Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
Not even performance on an IQ test is completely explained by genetics: heritability of this particular trait is anywhere from 30 to 80% depending on what study you want to believe, as sapiens pointed out.
|
Agreed. (Though I do think that the low estimates are quite low. Most studies find higher heritabilities).
Quote:
|
Intelligence is not even possible to measure. There is no yardstick. The concept itself is a cultural construct that varies from place to place and from time to time. We currently have an IQ test; a hundred years from now we might be attempting to test musical improvisational ability, or skill in real-time oral argument, or deftness at manipulating a person’s emotions, or talent in moving up a social hierarchy, or real-time situational problem solving, like the ability to survive a month in the Kalihari. None of these is even vaguely quantified by anything remotely resembling any IQ test. These tests are inherently circular anyway because they simultaneously define the construct in terms of the operation and the operation in terms of the construct.
|
I agree that intelligence tests (and intelligence "the construct") are culturally specific. I also agree that IQ tests are a measure of intelligence, not intelligence itself. However, the WAIS and the WISC predict "real-world" outcomes in Western cultures. I doubt that musical improvisational ability would do the same.
Quote:
|
Whatever test you claim shows that Group A has a higher intelligence than Group B, I guarantee I can construct a dozen different tests that show the exact opposite.
|
Researchers have done this. Constructing an IQ test that eliminates group differences results in a test with low predictive validity. Somewhere I have references, but I'm nowhere near them right now.