<p>
That could be, but what he wrote was that the statement was “analogous” to some universally detestable “things”. I’d to know what those things are. I suspect I might not agree they were analogous.</p>
<p>If he just meant to say he took offense at the citation, well, that’s his prerogative. But he should just write that (assuming he’s a he).</p>
<p>Hmmm. Mensa says there is no longer a correlation between ACT or SAT and IQ. </p>
<p>[American</a> Mensa | Qualifying Test Scores](<a href=“http://www.mensafoundation.org/Content/AML/NavigationMenu/Join/SubmitTestScores/QualifyingTestScores/QualifyingScores.htm]American”>http://www.mensafoundation.org/Content/AML/NavigationMenu/Join/SubmitTestScores/QualifyingTestScores/QualifyingScores.htm)</p>
<p>Silverturtle declares that there is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, what a quandry. Who knows more about the relation of the SAT to IQ ? Silverturtle or Mensa? Silverturtle or Mensa? Silverturtle or Mensa?</p>
<p>Some questions may never be answered. Even by a 2400 scorer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mensa says that SAT administrations beginning in 2001 do not correlate, but I already mentioned a study published in 2004 that indicated a +.82 correlation. The correlation didn’t simply disappear when analogies were removed and the Writing section was added.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“people with middle aged brains tend to engage in discussion on a different level” just came across to me in all the wrong ways. If one has a problem with someone’s posts, he or she should be specific and cite instances in which the alleged problem manifested, not attempt to rationalize the problems by presenting evidence that people like that poster (in this case, with respect to age) tend to be neurocognitively predisposed to the claimed problems and that the “home team” (again, with respect to age, given the forum) is neurocognitively predisposed to superiority in that respect. Moreover, confirmation bias can play a role.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I am a he.</p>
<p>If I may, there may be a strong link to IQ and SAT score, just not a strong enough one for Mensa to recognize it.</p>
<p>^ Yes, that’s likely the case.</p>
<p>Silverturtle says:
"Mensa says that SAT administrations beginning in 2001 do not correlate, but I already mentioned a study published in 2004 that indicated a +.82 correlation. The correlation didn’t simply disappear when analogies were removed and the Writing section was added. "
That’s the Frey/Dettermen out of Case Western. It has been disputed. And, to be painfully precise, they are correlating with , extracted from the Armed Services Voc Battery. When they used Ravens, the correlation was down to .483 .
What has changed , I think , is the very large amount of prep that is now done. The Frey/Detterman study was done using Case undergrads who probably didn’t prep much for the SATs. They were admitted in 1999 to 2003 and therefore took the SATs in 1997 to 2002 - back when test prep was far less extreme.<br>
That said, I’d have to read the study to know how to view it. (I may see if a friend can get it for me - I’m not willing to pay $30.00 for it.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I certainly do not find that assertion legitimate or tenable by any means. Two students that consistently score 125 points apart on the SAT clearly perform at separate levels and universities will certainly not dismiss such differences as fundamental equivalents. If distinctions are not made at some point, the SAT will cease to serve as a functional metric. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does anyone know of any non-causal models that have been constructed for the relationship between test scores and admission probability that comparatively match the available data? That is, models that potentially disprove the observed covariance between standardized testing and admissions prospects along an escalating nonlinear gradient? Beyond standardized testing, there really are not any extenuating detectable factors that specifically contribute to the interdependence – at least not to the extent that it may be deemed as nothing more than a correlational study. Grades, extracurriculars, and dedication, among other qualities, are much more difficult to judge and reliably compare, given the inherent subjectivity. Thus, the basic notion of a diminishing sensitivity to those variables is understandable and occurs to a more sizable extent. But the SAT’s designated purpose of assessing aptitude along a standardized cognitive measuring scale applies to the entire applicant pool and makes meaningful discriminations, objectively and with some clarity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If IQ is used as a connotation for basic genetic endowment, then sure, that is basically unalterable. But IQ, as it is typically defined, is not a static quantity – as if it is some enduring, branded figure as a result of genetic limitations. It certainly does not specifically measure immutable, stiffly-wired intelligence. Of course, there are theoretical limitations regarding individual cognition, but virtually no one reaches the true depths of their academic or cognitive potential. IQ, in its ordinary usage, does change, particularly in regards to family exposure and upbringing, work environment, schooling, resources, and overall lifestyle.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why didn’t you just say that? I’m assuming you have no analogous "indisputably offensive and unacceptable " things to mention. Brevity is the soul of wit. If you want people to understand you, say what you mean.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That wasn’t what I was originally saying. But I can’t convey it satisfactorily.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh I feel mifune’s pain. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What about one student scoring 125 points apart on separate sittings? How many students take the SAT enough times to consistently get a particular score?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Would distinguishing between scores made 125 apart not qualify as a distinction?</p>
<p>As soon as we start equating scores that are different by even ten points, a very reasonable application of the transitive property makes the proposition absurd.</p>
<p>I see what you’re saying (taken to the extreme, a 600 is pretty much a 2400 with the said proposition). </p>
<p>My perspective is slightly different. Mine is that there is no significant difference in a 50 point composite different. At differences larger than this, the distinction is significant.</p>
<p>
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about … most of the time.</p>
<p>I ask a very specific question about something you clearly wrote, and you either refuse to answer it or have no answer.</p>
<p>Did you write this?:</p>
<p>
This is a fairly nasty accusation.<br>
If you did write this, what are the “things” you are referring to? It shouldn’t be that hard of a question to answer, unless you were just thoughtlessly throwing words into the post in the mistaken belief it made you seem erudite. It’s a habit you seem to have.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed, apparently reasonable uses of the transitive often do lead to absurd results.</p>
<p>Several researchers point out that current SAT scores still correlate well with current IQ test scores. What that means is a subject of considerable debate. </p>
<p><a href=“http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=SAT+IQ+correlation+Detterman[/url]”>http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=SAT+IQ+correlation+Detterman</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seriously?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The whole my-type-is-inherently-intellectually-superior-to-your-type-but-don’t-feel-bad-it’s-not-your-fault vibe I was getting has racist analogies. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now both you and calmom are making personal attacks on me without specific support. I likewise ask you to provide an example, as calmom has thus far failed to do. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My objection deserves a response more specific to this context.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the analogy was pretty clear.</p>