"Should the Obama Generation Drop Out?" (New York Times)

Parents Forum
141

<p>
[quote]
Here's my take: I've seen papers that show results both ways. All of the ones I've seen rely on p-values, which are, in and of themselves, not very useful. So I therefore remain agnostic to IQ as predictive of anything. Saying that it's "more predictive" of future success than hair color or eye color is actually not really a useful statement, though.

[/quote]
Can you show me a paper that says IQ is not predictive of academic success or future earnings? PM if needed.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Probably the best thing we can say is, "maybe" and "it depends." I'd actually wager that good looks are more predictive of success than IQ, but that's a whole different bag of social baggage to haul around in a discussion.

[/quote]
Yep, I agree. In an academic environment IQ is much more predictive of success than good looks though.</p>

142

<p>airchibundo507,</p>

<p>I'm perfectly serious.</p>

<p>First off, let's try to ignore the fact that "success" is a meaningless term outside of any specific context, and assume it means something.</p>

<p>Assuming that we see diminishing marginal returns on both IQ (not necessarily "intelligence") and looks, you may see greater returns on phenomenal beauty than on super high IQ.</p>

<p>But like I said, it was just me wagering. I don't claim to know the formula for success. Maybe it's Wheaties, fear of God, and a Ford in every home?</p>

143

<p>I.Q tests are predictive, but as noted before only predictive for the manner of thinking which is suitable for taking that form of a test. In that regard a scan tron based on which patterns of marking the dots making the best composition would be equally valid-if one was testing for abilities for visual organization. Incidentally there is some research being done which indicates we might possess a form of visual spatial cognitive deep structure. </p>

<p>And once those types of complex cognitive patterning are considered it becomes improbable that a general form of assessment such as IQ testing could be written in a valid manner or be credible in any useful sense. </p>

<p>However often the people who change societies do tend to possess abilities which would be difficult to pin down excepting for their social effect. For example if we had a teenage girl with no formal education who could not functionally read or write, and who was prone to what would be considered delusions-this person might not be considered a good candidate for admissions. And obviously this would be someone who would do poorly within the framework of an IQ test. </p>

<p>The problem of course is that teenage girl (Jehanne D'Arc/Joan of Arc) was so reliant on her visions (delusions) to the extent that divorcing that unique condition from her intelligence would be impossible. So a woman who would have with no doubt have failed an IQ assessment but nonetheless inspired an army, almost outmaneuvered hostile and well educated interrogators, and was instrumental in forming the foundations for a modern nation...would be someone we'd today deny admissions to higher education? </p>

<p>If we want to have admissions tests, perhaps those should be specifically written for given fields of study. At least with that process what's being tested is both pragmatic and defined.</p>

144

<p>
[quote]
Can you show me a paper that says IQ is not predictive of academic success or future earnings? PM if needed.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is not the point. </p>

<p>Even the papers that HAVE shown any sort of academic links to IQ all depend on old, outdated, crusty classical statistics that don't really tell us anything. The only work I've seen that actually demonstrates a positive coefficient is Murray's, but his statistical work is... well... meh.</p>

145

<p>
[quote]
This is not the point.</p>

<p>Even the papers that HAVE shown any sort of academic links to IQ all depend on old, outdated, crusty classical statistics that don't really tell us anything. The only work I've seen that actually demonstrates a positive coefficient is Murray's, but his statistical work is... well... meh.

[/quote]
So, no sources?</p>

146

<p>Mr Payne,</p>

<p>I don't need sources to say that I'm agnostic about the only work I've seen on the subject. That's just silly. </p>

<p>I'm not saying that IQ is or is not predictive, but merely that the work that I've seen that claims to demonstrate that it's predictive relies on poor tools to measure its predictive value. The models, best I can tell, have no modern statistical predictive skill, and therefore I reserve judgment either way. Is IQ predictive? MAYBE. That's it. </p>

<p>I don't need a bloody source to say that-- just like I don't need a source to say that the sky is blue or that a zebra has stripes.</p>

147

<p>
[quote]
I've seen papers that show results both ways.

[/quote]
You said this. I want to see those papers. Of course you can decline to show me the source (for whatever reason). I'm not having a philosophical discussion on the nature of IQ, I just want to see a paper that shows no predictive capability of IQ.</p>

148

<p>Mr Payne,</p>

<p>Ah, gotcha. I have no inclination to decline you per se, but it may take me a while to dig through the ole' backlog of PDFs and hyperlinks to find the papers I read that showed a contrary conclusion. Suffice it to say that I've seen both sides argued using bad statistics.</p>

<p>Hence why I remain on my fence, unsure. It's mighty comfy, I might add-- and intellectually honest, to boot! I rue the day that "I don't know" was replaced with "our p-value <.05 means that this is undoubtedly, certainly, and without any question the gospel truth."</p>

149

<p>
[quote]
In fact, it's downright impossible to read Jensen's response without scratching your head and reevaluating your position on intelligence and IQ testing in general.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Watch as I do the impossible! </p>

<p>Jensen, whose work has been funded to the tune of one million dollars by the Pioneer Fund and who simply ignores evidence that does not support his belief in race-based differences in intelligence, is not a universally respected man of science. </p>

<p>Surely you already know that. Or have you only educated yourself on the side of this issue that supports your position, like Jensen himself.</p>

150

<p>
[quote]
I'm not having a philosophical discussion on the nature of IQ, I just want to see a paper that shows no predictive capability of IQ.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And I want to see the body of evidence that shows that the predictive qualities of IQ are so accurate that it leaves no room for doubt that tracking children in the lower grades is an ethical thing to do. </p>

<p>Or if that's not what you think should be done with this mighty predictive tool, then what do you think should be done with it? </p>

<p>What if the value of knowing a child's IQ in and of itself? Or an adults?</p>

151

<p>
[quote]
What if the value of knowing a child's IQ in and of itself? Or an adult's?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's a very good question.</p>

152

<p>
[quote]
Watch as I do the impossible!

[/quote]
I doubt you read it, because your response mentions no single point in the entire article.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Jensen, whose work has been funded to the tune of one million dollars by the Pioneer Fund and who simply ignores evidence that does not support his belief in race-based differences in intelligence, is not a universally respected man of science.

[/quote]
Jensen is not respected by liberal journalists, correct. He is respected by his peers though (the peers who have reviewed the countless journal articles he's written).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Surely you already know that. Or have you only educated yourself on the side of this issue that supports your position, like Jensen himself.

[/quote]
That specific rebuttal mentions hardly <em>anything</em> about race. If you had read that, you'd know. It's more of a general rebuttal of Gould's book which was a pathetic smear campaign against the concept of IQ. Jensen thoroughly dismantles Gould's complaints.</p>

153

<p>
[quote]
And I want to see the body of evidence that shows that the predictive qualities of IQ are so accurate that it leaves no room for doubt that tracking children in the lower grades is an ethical thing to do.

[/quote]
Our school system already tracks quite heavily. It probably should track more, but <em>you</em> should have ethical problems right now.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Or if that's not what you think should be done with this mighty predictive tool, then what do you think should be done with it?

[/quote]
Well, I think we should allow IQ testing to become a citizen of the US. Most other countries functionally have this already because they generally accept college graduates and those which are in the STEM fields. I don't care how the US does it, whether through college degrees or IQ testing, but IQ testing is certainly more egalitarian (because it doesn't require someone to have a degree).</p>

<p>
[quote]
What if the value of knowing a child's IQ in and of itself? Or an adults?

[/quote]
The military uses IQ quite extensively to determine what people would be best for what jobs. Virtually all militaries around the globe have some sort of standardized testing to sort based on ability (some scholastic, some not).</p>

154

<p>
[quote]
He is respected by his peers though (the peers who have reviewed the countless journal articles he's written).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How funny. An ad hom countered with an ad hom. Now I feel like I'm back in academia arguing over whose journal articles were published in better journals.</p>

<p>Juicy.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It's more of a general rebuttal of Gould's book which was a pathetic smear campaign against the concept of IQ.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your wording here is funny: "pathetic smear campaign." It's loaded with vitriolic goodness, but what are you really trying to say? That Gould challenged an academic notion, perhaps unsuccessfully?</p>

<p>The Mismeasure of Man was hardly a "smear campaign," any more than Jensen's response in The Debunking of Scientific Fossils and Straw Persons was-- and I might add that Jensen's paper started with an ad hominem. Alas that scientists aren't above fallacious reasoning.</p>

<p>In any case, Jensen does rebut some of Gould's arguments, but you're forgetting that he also agreed with some of Gould's claims-- hardly a "thorough dismantling" of his work. Though I do agree that your language is much more colorful than saying, "Gould and Jensen agreed on some things, but disagreed on many others. Ultimately, the science remains uncertain." It's sad that science is prone to, I dunno, change?</p>

<p>Let's also note one more, rather interesting anecdote from Sowell (gag all you want, but this one is fun):</p>

<p>
[quote]
Professor Jensen pointed out back in 1969 that black children's IQ scores rose by 8 to 10 points after he met with them informally in a play room and then tested them again after they were more relaxed around him. He did this because "I felt these children were really brighter than their IQ would indicate." What a shame that others seem to have less confidence in black children than Professor Jensen has had.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Shock! Surprise! Astonishment!</p>

<p>Can it be that IQ testing may itself be flawed, and that the conditions under which the testing is done may be biasing the results?</p>

<p>BIAS? IN MY STATISTICS?</p>

<p>It's more common than you think.</p>

155

<p>
[quote]
Our school system already tracks quite heavily. It probably should track more, but <em>you</em> should have ethical problems right now.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, and what a resounding success the tracking has been thus far. Basically, we have two tracks: College or good luck, sucker!</p>

<p>
[quote]
Well, I think we should allow IQ testing to become a citizen of the US. Most other countries functionally have this already because they generally accept college graduates and those which are in the STEM fields. I don't care how the US does it, whether through college degrees or IQ testing, but IQ testing is certainly more egalitarian (because it doesn't require someone to have a degree).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because you certainly need to be within some statistical interval to pick strawberries.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The military uses IQ quite extensively to determine what people would be best for what jobs. Virtually all militaries around the globe have some sort of standardized testing to sort based on ability (some scholastic, some not).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And now we come to the million dollar question: is it successful? I sure don't know that answer. I can assume that the ASVAB is moderately successful at doing, well, something. I just don't know that it's successful at producing a better military.</p>

<p>Also, note that one does not need to take the ASVAB to receive a commission. Only a BA and getting through OCS or the equivalent.</p>

156

<p>After reading this long thread, I would just like to to pass comment on some of the issues that have come up. </p>

<p>Dealt with directly or indirectly, the question has persistently come up as to whether IQ is an accurate predictor of intelligence, learning ability, or potential. It is very rare that a perfect test exists, especially in the evaluation of teh human mind. An arbitrary cutoff point, would almost suredly fail to include all those intended, and bring along some unintentionally. </p>

<p>A comment was made a while back that the average immigrant has an IQ of 95. Then makes the argument that todays immigrants are not as intelligent or motivated as those of the past. The IQ mean of 100 is continuously recalculated, therefore if this is the sole evidence then it holds littl weight. If anything it suggests that our education system might be producing a higher IQ populace than the systems in immigrants' counries of orgin. </p>

<p>Putting aside the possiblity of improving the primary and secondary education systems (a daunting task), perhaps it is better that students be encouraged to take the "second-chance" college might offer. I am unsure as to the source of this quote, but someone once said something to the effect of, "that once one attains a certain level of ability, success or failure is determined almost solely by how much one wants it." Granted, natural talent is part of any skill, but desire and perseverance are also factors. With a lack of talent it might be impossible to go to the extremes of a field or profession, but a person will contribute something. </p>

<p>It seems likely as a result that students be encouraged to attend college, and to take advantage of it. If however, they do not intend to do so, being forced into it will help no one.</p>

157

<p>Mr. Payne, This not new to me. Not the topic, not Jensen, not the article. Which is why, for example, the fact that this article "hardly mentions" race is not material. I've read enough that Jensen has written to know who he is and what his personal bias is.</p>

<p>If you want to argue that things such as source of funding or long standing bias do not matter, that's a different discussion entirely. But to attempt to place Jensen above all of that is just silly and so, yes, I'm doing the impossible and I can even do it in one line.</p>

<p>Just to be clear, I'm not claiming that those on the other side of this debate are bias free. I'm simply stating that to proclaim Jensen the one, true source that all should abide by on this issue is, well, ridiculous.</p>

158

<p>Want to know why IQ is meaningless?</p>

<p>You can have a high IQ and still not finish college. If you don't have the desire, that's your own fault. I know people who don't even test well and are still able to get a college degree because they had a lot of guidance and motivation and determination. They worked hard so they could improve their long-term future.</p>

<p>That's why I do not like use of IQ to weed out students into certain academic/vocational tracks.</p>

159

<p>^Often students with higher IQs need additional guidance so that the system does not fail them. High-intelligence boys are INCREDIBLY disadvantaged by our education system. When teachers favor calm behavior, a polite demeanor, neat work and handwriting, as well as a passive attitude, boys, especially those who are the most likely to get bored in class, are quickly labeled "bad students". </p>

<p>While I think the IQ test is culture-bound and the test is by itself worthless, I support it as a necessary tool in identifying "gifted" students and assuring that the students with the most potential have all of the opportunities to realize it.</p>

<p>As far as the BA, every school should attempt to send all of their students to 4 year universities. While our K-12 systems (high school mainly) are absolutely terrible, our university system is likely the epitome of intellectualism and growth. Even if most of those students would fail to graduate, I think the benefit bestowed on those who do find a more nurturing environment on a college campus more than makes up the difference.</p>

160

<p>
[quote]
How funny. An ad hom countered with an ad hom. Now I feel like I'm back in academia arguing over whose journal articles were published in better journals.</p>

<p>Juicy.

[/quote]
Fight fire with fire, as they say.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Your wording here is funny: "pathetic smear campaign." It's loaded with vitriolic goodness, but what are you really trying to say? That Gould challenged an academic notion, perhaps unsuccessfully?

[/quote]
Pathetically unsuccessfully.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The Mismeasure of Man was hardly a "smear campaign,"

[/quote]
It wasn't? Why the selection of irrelevant data? Why the misrepresentation of things Jensen had said?</p>

<p>
[quote]
any more than Jensen's response in The Debunking of Scientific Fossils and Straw Persons was--

[/quote]
He responds directly to Gould quoting his own work, showing demonstrable mastery of virtually every topic in question.</p>

<p>
[quote]
and I might add that Jensen's paper started with an ad hominem. Alas that scientists aren't above fallacious reasoning.

[/quote]
He wrote 15 pages debunking Gould, I'd be surprised if there wasn't more.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In any case, Jensen does rebut some of Gould's arguments, but you're forgetting that he also agreed with some of Gould's claims-- hardly a "thorough dismantling" of his work.

[/quote]
Any claim that Jensen agreed with he was already on the record stating . If anything Gould is agreeing with him!</p>

<p>
[quote]
Shock! Surprise! Astonishment!</p>

<p>Can it be that IQ testing may itself be flawed, and that the conditions under which the testing is done may be biasing the results?</p>

<p>BIAS? IN MY STATISTICS?</p>

<p>It's more common than you think.

[/quote]
And even with this, it's still predictive.</p>