I never really thought much of it before, but in my gifted and
talented program, we spent a month or so learning about IQ – pretty much
that entire original post. We were 11 or 12, second year of the program.
The point of the lesson was “you might be in this class, but you really
are not that special. you did good on one test and that test is kind of
rigged.”
One of my teachers in that program would light up and rave about The Bell Curve regularly, and gushed about it and intelligence, with the obvious implications in the context of a "gifted" program. It was gross. The rest were honest about the "you did well on a test that's it" aspect, thankfully.
> all the English tests meant to keep Blacks from voting during the Jim Crow era.
Somebody in the thread mentioned an old example of bias against black people and a reply was literally “don’t attribute malice
to what was likely incompetence”
this kind of cowardly revisionistic bENeFiT oF thE dOUbT (very selectively applied, and of course disregarding all contravening evidence when applied) seems amazingly popular in the US (and thus the world).
there’s all of this garbage, yes, and there are also ppl stringently arguing that if the soviet union had won, there wouldn’t be climate change today… uh, okay. sure.
it’s a potentially disastrous kind of handicapping.
I would remind them of the fact that one of their go-to race IQ studies had IQ tests conducted in english, being adminstered to african kids who did not speak english, but that would be breaking the rules about engaging with racists (and also would inevitably be not nearly as fun as it first seems).
If you’re interested in learning more about the problematic history
of IQ and the people who obsess over it check out the podcast My Year in
Mensa. Journalist joins for what she thinks is a puff piece and
discovers a less wrong like community. There are only four episodes so
it’s pretty quick.
I took a Mensa test once, with a nice chianti.
The question was something like find the pattern in these 1 3 11 17 ...73 numbers.
There was no numerical pattern. Wow, super smart stuff.
I understand it’s a point of contention
https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/science/ask-a-researcher/is-1-a-prime-number#:~:text=Using%20this%20definition%2C%201%20can,two%20numbers%2C%201%20and%2013.
But yeah, I’ve seen Paw Patrol episodes I care more about
> I understand it’s a point of contention
It isn't. The only people who would insist 1 is a prime are people who have not studied mathematics. It's not a prime, end of story.
yes, you have made it clear that you don't care. however if your response is to engage with something you don't care about by saying "well i *could* be right 😏" and then saying you don't care---rather than saying you don't care off the bat---to help you feel better when you find out you're wrong, then you are a dildo.
Yall are wonderful, straight up.
So. Fuck these people:
I was a little kid. Like, little.And they give me done algebra pattern finding shit, because I'm white I know Tangrams so these dumb dumb dumb motherfuckers are trying to dodge actual intelligence and be some M.KnightShamalayman *twist* and flip tha script because they're
so
fucking
#smart
Wait, has no one figured out this dumb dumb shit yet?
I worked for days on this.Got nothing.
>it isn't numerical
I idk googled or some shit it was '02 here, but I do know the dumb dumb answer.
Once more, formally:
"Find the pattern in these numbers:
1 3 7 13 17 23"
This is exactly the kind of Mensa shit they want, lmao.
Anyway, its that in the fucking English spelling of the numbers, the count of the character "e" ***will not decrease*** as the "pattern" continues.
\#MENSA
Main thing she’s arguing with is the claim she says Spearman made that intelligence was fixed; I doubt anyone denies a brain injury (for one example) won’t lower your intelligence. The claim is more that raw intelligence can’t be increased.
Wow. Lots of truly repulsive racism clothed in polite, tittering
disagreement. Props to OP for going “you’re just totally fucking wrong”
etc though in the replies
OP here. It was bizarre, because these guys honestly didn't seem that bright, they had trouble understanding pretty basic points, didn't seem to be able to research basic facts, and generally seemed confused at concepts that I would think would be quite obvious.
It honestly got frustrating.
scott alexander’s comments about there being a “fight” over IQ is an
admission he needs them used for something. What that something is, he
probably wont say.
Any other 90s “talented and gifted” kids remember basically getting
games that were modeled after IQ test components?
I had tangrams and other stuff that were similar to the block
design-type portions. Had to take an IQ test for ADHD diagnosis when is
was ~24 and unsurprisingly, I solved all the designs pretty quickly.
Tbh, the talented and gifted program was barbaric. Looking back, kids
who were included basically had the advantage of stable homes. I (and
the other “T.A.G.” kids) didn’t need extra small group time with a
teacher. Kids who were behind could have used those resources. Insane to
me that we took a class of six year olds and said “some of you are
better than the others”.
> If general intelligence is a hypothetical entity postulated to represent the phenomenon of the positive manifold, positive correlations between diverse cognitive ability tests, then it would seem unlikely that it could be measured with a single subtest score.
This is a very, very good point imo. I don't think there is good backing for the idea of a single underlying scalar "intelligence" explaining human ability, rather than g if it exists just being a particular component of vectors in the embedded "space of measured human ability", selected because it is useful in the actual real-world purpose of IQ testing (diagnosing developmentally disabled people in society).
Remarkable how uncharitably these guys have replied. I don't think any of them even read his comment before pressing the "defend my fave blogger on the internet" button.
OP here, I was disappointed to see a lack of his reply.
It seems obvious to me that these guys have some serious emotional attachment to the idea of their inherent superiority.
I don't understand how they don't even bother to do the most basic research about a test they think is so important.
Seems to me your second sentence addresses your third.
The weirdest ones are those who are invested in racialised IQ while admittedly not being braniacs themselves. They’re rare but they exist.
I never really thought much of it before, but in my gifted and talented program, we spent a month or so learning about IQ – pretty much that entire original post. We were 11 or 12, second year of the program. The point of the lesson was “you might be in this class, but you really are not that special. you did good on one test and that test is kind of rigged.”
A lot of these folks could have used that lesson.
[deleted]
If you’re interested in learning more about the problematic history of IQ and the people who obsess over it check out the podcast My Year in Mensa. Journalist joins for what she thinks is a puff piece and discovers a less wrong like community. There are only four episodes so it’s pretty quick.
“Are IQ tests real”, the greatest thread in the history of SSC, locked along with the entire subreddit after 12,456 replies of heated debate.
Wow. Lots of truly repulsive racism clothed in polite, tittering disagreement. Props to OP for going “you’re just totally fucking wrong” etc though in the replies
Which is why the field is moving more and more to perhaps the greatest language-neutral IQ test ever devised: Ikea furniture assembly instructions.
scott alexander’s comments about there being a “fight” over IQ is an admission he needs them used for something. What that something is, he probably wont say.
Any other 90s “talented and gifted” kids remember basically getting games that were modeled after IQ test components?
I had tangrams and other stuff that were similar to the block design-type portions. Had to take an IQ test for ADHD diagnosis when is was ~24 and unsurprisingly, I solved all the designs pretty quickly.
Tbh, the talented and gifted program was barbaric. Looking back, kids who were included basically had the advantage of stable homes. I (and the other “T.A.G.” kids) didn’t need extra small group time with a teacher. Kids who were behind could have used those resources. Insane to me that we took a class of six year olds and said “some of you are better than the others”.
original text: https://archive.is/YnyhJ
How many rats have even talked with an ed psych at all?
Don’t miss Siskind showing up with a characteristically spurious comment, only to get thoroughly bodied by OP.
Read heading as “acausal troll”. Been consuming too much sneer-worthy content. Can’t stop, won’t stop.
I love how Siskind detected that somebody was questioning his IQ gospel and then instantly rushed to sperg out at the OP and insult him. What a loser.