From: Jim.Bridges@f94.n272.z1.fidonet.org (Jim Bridges)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.tag
Subject: Re: IQs
Date: Thu,  2 Apr 92 23:04:15 PST
Organization: FidoNet node 1:272/94 - Monroe Electronic M, Monroe NY

 SE>  On the subject of your physical concepts, can I ask:  Have you ever 
 SE> SEEN gravity?  Have you ever FELT sub-atomic particles?

No, that was my point.  They are non-tangible constructs, but I have
no doubt in my mind that they exist.  You were espousing the
position (if I remember correctly) that since you cannot see or
touch intelligence, it does not exist.

 SE> My point here is that, just like
 SE> the psychological and sociological constructs you mention, these, to 
 SE> be seen or felt, rely on measurement techniques that use definitions
 SE> that are universal.

You have touched upon a major difference between the social and
natural sciences.  One usually, but not always, has agreement on
measurement techniques in the natural sciences, be it chemistry,
physics, astronomy, etc.  In the social sciences, one does not have
that agreement.  To conclude that therefore the construct being
debated does not exist, however, is fallacious reasoning, IMHO.  For
example, there are several different academic definitions of anxiety,
as well even more clinical definitions/interpretations of anxiety,
and there are numerous different measures of the different types.
Since there is not universal agreement about the construct or its
measurement, should we therefore conclude that anxiety does not
exist or is not a meaningful construct?  Should we dispense with the
various measurement devices of it?  I think not.

(I know viscerally when I am experiencing anxiety, but I may not be
able to tell you if it is state or trait, if it is due to
anti-libidinal forces threatening breakthrough into consciousness
or if it is due to the imminent breakthrough of hostile impulses
towards my boss at work.  Then again, perhaps it is all due to the
stress of the economic situation in this country.)

 SE> Can you tell me what intelligence IS?

No more than I can tell you what anxiety is.  To me, off the top of
my head and without checking any textbooks, intelligence represents
the ability to retain, recall, and process information; to problem
solve effectively and efficiently; and to reason, including the
processes of analysis and synthesis, in an abstract manner.  These
skills are measured somewhat (to a greater or lesser degree) by several
of the major intelligence tests.

 SE> MY point is this is where the
 SE> difference lies.  We, I would predict, agree on the definition of 
 SE> gravity.  We, from what I have read, would probably disagree on the 
 SE> definition of intelligence.

I am not sure *all* physicists agree on the definition of gravity,
and I know I cannot define it adequately without checking a
textbook, in spite of the fact that I was an undergraduate physics
major.  But, I am confused.  Are we talking about the construct
gravity or about its measurement.  Even if the latter, I suspect we
would not always agree on the best way to measure it, eg. shall we
use a bathroom scale, a scientific scale, a measurement of the
degree of light bending, or what?  The way we measurement, BTW,
might result in differences on the amount of gravity we perceive.

What is *your* definition of intelligence (without checking any
textbooks)?  How far different is it from mine above?
              
Scott, perhaps I misunderstood your post that I butted in on, but I
thought you were arguing that intelligence is not a valid construct
because not all psychologists agree and therefore intelligence does
not exist.  Further, I thought you took the position that IQs do not
measure anything meaningful.  It is these positions that I meant to
attack, because I believe they are intellectual distortions of valid
differences between humans.  If I misunderstood you, please let me
know.

I also "attacked" because I felt you were using technical language,
i.e., inter-test reliability (if I remember accurately) erroneously.
When one starts using technical/professional language, one incurs
the added burden of using it correctly, because at that point in my
mind the level of the discussion moves more towards that of
academia.

I am sorry if I came off too strongly.


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!272!94!Jim.Bridges
Internet: Jim.Bridges@f94.n272.z1.fidonet.org