From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 19:33:00 GMT


>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?

>>>>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.

>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.

>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).

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.

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.

>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?