IQ scores are fairly stable over the years. They accurately predict academic and economic sucess, and other favorable outcomes in life also. Because the public discussion is coerced those who do scientific research into the subject are often afraid to publicize their findings. Therefore a lot of nonsense commonly believed about IQ.

Like this, for example:

 

Actually, having been illiterate, uneducated to typical society, having no concept of mathematics and so on, what many fail to realize (even those learned individuals that work in such a field of testing) is that intelligence can be evaluated based upon the individual's ability to "learn" and more so then apply that information (rather than simply mimicking) over a broad range of potential subjects.

In fact, I pose to you that typical I.Q. testing does not address that...In a nutshell one could simply be a parrot with a vast repertoire. Any of you fellas want a cracker?

Hush....an alias

 

its the "Bell Curve" all over again.

 

He who laughs has not been told the terrible truth.

- Bertolt Brecht

This issue is depressing. Nevertheless, the truth matters. Unfortunately, those who tell the truth are condemned as though they approve of the truth, or are somehow responsible for it.

 

I'm sure the world is filled with timid scientists who are afraid to reveal their data, for fear of criticism. I would have more faith in IQ tests results as valid data, if a person's IQ score remained stable, but a person's scores improve if the test is taken several times. This is true of most exams.

As for predictability of future performance, if tests are culturally biased, why wouldn't those who score well, also have other advantages in the culture?

 

The first time I saw a story on IQ by race was back in the 1960's when someone took the IQ test scores from military entrance exams and concluded that blacks scored 15 points lower on those IQ tests than whites. And it seemed all pretty straight forward until two other researchers took the exact same data but instead of race they used geographic locations. And their research revealed that northern blacks scored 15 points higher on IQ tests than southern whites.

And in all this time since the only thing that has been proven and remains consistent is no matter how the groups are divided there will be more variation between the individuals in any given group than there is between the groups themselves.

 

I am able to pick and eat grapes by just using my toes WHILE I scratch one butt cheek balancing on the other, and pick my nose with my free hand...

How'd I score?

Hush....an alias

 

IQ tests can easily be slanted towards specific groups in society. To be honest any test can. I've scored 135 on about 6 different official IQ tests. Once you understand the system it's not so difficult. Think of it like a formula. It is same as formal exams in education. Understand how the markers or those who come up with the tests think and you can't really go wrong.

 

Yes, yes, but you are being redundant.

IQ is not intelligence. IQ, itself, IS a measurement from a test. It means intelligence quotient. It is a weighted score, representing the result of a test, and nothing more.

So you don't have to qualify it.

The basic problem is that too many people really do think that IQ is a measure of intelligence, itself.

Personally I would argue the notion of IQ as a measure has gone right out the window, now that people can go on the Internet and train themselves to concoct a high score in their spare time, during the commercials between segments of Dancing with the Stars.

 

If I was really intelligent, I might have gotten it right on the first try.

 

I didn't mean you were wrong! I'm agreeing with you.

It's just... well, forget it. Once I brought a composition to my piano teacher and I had entitled it "Variations on a Theme in D." She crossed out "on a Theme" with red pen, and she looked up at my crestfallen expression and said, "Good effort, but you don't need that part. Every variation is on a theme!"

What I mean is that we all do it. Hence the trap. We trick ourselves into thinking it's really a measure of intelligence.

 

This is true but i would choose better words other then race to keep the SJWs from screaming racist. I think we should be talking about IQ differences by culture because that to me seems to be the biggest factor not genetics.

 

True intelligence can be determined even among illiterates. True intelligence is the ability to accomplish, logic if you will. Almost anyone can be educated, however they can't be taught logic. Either you have superior logic or you don't.

 

In my opinion the greatest thinker of all time was Leonardo DaVinci. He had the ability to envision what was possible. In other words what was logical. Born out of wedlock to a peasant woman his only formal education was a apprenticeship to a renowned Florentine painter, I can't recall his name, but he was well known. DaVinci was not only one of the greatest painters of all time, only Michelangelo could compare, he was the father of many theories and inventions. He was a true genius without very much formal education except in the art of painting.

 

When Shooter sees one of these studies that can actually accurately define the "race" of the people in the sample population he might pay attention to the results.

 

Remember.....The Nazi's tried doing and applying such...

Hush....an alias

 

The thoughtline is just how would an illiterate person distinguish which figures were which, for all we know they may not have the same numerical identification skills as literate people.

 

People from non-literate cultures have incredible visual memory skills. A literate person tends to retain memories by creating lists(Huron, Ontario, Michigan, Erie, Superior, HOMES, dependent upon text), while the non-literate person creates a mental image. It would be possible to write an IQ test which depended on visual memory and such a person would do very well, while a Harvard post-doc would come out looking like an idiot.

 

IQ tests are designed to predict sucess in a modern civilization with a high tech computer dependent economy. They are sucessful doing that.

I suspect that if children born to whites and Orientals with genius level IQ's were adopted at infancy by paleolithic tribes retaining a paleolithic way of life in the Amazon rain forest, southern Africa, and northern Australia, that they would perform less well than children born to those who have always maintained a paleolithic way of life.

 

What prevents an IQ test from being a self fulfilling prophecy? An expectation of high score is followed by high score, followed by more challenging work, which leads to higher performance. If an IQ test can predict success in a high tech computer economy, what you have is an aptitude test, not an IQ test.

As for baby swapping, if a high IQ is not a combination of a healthy mind, combined with some genetic advantage, what the fuck is it measuring?