Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Michael Tree" data-source="post: 950059" data-attributes="member: 1455">Once again, many of the biggest problems people have with IQ tests stem from misunderstandings by laymen and the belief that major problems with the earliest tests still exist in current tests.To a certain degree, it's like criticizing modern physics because earlier physicists believed in ether and phlogiston, or saying modern neurosurgery is quackery because in the past neurosurgeons did frontal lobotomies.IQ tests do not in any way measure "innate genetic ability" in isolation from environment and upbringing.  That's not a fault, it's a simple reality.  A person's abilities are always influenced by environment.  Would Mozart have been a fantastic composer if he wasn't raised with music?  Would olympic runners have been such great athletes if they were malnourished as children?  Would great scientists have been so great if their mothers drank alcohol when they were in the womb, or if they went to bad schools?  Not likely.  That's not to say that there isn't a significant genetic component to IQ tests, just that in any individual person it's impossible to untangle the effects of genes and environment.There is also a lot more to IQ tests than a single number. As others have mentioned, test reports are typically several pages long.  (Good) IQ tests are composed of multiple subtests, each measuring performance on different tasks.  Sometimes a person performs consistently on all these subtests, in which case the total IQ number is a reasonable approximation of their abilities.  However, when subtest scores vary significantly, that provides information into that person's areas of strengths and weaknesses.   Those who would criticize the fact that a person getting 115 scores in both verbal and non-verbal performance subscores has the same overall IQ score (115) as a person getting 100 verbal and 130 performance subscores are missing the point.  In the latter, the overall IQ score is essentially meanigless, and should not be given any weight.Situational and historical factors must also be used when interpreting IQ tests.  The differences in scores between different cultures and regions that others have mentioned do exist, though much much better than they used to be.  But when interpreting the results of IQ tests these need to be taken into account, not ignored, pretending they don't exist.As for the statistical basis of IQ tests, yes, many of the earlier ones were seriously flawed.  So what?  Modern tests have a much sounder statistical foundation.Overall, Gould seriously overstates his case (as usual - Gould is a propagandist arguing for a specific position, rather than a scientific reviewer aiming to give a balanced view of all the positions).  Gould's overemphasis on 'G' as a concept ignores the fact that, in practice, IQ tests are used for a lot more than just the overall IQ score.  It's true that sometimes a full-scale IQ score is valid for a person, and sometimes it's not (as I described above), and any qualified tester would tell you that.  Arguing that the variable validity of G as a measure is a fundemental flaw with testing seriously misses the point.</blockquote>

Verification