• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The predominant factor in black deaths by police is more crimes commited - not racism

On the IQ test question, it has been demonstrated that certain groups - specifically blacks, hispanics, and women - do less well on tests when they are A) reminded beforehand of their group identity, and/or B) told beforehand that the test will measure how smart they are. IQ tests do a pretty good job of seeing how well people do on standardized tests. They're not very good at measuring actual intelligence.

Is also good at predicting past and future school performance, job performance, income, crime, likelihood of completing college, earning a masters degree, earning a PhD, among other things. The score is also quite stable over a lifetime. If it was just a measure of how well people did on the test and had no other association with anything else, you'd have a point.

If it was just a measure of raw intelligence and had no association with anything else, you'd have a point. As it is, you're stuck with having to either A) admit that IQ tests don't measure intelligence, or B) agree that women are not as smart as men.
 
Is also good at predicting past and future school performance, job performance, income, crime, likelihood of completing college, earning a masters degree, earning a PhD, among other things. The score is also quite stable over a lifetime. If it was just a measure of how well people did on the test and had no other association with anything else, you'd have a point.

If it was just a measure of raw intelligence and had no association with anything else, you'd have a point. As it is, you're stuck with having to either A) admit that IQ tests don't measure intelligence, or B) agree that women are not as smart as men.

Intelligence is a subject term. I care about what it can actually tell us rather than quibble about trivialities.

By the way, you really should inform yourself about the topic, as your ignorance is really showing:

“In all of those samples, women are the equal of men, perhaps scoring a half point or a point higher,” Flynn said.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/07/16/women-beat-men-on-iq-tests-for-first-time/
 
If it was just a measure of raw intelligence and had no association with anything else, you'd have a point. As it is, you're stuck with having to either A) admit that IQ tests don't measure intelligence, or B) agree that women are not as smart as men.

Intelligence is a subject term. I care about what it can actually tell us rather than quibble about trivialities.
Yet you spend sooooo much time quibbling over trivialities in order to defend racialism. :consternation1:
 
On the IQ test question, it has been demonstrated that certain groups - specifically blacks, hispanics, and women - do less well on tests when they are A) reminded beforehand of their group identity, and/or B) told beforehand that the test will measure how smart they are. IQ tests do a pretty good job of seeing how well people do on standardized tests. They're not very good at measuring actual intelligence.

Stereotype threat does not mean that IQ tests don't measure intelligence. It just means that they are imperfect at doing so, like any psychometric, or indeed, any metric whatsoever.
 
On the IQ test question, it has been demonstrated that certain groups - specifically blacks, hispanics, and women - do less well on tests when they are A) reminded beforehand of their group identity, and/or B) told beforehand that the test will measure how smart they are. IQ tests do a pretty good job of seeing how well people do on standardized tests. They're not very good at measuring actual intelligence.

Stereotype threat does not mean that IQ tests don't measure intelligence. It just means that they are imperfect at doing so, like any psychometric, or indeed, any metric whatsoever.

IQ tests measure the ability to do well on IQ tests. In my opinion it should be STA, not IQ. Standardized Test Aptitude. It is a good predictor of success in a school environment where one takes tests. That was what it was designed for.
 
On the IQ test question, it has been demonstrated that certain groups - specifically blacks, hispanics, and women - do less well on tests when they are A) reminded beforehand of their group identity, and/or B) told beforehand that the test will measure how smart they are. IQ tests do a pretty good job of seeing how well people do on standardized tests. They're not very good at measuring actual intelligence.

You are talking about  Stereotype threat

Stereotype threat is a situational predicament in which people are or feel themselves to be at risk of confirming negative stereotypes about their social group.[1] Since its introduction into the academic literature, stereotype threat has become one of the most widely studied topics in the field of social psychology.[2] Stereotype threat has been shown to reduce the performance of individuals who belong to negatively stereotyped groups.[3] If negative stereotypes are present regarding a specific group, group members are likely to become anxious about their performance, which may hinder their ability to perform at their maximum level. For example, stereotype threat can lower the intellectual performance of African-Americans taking the SAT reasoning test used for college entrance in the United States, due to the stereotype that African-Americans are less intelligent than other groups.[4] Importantly, the individual does not need to subscribe to the stereotype for it to be activated. Moreover, the specific mechanism through which anxiety (induced by the activation of the stereotype) decreases performance is by depleting working memory (especially the phonological aspects of the working memory system).[5]

...


The opposite of stereotype threat is stereotype boost, which is when people perform better than they otherwise would have, because of exposure to positive stereotypes about their social group. A variant of stereotype boost is stereotype lift people achieving better performance because of exposure to negative stereotypes about other social groups.[1]
 
Stereotyping. It is human nature to generalize. What is the stereotypical dog? Hmmm. That's a hard one since there is a huge variety. The AKC establishes what a typical representative of a breed should look like.

What is the stereotypical white? That's a hard one. From cracker to bleeding heart liberal, all white. The stereotype for white for me is the little old lady in Dubuque. Conservative, Christian, charitable, raised a family, worked hard, now retired and going to knitting circle and prayer meetings and playing cards at the senior center. Perhaps because I'm a tall old white man who grew up 30 miles from Dubuque.

What is the stereotypical black? That's a hard one. From anti-white to oreo, all black. I can think of no stereotypical black for me. I think of the individual black people that I know and can think of no commonality other than look. African-American "blackness" seems to be a state of mind. Colin Powell (who has light skin) was not black to me when I first saw him on TV. Their skin color ranges from nearly black in real color to as light as I am with a dark tan.

What is the stereotypical half-breed? That's a hard one. Among them are Obama and Derek Jeter.

Our future is that our great great grandchildren, yours and mine Athena, will be middle brown. Oh, sure there will still be variety, but the stereotypical skin color will be dark tan. The stereotypical features will be in-between.

Stereotypes are a guide. The (stereo?-)typical home-raised dog is friendly to strangers when the owners are present and not otherwise. Be advised.

What are your stereotypes for Black and White? Just curious.
 
Whether these things are natural or not has nothing to do with whether there are genes that are related to them.

After all, evolution is a collection of random things that turned out to be useful. If random things weren't sometimes useful there would be no evolution.

Thus a gene that leads to more/better something certainly can exist. For example, a gene for poor impulse control means they have a greater chance of being a criminal.

Loren.

Let's say there is a gene that compels women to casts ballots. In 1829 America, that would be a crime gene because in that year women voting was a crime. 100 years later, it would not be a crime gene because women voting is not a crime. What is and is not criminal behavior is not determined by genetics. Crime is a totally social construct not a genetic one.

Just because you can cite an example of something that used to be illegal but now isn't doesn't mean you can't have genes that are linked to criminal behavior in any society.

That's why I picked impulse control--that's always linked to making bad decisions.

- - - Updated - - -

On the IQ test question, it has been demonstrated that certain groups - specifically blacks, hispanics, and women - do less well on tests when they are A) reminded beforehand of their group identity, and/or B) told beforehand that the test will measure how smart they are. IQ tests do a pretty good job of seeing how well people do on standardized tests. They're not very good at measuring actual intelligence.

All you are showing is that it's an imperfect yardstick, not that it doesn't work.

How you feel while taking the test is definitely a factor.
 
Stereotype threat does not mean that IQ tests don't measure intelligence. It just means that they are imperfect at doing so, like any psychometric, or indeed, any metric whatsoever.

IQ tests measure the ability to do well on IQ tests. In my opinion it should be STA, not IQ. Standardized Test Aptitude. It is a good predictor of success in a school environment where one takes tests. That was what it was designed for.

It predicts much more than academic success.
 
Is also good at predicting past and future school performance, job performance, income, crime, likelihood of completing college, earning a masters degree, earning a PhD, among other things. The score is also quite stable over a lifetime. If it was just a measure of how well people did on the test and had no other association with anything else, you'd have a point.

If it was just a measure of raw intelligence and had no association with anything else, you'd have a point. As it is, you're stuck with having to either A) admit that IQ tests don't measure intelligence, or B) agree that women are not as smart as men.

This is a false dichotomy, and worse, it's a false dichotomy manufactured from whole cloth.

The major intelligence tests used in psychometrics do not reveal an overall difference in IQ between men and women, although the standard deviation for men is higher than for women (that is, there is more variance among male scores).

Also, measuring something imperfectly does not mean you did not measure it.

Also, you can call intelligence tests whatever you like, if calling them intelligence tests rubs you the wrong way. You could call them verkrumpt tests if you like. Of course, since they're measuring intelligence, they're still going to correlate with everything intelligence correlates with.
 
can anyone define this "intelligence" that is supposedly being measured on these tests?
 
can anyone define this "intelligence" that is supposedly being measured on these tests?

The lack of a perfect understanding doesn't mean that there isn't a very real pattern.

A guy with an IQ of 80 isn't going to be able to do the jobs a guy with an IQ of 120 can.


Just because you don't like what the yardstick says doesn't mean it's not meaningful.
 
seems like no one knows what the yardstick says or what it's measuring other than it measures stuff a wealthy upbringing prepares you for
 
Back
Top Bottom