From: roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:48:51 GMT

In article <01GT3O31M8EAADDQGG@ccfvx3.draper.com> skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum) writes:
>
>>From: Eric Roberts <roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca>
>>Message-ID: <1993Jan2.065016.7699@julian.uwo.ca>
>>
>>In article <01GT0W4N5TS2ADDIMC@ccfvx3.draper.com> skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld
>> Hvatum) writes:
>>>
>>>Vocabulary correlates fairly well with a range of other abilities.
>>>That's a fact, even if it's not clear why.
>>
>>What evidence is there that it does?
>
>The IQ literature is full of data supporting this, and it's why
>vocabulary shows up on a lot of IQ tests.  Since you say the verbal SAT
>is nothing more than a vocab test, you'd have the answer to your
>question by asking any college admissions officer.   Their regression
>statistics show a correlation between verbal SAT and freshman grades.
>Maybe you think that reasoning is a little too circular?
>

So what? Since when does performance in school indicate intelligence?

>>>>>vocabulary is an indirect measure of the ability to learn new meanings
>>>>>in context.
>>>>
>>>>I don't agree.
>>>
>>>Fair enough, but you should know you're disagreeing with some of
>>>the foremost researchers of human intelligence today.
>>>
>>
>>There are many researchers that disagree with them.
>
>I don't think there is disagreement about language being a fundamental
>part of human intelligence.  And one measure of the extent of the
>development of language might be vocabulary.  Vocabulary increases
>steadily as children grow, and it can be measured rather accurately by
>sampling.  It's a convenient measure, and nobody says it's any better
>than a *crude* estimator of intelligence.  It's just that it's hard to
>find another kind of test that applies so easily to such a wide range of
>abilities and ages.
>
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).

>>I for one, fail
>>to see why intelligence tests are used in the first place.
>>No proof has been presented that they measure what they claim
>>to measure. The evidence available is limited to a few correlations,
>>mostly with school performace.
>
>Well, more than just a few.  But I think you're trying to say
>the correlations aren't as good as you'd like.  I'd agree with
>that.  The problem is, there isn't anything a whole lot better,
>and various kinds of research situations require something better
>than reading tea leaves.

There is no significant proof that those tests measure IQ, and a great
number of researchers believes that they do not. If you think otherwise,
please give me some references to studies that your opinion is based on.
 
>>Their impact on our society, however,
>>is great. I have often seen when people's lifes being destroyed
>>because of their use. Parents who think of their children as failures,
>>or teachers who give up on a student without ever attempting to
>>teach anything, all of this  because of some number on a test that
>>propably measures nothing at all.
>
>Yes, and that's not the test's fault (OK, I sound like the NRA
>arguing against gun control here :-).  I suppose we should
>eliminate any kind of useful instrument or data which some
>people might abuse...what a world!  Maybe do like California,
>where they made it illegal for the schools to give IQ tests
>to blacks (after which a black family sued saying they were being
>discriminated again because the state *wouldn't* give their
>child an IQ test).

No, you misread what I said. I said that there is NO PROOF that those
tests measure what they claim to measure, and for that reason, they
should not be used. IQ tests should not only not be given to blacks,
but should not be given to anyone (except of course if some societies
like MENSA wish to use them, when the party tested consents to it),
until further research is done. 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).
 
>
>Did you know that in the old days, SAT scores were not revealed to
>students?  That's right.  The argument was that students and parents
>might make too much of them and get traumatized.  They were only sent to
>the schools to which you'd applied, and you were left guessing as to why
>you got rejected etc.  I suppose you want a return to that situation?
>Or perhaps you'd like SATs elminated entirely?  OK, then, what about the
>poor soul traumatized by his low GPA, which would be even more
>important in this case?  OK, put everone on pass/fail all the way
>through school.  But what about those who fail?  OK, pass everyone and
>make everyone feel good.
Yes, I am aware that at one time the scores were not shown to the students.
I am completely against this, you have every right to see them. 
Eliminating SAT completely, would be a great solution, it is not used
in Canada and the system works fine without it.  
>
>Your arguement against IQ tests seems to assume it has only harmed
>people.  You don't believe it has helped locate people who need remedial
>help, or who might benefit from more advanced material?  And don't tell
>me that teachers automatically pick up on a student's potential in all
>cases.  IQ tests may not find the potential either, but sometimes
>interesting things turn up on subsections of the test, and these details
>are often much more revealing than the overall IQ score. The advantage
>with IQ tests in these cases is that they are so widely standardized.
>
No, my argument is that those tests are worthless and do not even
come close to measuring ability. Until it is proven that they do,
their use should be discontinued. I also do not think, that those tests
helped greatly in locating anyone, for reasons stated above.
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.  

>>The IQ cult seems to have grown beyond being a science, it is now
>>a religion to many of its supporters. It is much like Darwin's theory
>>of evolution and the many scientists who believe in it, despite the
>>fact that such process in genetically impossible (or rather extremely
>>unlikely in a finite amount of time) among the evidence ignored by
>
>Huh?  Are you revealing your true colors here, or am I
>misreading your statement?  You don't believe in evolution?
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.
What was the statement about 'true colors' supposed to mean?
 

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa