nil.

Sam insists upon recognizing facts of IQ testing. But “facts are not science, just as the dictionary is not literature.” (attributed to Martin Henry Fischer)

* Gould asserted that all four assumptions must be true for the Bell Curve argument to hold.

1) that there is a meaningful single number that can be given to intelligence
2) you have to be able to rank people in a single linear order that correlates with social attributes
3) that number has to be highly heritable
4) that number has to be effectively unchangeable.

In my reading, it’s the fourth assumption that is the most obviously dubious. I have yet to be persuaded that “IQ” measures inherent intellectual capacity, as opposed to developed intellectual ability.

** Heck, IQ isn’t even “one” number. My kids took a panel of them to qualify for certain educational programs in the public schools ... the various tests did not all yield the same single number. More of a fairly broad general range. Sure, they were all on the same side of 100, but the range from lowest to highest encompassed more than a standard deviation. So second most dubious to me is assumption #1.

 
SorryForMyBadEnglish
 
Avatar
 
 
SorryForMyBadEnglish
Total Posts:  3
Joined  08-04-2018
 
 
 
10 April 2018 07:09
 

My point is that the method is a valid scientific research. But the word intelligent in IQ test is misled. Only experts know what it really means. An average Joe would misinterpret as hard intelligence. And it is a scientist’s job to ensure that the research title is as precise as it could. So, just right-click > rename it. Problem solved.

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1900
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
10 April 2018 08:34
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 09 April 2018 06:03 PM

I agree that the messiest part of the whole debate has to do with defining and measuring intelligence. How can you measure something if you can’t define what you’re measuring? Intelligence could easily be defined such that it’s 100% genetic, barring some kind of brain damaging accident. Or in a hundred other ways. We could define it as the ability to take intelligence tests. That would settle the argument over whether intelligence tests really measure intelligence.

Just what does a high IQ score measure? It supposedly predicts future success in general, which may be true, but with a twist. According to Science Magazine’s Michael Balter, test-taker motivation plays a significant role in test scores. Balter claims that highly motivated individuals try harder when being tested, and they’re also more successful—in general in life—than those who lack motivation. Balter briefly discusses paying test takers according to how well they score.

A number of studies have found that subjects who are promised monetary rewards for doing well on IQ and other cognitive tests score significantly higher.
. . .

. . . [T]he effect of financial rewards on IQ scores increased dramatically the higher the reward: Thus rewards higher than $10 produced g values of more than 1.6 (roughly equivalent to more than 20 IQ points), whereas rewards of less than $1 were only one-tenth as effective.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/04/what-does-iq-really-measure

Maybe this affect applies to the IQ scores of blacks vs. scores of non-blacks. Studying test-taker motivation could assist in controlling for the motivation effect.

 
 
GreenInferno
 
Avatar
 
 
GreenInferno
Total Posts:  120
Joined  20-09-2012
 
 
 
11 April 2018 21:50
 

Not a bad point, actually. Or, they could just call it an Estimated Intelligence Quotient, and it would soften the perceived rigidity.