Posted by special_k on March 28, 2006, at 19:52:24
In reply to Re: critique of the bell curve » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 17:00:47
> May I reflect back what I'm hearing from you and see if it's in line with what you wish to convey?
Sure.
> I'm hearing back from you that the idea of a range of IQ's is a fallacy.IQ is a score on a test. That is all no more no less. Some people like to think IQ is a measure of intelligence. That is only true after committing some severe abuse on the usual meaning of the word 'intelligence'.
> That everyone is of average IQ
Not at all. Ones IQ score is ones IQ score and I'm sure the facts are available of the range of scores.
> except for those people who for environmental reasons have developmental delays.
I'm saying it doesn't measure ones innate potential in the sense that the IQ score will remain fixed throughout ones lifespan. Learning opportunities and enriched environments can make a big difference in improving ones score. Studying for how to take those kinds of tests can also make a big difference in improving ones score. Some people are born with cognitive deficits (developmentally handicapped etc). I think it is useful to pick up on the nature of those deficits so they have more learning opportunities / enriched environments. To make up for the 'nature' side of things.
> And that environmental factors can also bump up IQ a few points
A fair few points...
But why was IQ score important to us again if it is granted it is not a measure of intelligence (though may work quite well to show up deficits on certain kinds of tasks)?> but not enough that you acknowledge that there is any real difference and certainly not any special needs on the side of purportedly high IQ.
do they have atheletic ability tests?
do they have musical ability tests?
do they have artistic ability tests?
do they have social skills tests?some people have different kinds of needs...
(i don't think there should be tests for those things anymore than IQ. they wouldn't really be testing those things of course anyway. sigh. my point is more that if those things are supposed to be equally important... they why aren't they treated as such? why aren't they taken as seriously?)
> And those psychologists who point out that the differences between someone with a tested IQ of 150 and someone with an IQ of 100 are as significant as the differences between someone with an IQ proportionately lower and a person of average intelligence, and that therefore people on the extreme ends of each spectrum have special needs are incorrect.er sorry... what are the differences? in terms of score maybe... but i thought you were talking about intelligence (in the usual sense of the terms) again. i would have thought that someone who scores very low... that might just show that they are really very severely developmentally disabled... buy maybe... IQ tests really aren't so very useful as a screening tool either...
> And that the major difference between me and Leonardo da Vinci is a lack of effort on my part. That if I received enough encouragement and my drive was great enough, I too could be an intellectual and artistic "genius" of that caliber.?
> Because IQ and artistic ability don't count for as much as effort and hard work and encouragement?
In the majority of cases... Yeah. I really do think so.
> And everyone has an IQ and artistic ability equal to da Vinci and we just aren't expressing our potential?You can go through history and pick out maybe 5 or 10 or 50 or 1,000 cases of that if you like. Now my question to you is...
What was his IQ score?
What was Newtons?
Platos?
Descartes?
Eiensteins?You are assuming these people are high scorers... But maybe they aren't... Sure you will probably get the odd 'lucky' correlation (stats would be in favour of it). That doesn't undermine my case...
poster:special_k
thread:622738
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060322/msgs/625694.html