From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:45:00 GMT


>From: roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca
>Message-ID: <1993Jan4.204851.17743@julian.uwo.ca>
>
>So what? Since when does performance in school indicate intelligence?

Oh, well, I must say you're a bit perverse.  If I can't convince you
that performance in school is related to what you think of as
intelligence, I can't imagine any area in which you might think
intelligence makes a difference, since other areas of life seem to
require a more eclectic mixture of interpersonal and practical skills.

>Vocabulary can be estimated, however, I don't agree that there is correlation
>between it and intelligence (there may be with IQ, but those are two
>different concepts).

Well, if you're not going to define intelligence, other than to say it's
unrelated to vocabulary and performance in school, I guess you can
make up any definition of "intelligence" to suit your argument.

>There is no significant proof that those tests measure IQ, and a great
>number of researchers believes that they do not.

What?  Surely you've heard the facile quip on this newsgroup that IQ
tests measure only IQ, not intelligence?  An IQ test is the operational
definition of IQ.  Or do you mean that IQ is not what IQ tests measure,
while intelligence is something different still, also not measureable by
an IQ test?  Perhaps you simply meant to say that the tests don't
measure intelligence, whatever your definition of that is.

>If you think otherwise, please give me some references to studies that
>your opinion is based on .

From, "Beyond IQ", by Robert J. Sternberg, page 122, the statement
is italicized for emphasis:  "One of the best single measures
of overall intelligence (as measured by intelligence tests)
is vocabulary".  Further, unitalicized:

  "This result (see for example, Jensen, 1980, Matarazzo, 1972) has
   seemed rather surprising to some, because vocabulary tests seem to
   measure acquired knowledge rather than intelligent functioning.  But
   the above discussion [not included here] should suggest why
   vocabulary is such a good measure of overall intelligence.
   Vocabulary is acquired incidentally throughout one's lifetime as a
   result of knowledge-acquisition components.  Moverover, to operate
   effectively, these knowledge-acquisition components must be under
   the control of metacomponents.  Thus, vocabulary provides a good,
   although indirect, measure of an individual's lifetime operations of
   these various kinds of components.  Vocabulary has an advantage over
   many kinds of performance tests, which measure the functioning of
   performance components only at the time of testing.  The latter kinds
   of tests are more susceptible to the day-to-day fluctuations in a
   performance that create unreliability, and ultimately, invalidity in
   tests.  Because performance components are not as critical to
   individual differences in scores on vocabulary tests, one would
   expect vocabulary test scores to be less highly correlated with
   performance types of tests than with other verbal tests, and this is
   in fact the case (Matarazzo, 1972)."

   Robert Sternberg, of Yale Univserity, is considered a leading
   researcher of human intelligence today.  He's one of the few
   contemporary figures quoted in the Encyclopedia Britannica under
   "intelligence".  I don't mean to make logic by authority, but I
   thought it worth mentioning.

>Their use at this time, is equivalent
>to burning of people, believed to be possesed by the devil, in the middle
>ages. The only difference is that today we do not kill their bodies,
>on a mere hypothesis, we kill their oppurtunities (educational or otherwise).

I think this is a bit extreme, as I've seen real cases, up close,
of the Wechsler's subsections providing useful diagnostic information.
I'm also well aware of the limitations of the test.

>Eliminating SAT completely, would be a great solution, it is not used
>in Canada and the system works fine without it.

One reason schools seem to do well without considering the SAT is that
the SAT closely predicts the same thing as GPA does.  But that ignores
some other issues.

>If you wish to use those tests to measure vocabulary - great, I have
>nothing against that, what I don't believe in, is that they should
>be given to estimate potential, until it is proven that they do measure
>it.

Sorry, but the correlations do virtually prove that they statistically
estimate it.  I think the only argument you could make against the tests
is that they're statistically "noisy" estimates, meaning they will say
the wrong thing about some people.  But that's often true with GPA and
teachers' observations too.  When none of the information is certain, it
helps to get as many different estimators into the game as possible.

>Yes, I do not believe in evolution, and I have yet to see any reason
>why I should. There is plently of evidence against it.

I'm almost afraid to ask just how you think living things "evolved".

>What was the statement about 'true colors' supposed to mean?

It is my very biased opinion that rejecting the theory of evolution,
with the evidence we have today, is indicative of scientific
uninsightfulness, unless you have some very good arguments.
Of all the areas of science to disagree with, picking evolution
raises suspicions in my mind that you've been influenced by
circular religious arguments or other "new age" theories.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa