Do ICQ Tests Measure Intelligence?

[Nereid]

Nachtwolf wrote: The only thing I'm missing here is where Nereid suddenly became someone who knew what she was talking about when it came to IQ.

I wasn't aware that this was a requirement for asking questions, challenging proposals, and refuting assertions.

What rather puzzles me is why you feel the approach you've taken to make and defend your assertions is an effective one. Would you care to share those reasons with us?

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
- - - - - - - - -
Originally posted by Nereid
Nachtwolf, AFAIK, has been very open about his agenda
- - - - - - - - -
There we go; thank you, Nereid.

You're welcome.

Some answers on your agenda would be nice too, e.g.:

[Nereid:]"Let's take just one of your four points: '[Nachtwolf] IQ is a better predictor of future earnings than the social class into which you are born.[/color]

First, your eugenics proposal aims to save the world ('The crucial importance of intelligence, and the current drain on our intelligence, overshadows all other political concerns and represents the greatest threat to civilization in the modern world[/color]') by halting the decline in national IQ (you actually meant g).

*SNIP

Assume your eugenics program was implemented and was successful. Assume that 'National IQ' (or some variant of g) was raised by 40 points; even assume that 'a natural side effect of eugenics is a reduction to the Standard Deviation, which would thus tighten the IQ distribution[/color]'.

In the brave new world, would IQ still be 'a better predictor of future earnings than the social class into which you are born?[/color]' Yes it would; there would be no change; the world would be exactly the same."

(From: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12789&perpage=12&pagenumber=6)

 

[hitssquad]

Originally posted by Nereid
Jensen's work on the hereditability of "IQ" (this is shorthand; it's more complex than this) is limited to the US, and further limited to 'blacks' and 'whites'.

It might seem more likely that some of Jensen's conclusions are limited to the U.S.


For example:

--
Cross-Cultural and Cross-Racial Consistency of g. Here we are not referring to differences between groups in the average level of g factor scores, but rather to the similarity of the g factor obtained when different groups are given the same battery of tests. Most of the relevant studies have been reviewed and referenced elsewhere. [13] The general finding, even when quite disparate cultures are included (e.g., North America, Europe, and various Asian and African subpopulations), is that there is a remarkable degree of consistency in the factor structure across different racial and cultural groups. All-positive correlations among ability tests, a large g factor, and most of the well-established primary mental abilities all show up in virtually every cross-cultural factor analysis. The g factor is certainly the most ubiquitous and invariant feature of all these analyses.[/color]
--
(Arthur R. Jensen. The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability. p87.)
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874





-Chris

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think that the research described in that quoted passage of The G Factor goes a long way to establish the "solidity" of g against the "statistical artifact" people. The g-loading patterns that the different test questions make are the same, no matter which population you give the tests too. g-loaded for US whites = g-loaded for US blacks, for Europeans, etc. If the g factor was as flimsy as some people claim, that wouldn't happen.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I think that the research described in that quoted passage of The G Factor goes a long way to establish the "solidity" of g against the "statistical artifact" people. The g-loading patterns that the different test questions make are the same, no matter which population you give the tests too. g-loaded for US whites = g-loaded for US blacks, for Europeans, etc. If the g factor was as flimsy as some people claim, that wouldn't happen.

IMHO, this may be one of the places where a distinction between the g-factor and the g-nexus is important. Perhaps it is moving down (genes, race) and up (crime, SES) - or, worse, confusing the three levels - that takes what might otherwise be relatively unexceptional into a swamp full of mines (if you can imagine such a thing).