< 1 2 3 4 > 
 
   
 

IQ tests are not culturally biased

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7618
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
13 February 2019 20:35
 
Abel Dean - 13 February 2019 06:26 PM
icehorse - 13 February 2019 06:18 PM

My take is slightly different. A person can be taught to learn how to think better, and more specifically, a person can be taught to score well on IQ exams.

So, if a person lives where schools are better, that person might be better trained to do well on IQ exams. That’s sort of indirectly cultural.

Yeah, the distinction is also relevant for that theory. If intelligence can be taught, and if some groups are taught intelligence better than other groups, then it is a group difference in intelligence, not merely a group difference in IQ scores. The IQ scores would accurately reflect intelligence differences among the groups.

I think the bolded sentence is misworded somehow. I don’t want to guess what you meant, so will you phrase the idea differently?

 
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
13 February 2019 20:58
 
icehorse - 13 February 2019 08:35 PM
Abel Dean - 13 February 2019 06:26 PM
icehorse - 13 February 2019 06:18 PM

My take is slightly different. A person can be taught to learn how to think better, and more specifically, a person can be taught to score well on IQ exams.

So, if a person lives where schools are better, that person might be better trained to do well on IQ exams. That’s sort of indirectly cultural.

Yeah, the distinction is also relevant for that theory. If intelligence can be taught, and if some groups are taught intelligence better than other groups, then it is a group difference in intelligence, not merely a group difference in IQ scores. The IQ scores would accurately reflect intelligence differences among the groups.

I think the bolded sentence is misworded somehow. I don’t want to guess what you meant, so will you phrase the idea differently?

Sure. It is not wrongly worded, but I am happy to rephrase. You think intelligence can be taught—this is just another way of saying that students can be taught how to think better. You believe that this explains the racial differences in IQ scores. If so, then it is still a difference of intelligence between one race and another, and if so the racial IQ gap accurately reflects the racial intelligence gap. There can be any cause for the racial IQ gaps, whether it is purely a difference in teaching or anything else, but even if we accept that it is purely a difference in teaching then that does not mean that the IQ tests are racially biased.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7618
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
13 February 2019 21:13
 
Abel Dean - 13 February 2019 08:58 PM
icehorse - 13 February 2019 08:35 PM
Abel Dean - 13 February 2019 06:26 PM
icehorse - 13 February 2019 06:18 PM

My take is slightly different. A person can be taught to learn how to think better, and more specifically, a person can be taught to score well on IQ exams.

So, if a person lives where schools are better, that person might be better trained to do well on IQ exams. That’s sort of indirectly cultural.

Yeah, the distinction is also relevant for that theory. If intelligence can be taught, and if some groups are taught intelligence better than other groups, then it is a group difference in intelligence, not merely a group difference in IQ scores. The IQ scores would accurately reflect intelligence differences among the groups.

I think the bolded sentence is misworded somehow. I don’t want to guess what you meant, so will you phrase the idea differently?

Sure. It is not wrongly worded, but I am happy to rephrase. You think intelligence can be taught—this is just another way of saying that students can be taught how to think better. You believe that this explains the racial differences in IQ scores. If so, then it is still a difference of intelligence between one race and another, and if so the racial IQ gap accurately reflects the racial intelligence gap. There can be any cause for the racial IQ gaps, whether it is purely a difference in teaching or anything else, but even if we accept that it is purely a difference in teaching then that does not mean that the IQ tests are racially biased.

The sentence of your that I bolded does NOT follow from the previous statements. You made some sort of logical leap. Again, I won’t try to guess what your train of logic is, but I can say that as it stands, it’s incomplete at best.

 
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
13 February 2019 21:44
 
icehorse - 13 February 2019 09:13 PM
Abel Dean - 13 February 2019 08:58 PM
icehorse - 13 February 2019 08:35 PM
Abel Dean - 13 February 2019 06:26 PM
icehorse - 13 February 2019 06:18 PM

My take is slightly different. A person can be taught to learn how to think better, and more specifically, a person can be taught to score well on IQ exams.

So, if a person lives where schools are better, that person might be better trained to do well on IQ exams. That’s sort of indirectly cultural.

Yeah, the distinction is also relevant for that theory. If intelligence can be taught, and if some groups are taught intelligence better than other groups, then it is a group difference in intelligence, not merely a group difference in IQ scores. The IQ scores would accurately reflect intelligence differences among the groups.

I think the bolded sentence is misworded somehow. I don’t want to guess what you meant, so will you phrase the idea differently?

Sure. It is not wrongly worded, but I am happy to rephrase. You think intelligence can be taught—this is just another way of saying that students can be taught how to think better. You believe that this explains the racial differences in IQ scores. If so, then it is still a difference of intelligence between one race and another, and if so the racial IQ gap accurately reflects the racial intelligence gap. There can be any cause for the racial IQ gaps, whether it is purely a difference in teaching or anything else, but even if we accept that it is purely a difference in teaching then that does not mean that the IQ tests are racially biased.

The sentence of your that I bolded does NOT follow from the previous statements. You made some sort of logical leap. Again, I won’t try to guess what your train of logic is, but I can say that as it stands, it’s incomplete at best.

OK, maybe syllogisms would help. The first part of the bolded sentence would follow from this syllogism:

(1) Races differ in average learned thinking ability.
(2) Learned thinking ability is intelligence.
(3) Therefore, races differ in average intelligence.

Here is the second syllogism:

(1) If the racial difference in IQ scores matches the racial difference in intelligence between two races, then IQ tests are racially unbiased with respect to those two races.
(2) The racial difference in IQ scores matches the racial difference in intelligence between two races.
(3) Therefore, IQ tests are racially unbiased with respect to those two races.

More work may be required before accepting premise #2, but we are at least part of the way there if we at least accept the existences of a positive gap both of racial IQ scores and of racial intelligence. The racial IQ gap is broadly accepted fact, and the racial intelligence gap would follow from the first syllogism. I hope that helps.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15809
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
14 February 2019 07:53
 
Abel Dean - 13 February 2019 09:44 PM
icehorse - 13 February 2019 09:13 PM
Abel Dean - 13 February 2019 08:58 PM
icehorse - 13 February 2019 08:35 PM
Abel Dean - 13 February 2019 06:26 PM
icehorse - 13 February 2019 06:18 PM

My take is slightly different. A person can be taught to learn how to think better, and more specifically, a person can be taught to score well on IQ exams.

So, if a person lives where schools are better, that person might be better trained to do well on IQ exams. That’s sort of indirectly cultural.

Yeah, the distinction is also relevant for that theory. If intelligence can be taught, and if some groups are taught intelligence better than other groups, then it is a group difference in intelligence, not merely a group difference in IQ scores. The IQ scores would accurately reflect intelligence differences among the groups.

I think the bolded sentence is misworded somehow. I don’t want to guess what you meant, so will you phrase the idea differently?

Sure. It is not wrongly worded, but I am happy to rephrase. You think intelligence can be taught—this is just another way of saying that students can be taught how to think better. You believe that this explains the racial differences in IQ scores. If so, then it is still a difference of intelligence between one race and another, and if so the racial IQ gap accurately reflects the racial intelligence gap. There can be any cause for the racial IQ gaps, whether it is purely a difference in teaching or anything else, but even if we accept that it is purely a difference in teaching then that does not mean that the IQ tests are racially biased.

The sentence of your that I bolded does NOT follow from the previous statements. You made some sort of logical leap. Again, I won’t try to guess what your train of logic is, but I can say that as it stands, it’s incomplete at best.

OK, maybe syllogisms would help. The first part of the bolded sentence would follow from this syllogism:

(1) Races differ in average learned thinking ability.
(2) Learned thinking ability is intelligence.
(3) Therefore, races differ in average intelligence.

Here is the second syllogism:

(1) If the racial difference in IQ scores matches the racial difference in intelligence between two races, then IQ tests are racially unbiased with respect to those two races.
(2) The racial difference in IQ scores matches the racial difference in intelligence between two races.
(3) Therefore, IQ tests are racially unbiased with respect to those two races.

More work may be required before accepting premise #2, but we are at least part of the way there if we at least accept the existences of a positive gap both of racial IQ scores and of racial intelligence. The racial IQ gap is broadly accepted fact, and the racial intelligence gap would follow from the first syllogism. I hope that helps.

I wonder about your IQ and thinking abilities. The second of these is not a proper syllogism and the major premise in the first is the claim you are trying to make but it is also the claim that is most likely to be false. Remember, syllogisms only establish formal validity, false premise mean a false conclusion. And you are nowhere there because the assumption you try to sneak in is that the data on IQ scores provides a valid comparison and there are no extenuating conditions.

Going back to the pinks and purples: you argument is like

1. Pinks and purples differ in average jumping skills
2. Jumping skills are indicative of success in society
3. Therefore pinks and purples differ in average success in society

1. Tests of jumping skills are not biased between pinks and purples if the observed difference between them correlates with success in society
2. The difference between pinks and purples in jumping skills correlates with their differential success in society
3. Therefore tests of jumping skills are not biased between pinks and purples

Another point: in your first syllogism you refer to learned thinking skills and equate that with intelligence. But of course you are trying to make the argument that intelligence is something genetic, thus innate. And is is learned thinking ability that is called intelligence? I thought the IQ folk were looking for something that was an indication of learning ability. No matter how you squirm, your tricks are pretty obvious.

The real name for what your are engaging in is sophistry in support of racism.

[ Edited: 14 February 2019 08:02 by burt]
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
14 February 2019 10:30
 

Sam Harris has a catchy line: follow the plot. You don’t accept a given premise. Not even I accept that premise. I expect Icehorse accepts it. My clarifications are meant for Icehorse, not for you.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15809
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
14 February 2019 10:47
 
Abel Dean - 14 February 2019 10:30 AM

Sam Harris has a catchy line: follow the plot. You don’t accept a given premise. Not even I accept that premise. I expect Icehorse accepts it. My clarifications are meant for Icehorse, not for you.

So what, your so called clarifications just muddy the ground. If you don’t want to get called out, don’t post.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7618
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
14 February 2019 11:18
 

nope - I don’t think post #19 holds water logically.

Others on this thread have used the word tautology, and I’m tending to agree. In other words your logic is a bit circular or maybe we could say it attempts to lift itself by its own bootstraps smile

 
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
14 February 2019 11:30
 
icehorse - 14 February 2019 11:18 AM

nope - I don’t think post #19 holds water logically.

Others on this thread have used the word tautology, and I’m tending to agree. In other words your logic is a bit circular or maybe we could say it attempts to lift itself by its own bootstraps smile

There is only a subtle distinction between the premise and the conclusion, but that doesn’t make it a tautology. If you accept both premises, then the conclusion logically follows. If you disagree with the premise that races differ in their learned thinking ability, then maybe I can make it match what you said here:

“A person can be taught to learn how to think better, and more specifically, a person can be taught to score well on IQ exams,” etc.

Perhaps you intended a distinction between “think better” and intelligence, so maybe it is the second premise you disagree with. I recognize no such distinction, and one way or the other the distinction is necessarily lost if this ability to “think better” looks like intelligence, sounds like intelligence and quacks like intelligence.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15809
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
14 February 2019 11:41
 
icehorse - 14 February 2019 11:18 AM

nope - I don’t think post #19 holds water logically.

Others on this thread have used the word tautology, and I’m tending to agree. In other words your logic is a bit circular or maybe we could say it attempts to lift itself by its own bootstraps smile

Ice, I think your statement about people can be taught to think better is a bit off for the context (although true). In terms the issues a better phrasing would, I think, be something like: there are many social/economic factors that can prevent people from learning to think well, regardless of innate potential.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7618
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
14 February 2019 11:50
 
burt - 14 February 2019 11:41 AM
icehorse - 14 February 2019 11:18 AM

nope - I don’t think post #19 holds water logically.

Others on this thread have used the word tautology, and I’m tending to agree. In other words your logic is a bit circular or maybe we could say it attempts to lift itself by its own bootstraps smile

Ice, I think your statement about people can be taught to think better is a bit off for the context (although true). In terms the issues a better phrasing would, I think, be something like: there are many social/economic factors that can prevent people from learning to think well, regardless of innate potential.

burt, I’m okay with your revision.

 
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
14 February 2019 11:51
 

Then I think we are on the same page.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7618
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
14 February 2019 11:54
 
Abel Dean - 14 February 2019 11:51 AM

Then I think we are on the same page.

I have not yet read any conclusions from you that I agree with.

 
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
14 February 2019 12:19
 
icehorse - 14 February 2019 11:54 AM
Abel Dean - 14 February 2019 11:51 AM

Then I think we are on the same page.

I have not yet read any conclusions from you that I agree with.

That’s OK. The topic of this thread is narrow: the proposed racial bias of IQ tests. If it is claimed that racial intelligence differences follow from environmental causes of some sort, then that is not the same as claiming that IQ tests are racially biased. The “environmentalist” hypothesis would be a different topic of disagreement, and it is much more complex. It is a position held by at least a minority of intelligence researchers, and it is a respectable position. Almost none of them think that IQ tests are racially biased. That is not a respectable position, though it is widely popular everywhere else.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7618
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
14 February 2019 12:27
 
Abel Dean - 14 February 2019 12:19 PM
icehorse - 14 February 2019 11:54 AM
Abel Dean - 14 February 2019 11:51 AM

Then I think we are on the same page.

I have not yet read any conclusions from you that I agree with.

That’s OK. The topic of this thread is narrow: the proposed racial bias of IQ tests. If it is claimed that racial intelligence differences follow from environmental causes of some sort, then that is not the same as claiming that IQ tests are racially biased. The “environmentalist” hypothesis would be a different topic of disagreement, and it is much more complex. It is a position held by at least a minority of intelligence researchers, and it is a respectable position. Almost none of them think that IQ tests are racially biased. That is not a respectable position, though it is widely popular everywhere else.

I would summarize my stance as being: IQ tests are environmentally biased. Until that problem is solved, I don’t think other conclusions can really be drawn.

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 >