From: roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:13:13 GMT

In article <01GT56ZOTXK2ADDNKO@ccfvx3.draper.com> skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum) writes:
>
>>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.

The area where intelligence makes a difference, is application of
knowledge aquired to new situations. Learning the theory of relativity
requires much less then developing it...
 

>
>>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.
>

See above.

>>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.
>

What I meant was that there is no proof that they measure inteligence, and
that high IQ does not indicate it.
(Somehow I used IQ for intelligence...:))
>>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)

That is the whole point, I do not argue that it does not measure intelligence
as defined by IQ, but rather that this IQ does not predict if a person
is capable of more then a person with lower IQ (in other words an IQ
of 200 is not equivalent to being able to develop the theory of 
relativity, nor does an IQ of 100 predict that you are not capable of it).   

> 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.
>
How do you know that the information was usefull or correct?

>>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.

What GPA predicts is not that you are capable of using the information
you learned after geting out of school, but only that you have 
succesfully 'memorized' what your teacher said, and often not even
that.
    
>
>>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.
In what way have they? I have yet to see such correlations. The IQ
does not correlate well with later performance in life (outside school).

>>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".
>
I don't know.:)

>>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.

No, what has influenced me is purely scientificall evidence (or lack of it).
I have yet to see how evolutionists account for the fact that
their theory presuposes a genetical miracle, among other things.
Since evolution is based on the fact that things evolve by
genetical mutations, which are 99.99% of the time harmful,
rather than helpfull. Mutant varieties almost always die out,
or revert to ancestral types; since a mutation is nothing
but a random change in an organized system (according to 
statistical theormodinamics, a random change in the system
almost certainly decreses the order therein).
Even if a mutation favorable to the system occured, the
propability that another mutation would still advance it, is
even smaller; which comes down to the question: How could
a simple organizm evolve by 'mistakes' into a complex organizm
like a human being? 
Also if a fish evolved into a dog, where is the animal between the
two? :)
 
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa