Henry Farrell has an interesting take on the Intellectual Dark Web
. He argues that their sense of resentment is in some ways justified, because they actually have been displaced from the respect and appreciation their views might once have had. In other words, their shitty opinions no longer get the old beard-stroking regard they would have 10 or 20 years ago.
The traditional safe spaces for pseudoscientific speculation have been taken over, almost literally. The New Republic — which Ta-Nehisi Coates has asserted had perhaps two black staff writers or editors in its heyday and was certainly overwhelmingly white — is now being edited by the leftist multicultural barbarians. Slate has moved away from reflex contrarianism toward a more robust liberalism. And William Saletan, to his genuine credit, has written a serious mea culpa for his previous flirtations with race-IQ theorizing.
Today, contrarianism on race and gender is liable to get fierce pushback in the publications of mainstream liberalism. Intellectual ties to the right can win you toleration if you are David Frum, Ross Douthat, or David Brooks. You may be recognized as a member of a minority that needs to be acknowledged, and as a possibly unreliable ally against Donald Trump Republicanism. However, you are unlikely to enjoy real love or deep acceptance.
In absolute terms, dark web intellectuals enjoy far more access to the mainstream than genuine leftists. But in relative terms, they have far lower status than their intellectual forebears of 20 or even 10 years ago. They are not driving the conversation, and sometimes are being driven from it. This loss of relative social status helps explain the anger and resentment that Weiss describes and to some extent herself embodies. It’s hard for erstwhile hegemons to feel happy about their fall.
There is also an irritating but genuine grain of truth deep beneath the layers of whining. Campus leftists and their allies in the media are often no more open to alternative perspectives than the New Republic white male elite of two decades ago; they can behave badly too. But where dark web intellectuals veer from analysis of that phenomenon into self-pity is in their consistent tendency to treat all skeptical criticism of their purported commitment to truth-seeking as further symptoms of political correctness gone mad.
In that sense, it’s kind of a promising development that they now have to get their photos taken while lurking in the bushes at dusk. The flip side, though, is that while the intelligent, educated people have had enough of their bullshit and are willing to rip into them when they open their ignorant mouths, that gives them an additional cachet with the ignorant…and there’s more of them than there are of us. Hence, all the buckets of money being poured over them.
Every time I hear the phrase “intellectual dark web,” it makes me picture black-suit-era Spider-Man swinging by, quoting Kant at me.
“There is also an irritating but genuine grain of truth deep beneath the layers of whining. Campus leftists and their allies in the media are often no more open to alternative perspectives than the New Republic white male elite of two decades ago; they can behave badly too.”
I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean, other than people who disagree with them stick to their beliefs. What would it mean for me to be “open to the perspective” that we should, say, acknowledge that black people are genetically inferior or that profiling Muslims in airports is an effective way to prevent terrorism? I take issue with those claims, and I don’t see any irritating but genuine grain of truth in them.
Clearly, UnknownEric, it’s time for someone with appropriate resources to apply to Kant and Spiderman the technique that produced theNietzsche Family Circus.
The first time I saw the list of people representing the Intellectual Dark Web I literally thought:” Are they calling themselves that because none of them is very bright?”
Any list of “intellectuals” that includes Joe Rogan is not a list of intellectuals.
Farrell: “Campus leftists and their allies in the media are often no more open to alternative perspectives than the New Republic white male elite of two decades ago;…”
I am afraid I am with Cervantes–there are some ideas that have simply proven WRONG. Any simplistic analysis based on a subjective or outmoded metric, such as IQ or the equation gender=sex chromosomes(racism, gender, LGBTQ…); any analysis that flat out denies science (e.g. global warming or evolution); arguments that eschew existing hard data in favor of philosophical or ideological arguments (e.g. on gun control or charter schools)…those arguments have had their day. They were dismissed because they didn’t work. To simply reiterate them now with no additional support is an insult to our intelligence.
I came to a screeching halt in front of this disgusting apologia. The rest isn’t worth my time. This is utter bullshit, there’s no “irritating, genuine grain of truth” there at all. “Alternative Views” is nuspeak for the same old evil bigotry and discrimination that people keep trying to resurrect. Sticking an “alt” in front of these old chestnuts doesn’t change a fucking thing. I can’t even say just how much I’ve come to loathe the word alternate, thanks to all the immoral, evil, toxic assholes embracing it, as if it heralded new ideas. All the whining is because people recognize their crap for what it is, and they aren’t interested in hearing it, or providing a venue for it. It’s about damned time, too.
Let them fucking whine, but don’t be trying to sell their shit as some sterling truth that’s truly new. Farrell should be smacked for writing such idiocy.
Yes, I’m hardly going to agree with someone who argues that me, all my friends, and my family, are lazy, stupid, a drain on America’s resources, and should all be exterminated, or spayed and neutered.
It’s interesting that so many people make statements like the above, without acknowledging that “the leftists” consists primarily of marginalized people who are fighting these “Dark Web Thinkers” for their lives., and now have the ability (thanks to the internet) to do just that.
Yes, there was a time when men like that could run their mouths unopposed by the people they wanted to talk crap about. Well, not anymore.
#6 Caine:
Preach, my brotha! I’ve been muttering this to myself for the past couple weeks now. You just gave it a proper voice.
I continue to be impressed with how perfectly fitting the term “intellectual dark web” is, and by how those who chose that moniker did so entirely unironically. The “dark web” purports to be a place where people can freely share information without unwanted and unwarranted censorship or surveillance, but in reality is just a place for shitty people who long to be shitty without having to deal with the consequences. If I sat down to come up with something to negatively compare Harris and his ilk to, nothing would fit as perfectly as the “dark web”. And they’re wearing it like a fucking badge of honor.
So it turns out that the white woman at Yale who called the campus cops on a fellow student black woman who was having a nap in a common room (and previously had called them on another black student whose entry into a common room she tried to block) is an atheist with strong anti-Islamic/pro-freeze peach views who has written for The Humanist and was featured on Daylight Atheism at one time.
This leaves me wondering how long it will be before Sarah Braasch is welcomed with open arms into the Intellectually Dank Web and how many thousands a month her eventual Patreon will fetch her.
unknowneric
“Seek not the favor of the multitude; it is seldom got by honest and lawful means.”
The past 2 years provide a really good illustration of why bad ideas need to be dismissed and buried under a lot of dirt with a stake in their heart. Ferchrissake, we actually have neo-fucking Confederates rehashing the arguments around slavery appearing in the mainstream media. Pinker notwithstanding, there is such a thing as products. Not all ideas deserve to live forever even if their are some unreformed assholes who cling to them.
I agree with cervantes, arids and Caine – there is no “irritating but genuine grain of truth” in the tosh the dimwebbers spew. Nor do I credit Farrell’s claim that they have lost ground over the past 20 years – with the only credible exceptions being gay marriage and (very recently, and still under fierce counterattack), the #MeToo movement and its (genuine) allies. After all, their intellectual leader (*guffaw*) now occupies the White House, and his rise has emboldened all the racists, misogynists, homophobes and allied scum no end. Finally, I don’t see any significant distinction between the Petersons and Harrises on the one hand, and the Cernoviches and Joneses on the other – they are saying the same things in different styles to appeal to more and less educated bigots, is all.
Caine @6
Take alt facts to create alt truths and you get alt-views.
erichoug @4
Weren’t many of them calling themselves “brights” back in the day? It is good thing that term never caught on – I think it quickly became a synonym for smug asshole.
KG @13 – “dimwebbers” -YES! – definitely the dim web.
It is pretty rich that these people shit all over women and minorities, get rewarded for it in attention and money, and then complain because their bravery and insight aren’t admired by their targets. “Women are too emotional to be rational.” — wow, what an incredible new idea! No one has ever thought of that before! “Black people just aren’t as smart as white people.” — jeepers, this guy is telling it like it is. Such integrity! “Sometimes, in the interest of safety, you just gotta torture some brown people.” — what a serious and realistic proposal! Real outside-of-the-box thinking. It sure is a mystery that these people have been embraced by the reactionaries.
I have not been following this “dark web” crap but is the site basically a fan creation or all those people have agreed to be hosted there? Because I find it strange that all those people with very different view points would agree to be on the same page.
@5 a_ray_in_dilbert_space
“Any simplistic analysis based on a subjective or outmoded metric, such as IQ “
In my doctoral training in clinical psychology I learned that IQ is neither subjective nor outmoded. Also it is moderately heritable. The links in OP led me to this article by a psychologist who presents the scientific consensus on IQ, supporting what I said above,
While refuting Charles Murray and Sam Harris . Seems likely ke a good article to me.
Charles Murray is once again peddling junk science about race and IQ – Vox
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech
The Intellectually Dank Web strikes again.
Isn’t Kant the dipshit who reasoned that masturbation and lying to save someone’s life were both immoral due to his philosophy?
@2:
There is a case to be made for the campus left’s intolerance. I don’t know of any respectable leftist who agrees with physical assault on Charles Murray, no matter how odious his beliefs. While totally understandable, I still fail to see what those tactics achieved except bringing the old IDWers to prominence and help new IDWers (e.g. J.P) pass as an intellectual ans sell books.
I don’t think it is easy to make the case that this behavior is somehow telling of left in general though. That’s why it is just “a grain of truth”.
@20
No, but people who have only read the Groundwork tend to say so.
In the Doctrine of Rights and Doctrine of Virtues Kant both go into how the general rules in the Groundwork aren’t that simple (for example, a Murderer at the door is a context where there is no expectation of telling the truth, so it is morally permissible to lie to the murderer. The oft cited letter about “the supposed right to lie” is primarily talking about legal consequences.)
Or, rather, legal culpability. In the letter, he’s making a case that lying to protect a friend could make you legally culpable if the lie ends up helping the murderer.
raaak @21:
ok so like
what?? i mean i’m really just trying to parse this. are you saying that the “campus left” is intolerant and distinct from the “respectable” left in general, for which we may judge them, and there is no overlap between them, but also that you think that the “tactics” used by the “campus left” students who assaulted murray are “understandable”? but also that it’s somehow the fault of the “campus left”, as distinct from the “respectable left”, that jordan peterson passes as an intellectual, because of the “tactics” the “campus left” in particular used on murray? i mean peterson has been a literal intellectual for, um, a really long time. maybe i’m interpreting all of this incorrectly but i’m having a hard time understanding what you’re saying.
@24:
No.
≠ “intelligence”
raaak @25:
ok, so help me understand what you DO mean then. you say that there is a case to be made for the “campus left” being intolerant, and that it comes from “respectable” leftists who don’t agree with their tactics. but then you also say it’s NOT EASY to make a case that the “left in general” is intolerant. so what is the distinction here? if you can say the campus leftists are intolerant but not all the leftists, what distinguishes the “campus” left from all the other “respectable” leftists? why are you now saying there isn’t a difference? this seems like all a big semantic mess that means nothing
well maybe they are rather intolerant of neo-nazis , facists and other outspoken racist in contrast to the tolerance of the “intellectual dark webs” accepting of other peoples rights to a fair hearing and the equality of all men free speech and open debate.
uncle frogy
@27:
I am specifically talking about instances of physical violence at some of the events involving right wing speakers. That “grain of truth” mentioned above is somewhat related to the violence and heckling at those events and cannot be denied out of existence in my opinion.
Those few instances of violent intolerance went a long way in undermining the case for reasoned intolerance of bad ideas in universities and helped the hard right frame the whole thing as a free speech struggle.
Campus left and respectable left do not need to be disjoint btw.
This is an excellent explanation about why it’s necessary to debate sometimes, from Michelle Goldberg:
The Red Pill
Some might argue that referring to “ideas seen as racist or sexist” [my emphasis] when you are talking about scumbags like Shapiro and Peterson “conveys a message of weakness” – and an unwillingness to tell the simple truth.
An unwillingness to engage (or even countenance the appearance of someone who espouse ideas seen as racist or sexist) is something Goldberg believes is unwise. I can understand not wanting to deal with it, as my own memories of the whole race/IQ question go back to Herrnstein’s controversial claims about it back in the early 1970s, and it keeps coming up again and again. But there’s nothing for it but to do what Klein did with Harris and have it out, again.
Why that fetishisation of personal debate?
I can debate somebody’s views without actually debating the person, which is something people do on this blog all the time. I never met Sam Harris, but have debated what he said many times, yet somehow that doesn’t count?
I would argue that debating such views in written is much better than in person because then you can actually concentrate on the substance of the arguments instead of who is better at cheap rhetorical tricks and gish gallop.
Ideas have to have some initial merit or potential value in order to go on to be discussed on an equal platform. We don’t debate just any old idea just because X amount of people are believing in it.
starfleetdude@32,
I see you’re adopting the same pusillanimous “ideas seen as racist or sexist” phrasing as Goldberg. The “ideas” of Shapiro and Peterson are racist and sexist – pretending this is a matter of perception is at best an unnecessary and foolish concession.
Violent disruption or heckling are also forms of engagement. That charlatans reduce ALL opposition to them to heckling and violent protests does not justify these actions as viable or ethical methods for calling them out on their BS.
KG@35
The idea that race is conflated with IQ is a racist one by definition, and as Ezra Klein showed in his discussion/debate with Sam Harris it’s an idea that can’t be neatly separated from our legacy of slavery. Every time the race/IQ idea has come up it’s been met with opposition. It keeps coming up because it’s obviously motivated by prejudice, not science. But I don’t think it’s a good idea to ignore those still making the claim that blacks aren’t as intelligent, because by refusing to debate it becomes a political fight, and as we’ve seen it’s one that we can lose. So it’s necessary to debate the more credible “dark web” talking heads and like Klein show how they’re wrong.
I prefer ridicule to debate with irrational assholes who think IQ means anything, as it gives their inane ideas less credence.
From article linked by starfleetdude at 30:
This right here is the problem with constant calls for debate by seemingly erstwhile people*: it assumes everyone involved are honest actors, while supposing that only those unwilling or hesitant to hop right in there and talk it out could be the dishonest actors. Despite their unending calls for it, people like Shapiro are not interested in honest debate. They do not give a single, solitary fuck for rational conversation or communication. When he does share a stage with someone he considers an ideological opponent, Shapiro does little more than launch into a Gish Gallop of bullshit and assign the other a position or opinion before that person even has a chance to speak. He spouts inanities like “Fact don’t care about feelings” even as he twists the facts- to the extent he has any- according to his feelings.
As for this part:
Emphasis mine.
I wonder if, while writing the bolded part, Goldberg stopped to ask herself whether it’s possible the reason the refusal for debate conveys a message of “weakness, a lack of faith in one’s own ideas” is because so many writers and journalists and talking heads have been willing to carry water for the likes of Shapiro or Rubin or Peterson. They write articles like this, yet don’t seem concerned about letting those declining to debate have a chance to give their reasons. More, they don’t even appear to have bothered digging into the history or possible intentions of the Shapiros or Rubins to see if there might be a bit of an intellectual shell game going on, that their stated requests for respectful debate aren’t all that on the level.
* I’m not familiar with Michelle Goldberg, so I won’t make any assumptions about her motive here.
The people here that said
IQ ≠ “intelligence
AND
I prefer ridicule to debate with irrational assholes who think IQ means anything, as it gives their inane ideas less credence.
offer no evidence for these beliefs. These two people often call for evidence and citations.
I wonder if they read the article at the link I posted
@18.
Charles Murray is once again peddling junk science about race and IQ – Vox
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech
It’s by a psychologist and explains the scientific consensus in the field. IQ tests do measure something, reasonably called intelligence and they are predictive of many behaviors considered to be related to intelligence. If you are going to refute the findings of more than a hundred years of research calling the scientists irrational assholes to s idiotic. Also irrational and assholelike.
hotspurphd:
They measure proficiency at certain things related to intelligence, but not others. Such as scepticism.
(Since practicing IQ tests demonstrably improves one’s score at IQ tests*, does that mean taking an IQ test increases one’s intelligence? :) )
—
* Presumably iterating to some asymptotic limit.
(Since practicing IQ tests demonstrably improves one’s score at IQ tests*, does that mean taking an IQ test increases one’s intelligence? :) )
No, but not asking that question would be evidence of more intelligence.
HTML lesson
Doing this
<blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
Results in this
<b>bold</b>
bold
<i>italic</i>
italic
Using any of these will make your comments containing quotes from other commenters easier to understand. They will not help your comments make sense.
hotspurphd
Mostly being good at taking IQ tests.
Really, do we need to hash out all the problems with IQ tests from cultural bias over lack of reliability to the Flynn effect again?
called intelligence by people who have decided to call the thing they’re measuring intelligence. No seriously, that’s the problem you should be very aware of. “Intelligence” however defined can only be measured indirectly which means by displaying certain behaviours. So tell me: does being intelligent make you show certain behaviours or does showing certain behaviours mean you’re intelligent? And who decides which behaviours are intelligent?
See above. This really is circular reasoning. Apart from that, in an educational context, IQ scores are really bad at predicting outcomes. Only 25% of school success can be attributed to IQ scores and success in school doesn’t automatically translate into success in life, whatever that means.
And last but not least: It is not surprising that people whose professional life is tied to the concept of intelligence, IQ and IQ test believe that those things are real and important.
hotspurphd
Two things:
1) It is absurd to try to reduce anything as complex and multifaceted as human intelligence to a single number. I’ve known a whole lot of Mensa members who could spout random facts, but not one could parallel park.
2) The use of small deviations from one population to another to make generalizations about those populations is a severe abuse of statistics–especially given the fallibility of the metric.
I once put up tents (and took them down again) for a youth camp together with a maths and physics student. Of course, he being the older guy was in charge while little girl me (I was about 16 at that time) who had been camping since she was 6 months old was there to help him and do as he says. First we put up a big tent. If you know the type: big pole in the middle (step one!), 4 shorter ones at the corner (step two) and two to four additional ones at the sides.
He started by having us put up the poles on one side and wouldn’t listen to a word I said.
When taking down the smaller sleeping tents I mentioned that we needed to close the zippers so the material won’t stretch out of form. Same story.
By the end of it his team was in shambles as were the tents.
But he was very intelligent.
Giliell,
Damn, you’d think he would have at least heard the expression about “long poles” before. Did he think it was about tall men from Poland?
@45” It is absurd to try to reduce anything as complex and multifaceted as human intelligence to a single number. “
Psychologists are well aware of the limitations of a single number. Having written hundreds of psychological evaluations using an intelligence test, I can tell you that a great deal of information goes into the report. For example the Wechsler Full Scale Iq Score Is composed of the results of 11 different subtests each measuring a different cognitive skill. Cognitive skills BTW are considered to reflect intelligence. Still, that number is usually pretty accurate as an estimate of a person’s intelligence as defined by the test. Also the psychologist doesn’t just report the IQ, BUT INTERPRETS all the available info to make judgements about the person’s functioning, and may decide the scores are valid or invalid. There is a great deal of science that goes into making the tests reliable and valid. As to the criticism of circularity read here about construct validity.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/validity.html
The concepts of reliability and validity are taken very seriously and intelligence tests are the most reliable and valid of any psychological test. I doubt anyone here knows the difference. You probably think reliability means what is in fact validity.
Gillel
The correlation between grades and iq scores is famously .50 not .25
And has been for scores of years. That’s a pretty good correlation, accounting for 25% of the variance. Also iq scores are highly related to success in later 𝙻𝚒𝚏𝚎. And intelligence tests are highly reliable. A scientific fact. you don’t seem to know anything about this.
Also The argument that those who do things believe in them is hardly an argument against anything. Evidence, logic please.
Below is an excellent article from Slate decimating criticisms of the SATs and IQ tests. It states the the critics are “either unaware of this directly relevant, easily accessible, and widely disseminated empirical evidence, or they have decided to ignore it and base their claims on intuition and anecdote—or perhaps on their beliefs about the way the world should be rather than the way it is.” It seems to me that describes some of the people here.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/04/what_do_sat_and_iq_tests_measure_general_intelligence_predicts_school_and.html
In short, intelligence is real, intelligence measure them pretty well, and are useful in numerous ways. For example, does a student with bad grades have the ability to do better., I.e., does he have the intelligence to succeed in a regular class or does he need special attention. Intell. Tests help answer that.
I Remember a kid ,about 5 who scored very badly, in the disabled range but was so anxious (he had been abused) that the low scores were judged to be due to poor attention. Two years later after therapy and placement in foster care he scored about 20 points higher into the normal range. The evaluation, using tests, was very useful in eloping this kid.
I don’t think anyone here knows much about or is willing to look at the evidence so I think I’ll stop wasting my time. None of you will ever change your minds on this . Too much prejudice. You have incorrect facts and very strong bias.
Sent from my iPad
hotspurphd:
I think you meant to write something more like: In short, intelligence is real, intelligence [tests] measure [certain aspects of it] pretty well, and those aspects are useful in numerous ways.
I note earlier you wrote
(11 cognitive skills, eh? No more, and no less. 11 is the number of cognitive skills.)
That superior intelligence expectedly exhibits superior cognitive skill at some particular task does not entail that superior cognitive skill at some particular task is due to superior intelligence. For example, the best machines now exceed the abilities of humans at things like chess or pattern-matching.
—
PS
Yeah, I know. “Sent from my iPad” :)
49.
No, the eleven subtests represent a sampling of important abilities. Other tests use similar subtests. These tests , after passing reliability and validity tests, are found to correlate highly with each other. The assumption is that they are measuring the same thing ,or smethinh similar which we call intelligence. The subtests measure such things as ability to abstract, to attend, do arithmetic , show common sense, and a variety of non-verbal performance measures and are positively correlated suggesting A g factor that in intelligence.
Hey, these are measuring something. And some people are better at these tasks than others. And these people seem smarter. And damage to various parts of the brain cause predictable deficits on some subtests and not others . What do you think these tests are measuring? They are measuring something. Related t brain functioning.Why don’t you think it is intelligence? I don’t get it. Some people are much smarter than others. Some are really stupid. You all know this and observe it all he time. I taught fifth grade before I became a psychologist and it is obvious to me now that one kid probably had an IQ Of about 150(at the 99.9 percentile) several in the 120s and a couple about 85, at the 16th percentile. Some had more intelligence some a lot less. And the low level kids would never go to college and the really bright kid would likely be the one most likely to go to graduate school. These test predict.
So please tell me, when you see someone who is obviously not capable of doing much more than bagging groceries and think about your own very intelligent self, do you not think that there is something in your brains which is different, and which you might call intelligence? There are various ways of defining it but ALL the intell. Tests correlate highly, suggesting they are measuring the same thing. And they have all been scientifically validated, that is shown to be measuring what they purport to measure.
Here is a good definition
A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—”catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do.[7]From “Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns” (1995), a report published by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association:
Does it not seem a obvious that this definition of intelligence makes sense and can be measured. The science of psychology thinks that it does and it can.
49“That superior intelligence expectedly exhibits superior cognitive skill at some particular task does not entail that superior cognitive skill at some particular task is due to superior intelligence. For example, the best machines now exceed the abilities of humans at things like chess or pattern-matching.”
I don’t think that makes any sense. It called Artifical INTELLIGENCE .
John Morales #49
I look forward to your response to hotspurphd #50.
’cause I didn’t grok it atall
chigau, I think reiterating what they think is an indisputable point. Which it kind of is.
But as usual, my response is tailored to the respondent.
—
hotspurphd:
Sure. And some are much more social, or calm, or honest, or diligent, or persevering, or helpful, or artistic, or motivated, or mentally-stable, or [many other things] than others. Some are really stupid at those other things despite their IQ.
(And some people are just nice, and it works for them. As it should)
In terms of academic aptitude, no doubt. In terms of life achievement? I think less so.
(Also, the smarter you are, the better you can fool yourself by rationalising your impulses)
Let’s be clear; you already intimated IQ tests are proxy measures presuming direct and proportional correlation to intelligence — else the definition would be circular.
And I get that’s what you’re trying to express — that it’s a real thing and IQ is a good proxy measure for that aspect of it — and that’s fair enough.
But surely you concede it’s not the measure of a person, any more than their physical attributes. And that in real life, being around average is just fine.
Exactly. Those skills are applied by consciousness, and AIs aren’t conscious, unlike people.
Anyway. My point was you cannot affirm the consequent.
52 “But surely you concede it’s not the measure of a person, any more than their physical attributes. And qthat in real life, being around average is just fine.”
I never said it was the whole measure of a person. Of course it’s not. Nothing to concede.
I said the tests predict.
You said “In terms of academic aptitude, no doubt. In terms of life achievement? I think less so.”
Actually Iq score predicts many aspects of success pretty well beside academic success, like income e.g. just google IQ predicts success and see what you find. It is also true that more intelligent people are happier(google it) so being around average may be just fine but smarter is more likely to be happier.
I think that you have some unwarranted assumptions about what I am saying ,e.g. that Intell is the most important attribute of a person. I never said that.
Also another poster ,45, said “2) The use of small deviations from one population to another to make generalizations about those populations is a severe abuse of statistics–especially given the fallibility of the metric.
I didn’t say anything about population differences. Some of you are reading stuff into what I say.
Another thing. Iq tests according to new evidence are measuring much more than intelligence and work continues to make the tests more useful.
So yes, chigeau, IQ does not equal intelligence but is an imperfect measure of it and is useful.
Ye gods, I need a second tab
@”you’re all just numbers”
That is still fucking circular.
So, what is it now? Is the test valid (i.e. it measures what it is supposed to measure) or is it not?
Yeah, that’s totally not condescending at all. Because you’re the only one here who knows that shit. I have explained the difference between those two things in other threads, but sure, we simply don’t understand the concepts (are we too stupid? Are we just uneducated? Or may it be that we actually know the difference and have come to a different conclusion than you?)
Is spelling still part of IQ tests or did they remove that on your behalf?
Yes, you are correct. I misremembered that fact.
So much classism, racism and sexism in one simple sentence.
First, please define “success”. Is a woman who spends her life raising three kids not successful? What about my grandpa, a simple miner? Was he just too stupid to do anything else but haul coal out of the mountain?
Second, what does this sentence imply about groups who are not as “successful” as defined by you? Black kids, poor kids. If they don’t succeed, is it because they’re not smart enough?
Third, it doesn’t get you off the hook in your need to establish a causal relationship. Scoring high on an IQ test and getting a nice white collar job can absolutely both be due to factors like class and educational background of the family.
Again this condescending attitude. Cupcake, yes, I know what reliability means. And I actually have less problems with the reliability of IQ tests than their validity.
It’s not an argument against “anything”, but it’s a valid point. People who have invested their lives in IQ tests have an interest in maintaining IQ tests. It calls their objectivity into question.
I’d call it one of the false dichotomies you’re so fond of, but it’s three alternatives in an “either-or” construction which frankly offends my linguistic sensibilities.
In short, they are used to allocate and deny help. They are a tool for selection instead of building inclusive learning environments.
The funny thing about this is that your own example disproves pretty much everything you said before and you don’t even notice.
So what did the highly reliable and valid test measure the first time the kid took it?
And if it’s so highly reliable and valid, why did people say “screw that” and obviously went on to work with him assuming he needed therapy and a different environment?
What did it measure the second time the kid took it? Which test result was the “real one”?
And from a plain child welfare point of view: what the fuck are you trying to imply? That the improved IQ score was a proxy for psychological wellbeing?
If only…
Of course, unlike you, who has all the correct facts and no bias at all.
Do they include “cooking a meal” and “installing a new lamp”?
Emphasis mine. Again, you show zero critical analysis of whether and how subtests are included or excluded, who defines what belongs to “intelligence” and what doesn’t and it’s not like there aren’t psychologists who haven’t used different definitions and subsets like emotional or kinaesthetic intelligence.
Yeah….
Yes they are measuring something and some people are better at this than others and people who have done these tests before are better at them than others and people who’ve had breakfast are better at it than people who didn’t and people who are relaxed are better at it than people who are stressed and you’re really going to tell me that this still means they’re measuring some intrinsic characteristic?
Because your concept is ill-defined in the first place and in no small way dependent on “what can I easily measure in a test”.
Tell me, why is “how well can this person interact with people” not part of intelligence?
Holy shit and you’re a psychologist who works with children and you think that calling some of them stupid is an OK thing to do?
I observe that some people are faster in learning some things than others and are more easily able to figure some things out than others, which we colloquially define as “intelligence” or “being smart”. I also observe that those same people often fail at other things.
1. Funny thing is that one thing I learned in my psychology classes was that actually there are no tests that reliably measure an IQ above 130 because there are simply too few people to calibrate the test on…
Also, if you’re reliably able to predict those scores by teaching them, why the tests? What about all that careful work that goes into making the tests reliable and valid if your average 5th grade teacher can accurately predict the scores anyway?
And, as a teacher, do I see some kids learn more easily than others? Absolutely. Yet some of those who have a high cognitive ability constantly fail because they fail at grasping the idea that “being smart” isn’t enough. Yet others have to work a lot harder, but they do so. Which one of these kids is the intelligent one?
Also, yet again, it is absolutely possible that the things that make you good at taking these tests (like coming from an educated white middle class family*) are the same things that help you later in life.
*I cannot count the times teachers have plain confused knowledge and education with intelligence. So much about their ability to predict those things.
Really, your hatred for poor people doing menial jobs is disgusting. I have no knowledge about the person bagging groceries (not that this even exists where I live). I know that a lot of people deemed “gifted” after taking intelligence tests end up in such positions because of various reasons.
And no, as said above, I don’t deny that some people learn more easily, or are better capable of different cognitive tasks. But I have made it clear that
a) this traditional concept excludes various things like emotional abilities.
b) is well measured by an IQ test.
As John has shown, the definition lacks some crucial components
And correlation does not mean causation. What is your point exactly? No one denies the utility of intelligence tests in a limited psychological setting. What people are objecting to is the claim that IQ tests are useful as an analytical tool in social or economic policy making. And that the order these tests define is a natural. And that they measure something immutable.
Even if you confine the concept of success to material gain in life, one’s government policies have huge influence on such gains. Unless you can show some causal link between what you see as “success in life” and these tests of yours, this is a pointless debate. “Success” may as well correlate with the square root of the distance between one’s navel and left eye. So what?
And before you accuse others of reading things you have not expressed, note that this specific area of intelligence science is heavily infused with racist pseudo-science. You should expect sane people’s alarm bells to go off when you start by talking about how IQ tests can help us identify troubled kids and then switch to pseudo-scientific bullshit regarding success, criminality, “birth out of wedlock” (this one is my favorite), etc.
Years ago for a project I was working on I took a test that purports to show aptitude for language learning. My score was off the charts, so much so that an expert in language aptitude testing who was there as well did an impromptu interview of me, trying to figure out why I had scored so high. It’s certainly not that I’m a great language learner (I’ve managed to more or less master Spanish after years of living and visiting there, and being married to a Spanish woman, though I have trouble understanding any Spanish speaker who isn’t from the northern half of Spain), it’s just that the test was very similar to the sorts of exercises I did as a linguistics student back in the early ’80s.
The point of the anecdote is not that the test isn’t a valid measure of language learning aptitude for its target population–it could well be (though I’m skeptical on that point). But I was most definitely not part of the target population, and so for me it was not a valid measure of language learning aptitude.
The broader point is that validity is not a property of a test. Validity is an argument for using the results of a test to make inferences about the test takers, and to make decisions based on those inferences. (Some would say that you also have to account for the consequences of those decisions in your validity argument.)
So if someone is making the claim that a test is valid, ask yourself (and them), valid for what purposes? For what population? What is the construct the test is purported to measure? What is the target audience? What inferences and decisions are being made based on performance on the test? What are the consequences of those decisions? What evidence is there for the claims that the test developer is making about the construct being measured, how that construct is manifested in the target population, the validity of the decisions being made based on test performance, and so on?
I don’t mean this as a critique of anyone’s argument here, just a way to frame the discussion. It’s certainly conceivable that IQ tests are valid measures of intelligence for one population (say, educated middle-class white USAians) but not for others, but the burden is on anyone who’s making a positive claim about a test use to provide positive evidence that that’s a valid use of the test.
In my whole life I have seen three people wearing Mensa badges.
One was a farmer, one was the night clerk at a motel, and one was running the till at a grocery store (I had to bag my own groceries).