|
it seems to me that the idea of an iq test leans on so many assumptions which are socially specific that they really only measure the fit between the subject who takes the test and an abstract-to-cartoon version of the rationality dominant at the time the tests are written.
so the scale seems to me entirely normative--so what is measured, then, is fit relative to an ideal-typical image of the rationality that the creators of the test understand to be binding on themselves.
so i dont even see how iq tests are interesting or important, once you move outside the class positions occupied by those who generate such tests.
and i am not sure why or how the fact that x or y might do well on such tests is an argument for or against them on the basis of what kind of information they gather, how they weight it, and what these weightings are taken to mean.
signal is differentiated from noise by redundancy.
that there is redundancy implies nothing about value.
so it seems to me that iq tests are important because they are said to be important.
addendum:
why is the 19th century colonial residuum that is the notion of "race" of any interest?
i dont see the value of this category AT ALL and so cannot for the life of me figure out why it is at play in this thread.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|