WilliamWDelaney
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 27, 2011
Posts: 1201
|
 Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 5:43 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Dox47 wrote: | | Master_Pedant wrote: | | William Delaney's aggressive, confrontational, and relentless style is more analogous to the Black Knight's. |
Maybe, but I still say he just has to find his own Boswell to catalog and filter his utterances. |
What is a Boswell? |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29705
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WilliamWDelaney wrote: | | Dox47 wrote: | | Master_Pedant wrote: | | William Delaney's aggressive, confrontational, and relentless style is more analogous to the Black Knight's. |
Maybe, but I still say he just has to find his own Boswell to catalog and filter his utterances. |
What is a Boswell? |
The man who wrote down everything Samuel Johnson was supposed to have said.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
WilliamWDelaney
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 27, 2011
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visagrunt wrote: | | But what this really tells me is that you have limited your research to abstracts, |
Over the course of my time here at WP, I have amply demonstrated a fairly intimate level of familiarity with the subject matter that I discuss, and I have clearly demonstrated a willingness to carefully review hundreds of pages of material in order to arrive at an accurate conclusion. I usually understand subjects at a fairly extraordinary depth, and I am normally willing to delve into detail that most people would find to be frustrating or intimidating. Nobody who is actually familiar with my postings ought to have any doubt as to my familiarity with this subject.
Therefore, your assessment is ignorant...a crock of crap...nonsense...horse feathers...folderol. Essentially, I know what I am talking about, and you don't; therefore, I see nothing more to be gained from carrying on this discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
aghogday
KATiE MiA
Joined: Nov 26, 2010
Posts: 4813
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TM wrote: | Given that the topic of discussion is "Discussion about IQ tests", and given that according to said IQ tests men are smarter than women, how is that an issue up for debate?
Whether or not IQ tests measure [Insert your subjective definition of intelligence that you neglected to tell anyone else in the thread] and so on, men score higher than women.
The accuracy of IQ tests, the applicability of IQ test scores in fields, the usefulness of what different tests measure and such are valid topics of discussion.
This is not me "dictating" what people can and cannot post about. I'm just pointing out that disputing that IQ tests show that men are smarter than women according to the tests, by attacking the tests is like attacking the weight bench because men on average can bench press more, because just lifting stuff isn't an accurate measurement of "strength". |
A five point difference in a measure of IQ is not a reliable method of determining whether or not someone is smarter than another person, it is just an indication that a group of individuals selected in a specific demographic scored higher on average than another group of individuals in a population on a test restricted to only certain areas of intelligence. No reputable source has suggested that those results are an indication that men are actually smarter than women.
If in a math class one scores a 100 every day for a month and another scores a 95 every day and one goes into a wood working class and scores an A on every project and the other scores a B on every project; that is influenced not only by innate intelligence but by if one was paying attention in math class that particular month and wood working class; whether one had problems at home with their family; if one was afforded breakfast, or whether one was looking forwards to talking to friends, thereby increasing their emotional intelligence more than math or woodworking intelligence. Now. if one scored a 100 and the other scored a 50, and one scored an A and the other scored an F, that would be a more likely indication of an innate difference in intelligence, but on the other hand it could be because one was being physically abused at home everyday.
Women have not held the same advantages in economics as Men although that gap is closing in some societies. Research shows that maternal ability to afford good education and nutrition for their children makes a difference in math scores for both males and females.
Standard IQ tests measure limited areas of crystalized and fluid intelligence. Standard IQ tests do not show that anyone is smarter than anyone else when there is only a difference of 5 points, it just shows per the research you cited that on average a demographic scored a higher score than another demographic on an IQ test that measures limited areas of intelligence.
And while there may still be differences in countries in areas of intelligence between the genders in the area of mathematics tested in standard intelligence testing, those differences have disappeared in the US, because of cultural changes, and there are many countries where females out perform males in the area of mathematics, per reference below.
The differences in the countries you cited may potentially be the result of cultural differences instead of innate differences, but in the US, Males and Females now score equally in the area of mathematics. And in Mexico in the largest study by far done per country, sampled below, Intelligent testing results between men and women were almost identical.
One could as easily suggests that this means that women and men are equally as smart, but that is not what it means; gender performance on IQ tests, differ for many more reasons other than innate intelligence. In twin studies inherent factors are suggested to only account for 55% for what is measured in IQ tests.
http://www.ams.org/notices/201201/rtx120100010p.pdf
| Quote: | For example, Hyde and collaborators ([20],
[25]) reported that girls have now reached parity
with boys in mean mathematics performance in
the United States, even in high school, where a
significant gap in mean performance existed in the
1970s. Likewise, both Brody and Mills ([3]) and Wai
et al. ([51]) noted a drop in nonrandom samples of
students under thirteen years of age, from 13:1 in
the 1970s down to approximately 3:1 by the 1990s
in the ratio of U.S. boys to girls scoring above 700
on the quantitative section of the college-entrance
SAT examination. The percentage of Ph.D.’s in the
mathematical sciences awarded to U.S. citizens
who are women has increased from 6 percent in
the 1960s to 30 percent in the past decade ([4],
[9]). Sociocultural, legal, and educational changes
that took place during this time span may account
for these dramatic improvements in mathematics |
And in addition, there is a body of evidence that suggests that an individual can increase performance on tests of fluid intelligence significantly within a matter of weeks, through training specific to fluid intelligence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/magazine/can-you-make-yourself-smarter.html?pagewanted=all
I don't dispute the research that says that women scored higher than men in one country or another in an IQ test by 5 points, but that offers little to no evidence of which gender is smarter than the other, or whether any individual in that study who scored 5 points higher than another individual is smarter. Environmental differences, even on a day to day basis, play too much of role to determine an objective judgement on which gender is smarter on a gender wide basis, determined by 5 points on a restricted measure of intelligence, or any individual that scored 5 points higher than another. No more than it does in Mexico where women and men score equal on tests for restricted areas of intelligence. Two many factors are at play to make a judgement on which gender is smarter, based on intelligence testing.
Last edited by aghogday on Thu May 03, 2012 6:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5341
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | WilliamWDelaney wrote: | | Dox47 wrote: | | Master_Pedant wrote: | | William Delaney's aggressive, confrontational, and relentless style is more analogous to the Black Knight's. |
Maybe, but I still say he just has to find his own Boswell to catalog and filter his utterances. |
What is a Boswell? |
The man who wrote down everything Samuel Johnson was supposed to have said.
ruveyn |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson
_________________
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H L Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aghogday wrote: | | TM wrote: | Given that the topic of discussion is "Discussion about IQ tests", and given that according to said IQ tests men are smarter than women, how is that an issue up for debate?
Whether or not IQ tests measure [Insert your subjective definition of intelligence that you neglected to tell anyone else in the thread] and so on, men score higher than women.
The accuracy of IQ tests, the applicability of IQ test scores in fields, the usefulness of what different tests measure and such are valid topics of discussion.
This is not me "dictating" what people can and cannot post about. I'm just pointing out that disputing that IQ tests show that men are smarter than women according to the tests, by attacking the tests is like attacking the weight bench because men on average can bench press more, because just lifting stuff isn't an accurate measurement of "strength". |
A five point difference in a measure of IQ is not a reliable method of determining whether or not someone is smarter than another person, it is just an indication that a group of individuals selected in a specific demographic scored higher on average than another group of individuals in a population on a test restricted to only certain areas of intelligence. No reputable source has suggested that those results are an indication that men are actually smarter than women.
And while there may still be differences in countries in areas of intelligence between the genders in the area of mathematics tested in standard intelligence testing, those differences have disappeared in the US, because of cultural changes, and there are many countries where females out perform males in the area of mathematics, per reference below.
The differences in the countries you cited may potentially be the result of cultural differences instead of innate differences, but in the US, Males and Females now score equally in the area of mathematics. And in Mexico in the largest study by far done per country, sampled below, Intelligent testing results between men and women were almost identical.
One could as easily suggests that this means that women and men are equally as smart, but that is not what it means; gender performance on IQ tests, differ for many more reasons other than innate intelligence. In twin studies inherent factors are suggested to only account for 55% for what is measured in IQ tests.
And in addition, there is a body of evidence that suggests that an individual can increase performance on tests of fluid intelligence significantly within a matter of weeks, through training specific to fluid intelligence.
I don't dispute the research that says that women scored higher than men in one country or another in an IQ test by 5 points, but that offers little to no evidence of which gender is smarter than the other, or whether any individual in that study who scored 5 points higher than another individual is smarter.
|
Several of the sources I linked stated something akin to that, you can go look it up the links are a few pages back. You should also look into the requirements in mathematics and how they have changed in the last 30 years, because as far as I've noticed, the standards have slipped quite a significant amount in the US in those 30 years.
Women also regularly score better in tests where the test material is directly related to the material they've studied, in the case of mathematics, women tend to memorize formulas better. As DW_a_Mom touched upon as well, the education system has changed from being centered around how males learn, to being centered around how females learn, so that is yet another factor.
Also, as I've said, in this case it doesn't matter if differences are cultural, or societal, it just matters that they are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vexcalibur
Proud to be smug as heck
![]()
Joined: Jan 18, 2008
Posts: 5383
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bizboy1 wrote: | | Generally, people who score low or would score low tend to try to invalidate the tests. This is usually done to make them feel better. |
I got 140 in my first IQ test*.
I do not think that's low.
I was quite glad. Uh ohh, 3% percentile! In your face! Hahaha!
But then, I grew up. And then, I figured... Most of the test did not really test my inherent intelligence, but rather the great practice I have had playing video games with puzzle themes.
At least in my case, I am pretty sure that my high IQ test score is the result of practice. If you can practice for a test, then I don't see how it could be a test of inherent intelligence at all.
In fact, I wonder if there is any point in testing inherent intelligence or specific skills like spatial. History is full of phycisists that suddenly decide to become painters and after 2 years of hesitating get good at it. I think the human brain is remarkable at learning and that nothing. I mean nothing is fixed in it. Is "intelligence" really something that can be diagnosed based on your genotype?
Soon we will have to admit that if Einstein took an IQ test at 10, he would have gotten the score of an idiot.
The IQ test is nothing but a bunch of cliche puzzle questions that you can practice to do well. Is there even a correlation between IQ and success?
* I got better scores in later attempts.
Think about it, if IQ was really worth it as a metrics, wouldn't companies actually use it as a requirement? When you look for people to hire, you don't base your decisions on pop quizzes or political ideals, but on what will give you money. Somehow experience greatly outweights your IQ or your aptitude test or whatever in regards to the requirements expressed by companies when hiring. And saying "My IQ is 140" in your resume would make you sound like a useless lunatic.
And while we are at it, have you looked at Mensa? Has your average Mensa member done anything more notable than "being a Mensa member"? Yet they seem to be the only organization that actually cares about IQ.
Just saying, if IQ was relevant and important, then were are the test centers that give you "IQ certification" so that you can confirm to companies that yes, you are quite pretty smart. Where is the checkbox: [ ] "My IQ is 130 or higher" In University admission forms?
_________________
.
Last edited by Vexcalibur on Thu May 03, 2012 6:58 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Oodain
big chief wulla bamboom alakaway
Joined: Jan 31, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 5022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TM wrote: |
@Hyperlexican how do you define intelligence? The definition famously used back in the late 1920s if I remember correctly was "Anything the IQ test measures" |
nice piece of circular logic there.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Janissy
Phoenix
Joined: May 06, 2009
Age: 46
Posts: 4915
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vexcalibur wrote: | | bizboy1 wrote: | | Generally, people who score low or would score low tend to try to invalidate the tests. This is usually done to make them feel better. |
I got 140 in my first IQ test*.
I do not think that's low.
I was quite glad. Uh ohh, 3% percentile! In your face! Hahaha!
But then, I figured... Most of the test did not really test my inherent intelligence, but rather the great practice I have had playing video games with puzzle themes.
At least in my case, I am pretty sure that my high IQ test score is the result of practice. If you can practice for a test, then I don't see how it could be a test of inherent intelligence at all.
In fact, I wonder if there is any point in testing inherent intelligence or specific skills like spatial. History is full of phycisists that suddenly decide to become painters and after 2 years of hesitating get good at it. I think the human brain is remarkable at learning and that nothing. I mean nothing is fixed in it. Is "intelligence" really something that can be diagnosed based on your genotype?
Soon we will have to admit that if Einstein took an IQ test at 10, he would have gotten the score of an idiot.
The IQ test is nothing but a bunch of cliche puzzle questions that you can practice to do well. Is there even a correlation between IQ and success?
* I got better scores in later attempts.
Think about it, if IQ was really worth it as a metrics, wouldn't companies actually use it as a requirement? When you look for people to hire, you don't base your decisions on pop quizzes or political ideals, but on what will give you money. Somehow experience greatly outweights your IQ or your aptitude test or whatever in regards to the requirements expressed by companies when hiring. And saying "My IQ is 140" in your resume would make you sound like a useless lunatic.
And while we are at it, have you looked at Mensa? Has your average Mensa member done anything more notable than "being a Mensa member"? Yet they seem to be the only organization that actually cares about IQ. |
That's a great point about practicing. Flynn wrote a book about The Flynn Effect (which he popularized) which is basically the observation that IQ scores have gone up on average quite a bit since the test came into wide use decades ago. He did not think that this meant that the human race suddenly got smarter. He thinks that it is the practice effect that you describe but on a grand scale. Basically, modern educational culture steers people towards thinking about the world in a very specific way, starting pretty much from infancy (in many families) and this raises scores through practice so much that the test has had to be re-normed multiple times.
In other words, IQ scores are as much nurture as they are nature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oodain wrote: | | TM wrote: |
@Hyperlexican how do you define intelligence? The definition famously used back in the late 1920s if I remember correctly was "Anything the IQ test measures" |
nice piece of circular logic there. |
Not my definition, I got it from a debate I read about that took place in the late 1920s or 30s between people about what the IQ test actually measured. Hence, why a lot of people are so predictable, they are saying the same sh** that was said in the 1920s. Is there any wonder I get bored? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vexcalibur
Proud to be smug as heck
![]()
Joined: Jan 18, 2008
Posts: 5383
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
_________________
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vexcalibur wrote: | |
I love how these threads always end up with the people putting themselves on the highest pedestals in whatever applicable category posting something akin to what you just did to make fun of a position which they had no hand in defeating and in fact didn't defeat.
Go get your rear-end kicked by WilliamDelaney again please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ancalagon
Computer Geek
Joined: Dec 26, 2007
Posts: 2410
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TM wrote: | | Women also regularly score better in tests where the test material is directly related to the material they've studied, in the case of mathematics, women tend to memorize formulas better. As DW_a_Mom touched upon as well, the education system has changed from being centered around how males learn, to being centered around how females learn, so that is yet another factor. |
If the changes in the educational system were enough to shift around IQ scores between the sexes, that cuts against your argument, not for it.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton |
|
| Back to top |
|
LKL
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 37
Posts: 5741
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Funny how people keep on starting threads about long-debunked measures of personal superiority and then whine when others don't always treat the topic respectfully. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ancalagon
Computer Geek
Joined: Dec 26, 2007
Posts: 2410
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | In order to measure intelligence one first has to define it. What is intelligence? Good question. Do you have an answer. I don't |
Quoted for truth, as well as summing up everything in this thread that matters.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton |
|
| Back to top |
|
  |
Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index
-> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion
|
Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
|
|
|
