Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
IQ score is a sham - the tests are quite fallible, and historically they were used as a justification to discriminate against people who are poorer or with worse access to education. Nowadays, I see it quite a lot in the context of eugenics, where some professors and philosophers attribute poor people being poor due to their low intelligence (low IQ score), and that they can't be helped while rich people got where they are due to their intelligence (as in they have a high IQ score on average).
IQ testing is reification fallacy. If I told you I had an instrument that could objectively measure every human by how beautiful they are, you'd see the problem immediately.
IQ depends on their being one kind of intelligence. You only get one score and it's the supposed measure of general intelligence. If street smarts vs. book smarts is a thing, IQ cannot be.
IQ measures racial difference that cannot be biological. Race is cultural, so since the test measures consistent difference between racial lines, it's proof that it's not measuring something biologically determined. It'd be like if IQ showed blondes really were dimmer than their peers, but you found out the effect carried over to bottle blondes.
I recommend the book "Mismeasure of Man" by Gould. His thesis shows the historical folly and logical impossibility of not just IQ, but biological determinism. I've just posted the common sense arguments against IQ, Gould brings the receipts.
In adults its well correlated with ability to learn and perform. If don't care why and just want to hire the best candidate its a good test.
But it doesn't necessarily show if they have common sense. If you have many low complexity problems then maybe, but it can't predict the best performers
Not only that, but a lot of developmental disabilities are only recognized as needing accommodations if the person scores low enough on an IQ test. But many score high on these tests, but do poorly in school because they are stuck in a system that only values people who learn from lecture, repetition, and regurgitation. So they are considered lazy rather than needing help.
My favorite argument agents IQ is that every thing it claims "inherent quality", "can't be studied for" ect were exactly what the SAT used to claim.