Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 17:54:10 04/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 1998 at 12:48:11, Peter Fendrich wrote: >I just want to give some comments (my last in this issue). > >It's common and dangerous to mix up the test itself with what it is >trying to meassure. Many of these references (I haven't read them all) >doesn't mix this up but often the readers do as well as all the guys >making money out of IQ test. IQ tests are trying to meassure >intellectual capacity with just one point (value) when it obviously is >multidimensional. That is just impossible! Well, not quite so. Much has been said against IQ test that is just simply a mistake. In fact IQ test measures several dimensions, not just one. And those dimensiosn has a clear relation with what has ever considered in the history oif humanity as intelligence, that is to say, a general capacity for abstract reasoning, simbolic manipulation and solving of abstract problems. Of course, as now happens, you can solve this issue throught verbal manipulation, with new definitions: you can say that intelligence is nott "really" that, but the capacity to live happy lives. Or even you can say that tjere is such a thing as emotional intelligence. I thinks that there si some abuse in these kind of reasonings that seems to be produced in order to ensure that everbody gets "his" dosis of intelligence. Yoy are not very smart in academic tasks? No matter, they say, because you are very smart in organizing parties AND nobody has the right to say that his kind of intelligence means more than yours. In my country kids that want to follow his stuidies in university are measured with a kind of IQ test -with other name to avoid complaints- since more than 25 years ago and many studies has been made; the sistematic result is that people with highest rsults in the test gets better results in the university, are better professional and live better lives because of that. Now, tell me: to say these things has something to do with make an statemet of sexism or racism IF results shows differences? Bruce is right: maybe these ind of measures cannot be made witout a lot of problems to arise, but fact are facts. >A guy at MIT (Don't remeber his name but he is well known by >psycologists) has developed a completely new type of test which is >mathematically better in this respect. The classical IQ tests are >outdated. I never mentioned classical IQ test. > >So, it's very hard to make any useful conclusions from these one >dimensional values. The pitfalls are many... > >Let's take an example from the sport arenas. We know that men in general >are running faster, jumping higher, hitting harder and so on, and so on. >Does this mean that men has better physical capacities than women? >No, as an example women lives longer and that is a completely different >dimension. Shouldn't that be included in the concept of physical >capacity? This is not possible with a one dimensional value. But if you are trying to show differences in that specif arena of sport comeptition, then what? Differences disappears because somebody can say that anyway women lives more years? >The same story goes for intellectual capacity. Precisely: if you are trying to measure intellectual capacity, the issue about how narrow that intelligence is compared with the full expression of a brain is meaningless. > >My comments here are not about philosophy, nor politics, feminism or >whatever. It's just application of plain statistics. > Same with me. Fernando >Peter
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.