I don't mean to clutter. Won't even open the other thread - it's all yours.
.. less of a carpet bombing of replies (if you see what I mean?)
I don't, but I've learned to live with that as my default state.
It is a personal interest, and I don't think I can change the world anymore than I don't think it is impossible to change the world.
I was responding to your repeated statements in the vein of "We can organize society better". I asked what actions would be taken to achieve this improvement.
My main contention is that people have always known that some were more intelligent than others; have recognized the range and types of intelligence - as well as other talents - in their members, but that that knowledge has not been a key factor in organizing society. Allocating tasks, yes, to whatever extent each society needed to specialize.
Problem is: there have always been more clever people than the rulers could use.
All the surplus clever men are regarded (with good reason) as potential trouble-makers - rivals for the leadership, or fomenters of dissent, rejecters of the prevailing doctrine - and relegated to monasteries, low-level civil service and poorly-paid pedantry. When invading another country, every imperial power seizes the fistful of engineers it can use, then kills or imprisons the intellectuals.
As for clever women, their history is fraught at the very best of times; in the majority of times, they get burned or flayed, whipped or de-tongued. Most societies have been willing - positively eager - to waste half of their intellectual potential. Seven eighth, if you include slaves, serfs, lumpenproletariat and untouchables.
The better method will produce a change, science is a living proof of this.
You never articulated the "better method"... of doing what?
I don't understand how you mix scientific discovery in with IQ graphing.
Obviously, scientists come from the top 10 percentile, but only a few original scientists from every generation make a difference to anything. And they don't affect change themselves: the change comes about through the generations of technological devices which arise from each discovery. The producers of new devices don't need an IQ higher than 120; their factory workers do well enough at 90.
[I don't consider either you or "the state" qualified to regard the adult citizens of any country your children. ]
.... this response makes no sense as a counter to anything tried to express, it si merely in agreement with it if anything.)
For clarity, then, I was responding to this:
Knowledge is distributed unequally ..... Is this due to a Nanny State or due a lack of "parental concern" for the states children/citizens (talking about adults as "children" here just to be clear.)
[Not WRONG - just USELESS.]
I don't see how it is irrelevant to look at human intelligence. I don't think it is useless to test and measure intelligence either - that is why we have tests and qualifications, it is show that you are competent in some given field.
A test for competency in a given field is not the same, and does not serve the same purpose as an IQ test. Setting standard qualifications for a job, then choosing individuals who fulfill those requirements is in no way similar to comparing the average intelligence of dissimilar nations.
Putting those two ideas in the same sentence makes a coherent response difficult.
I will produce graphs later showing the correlation across different areas. I've already posted the direct correlation between IQ and SATS.
And both are somewhat useful in choosing army recruits for officer training or directing high-school graduates to university courses.
But since only the most gifted and well-heeled students from Gabon can even dream of attending the Sorbonne, and only a limited number of students in France attend the Sorbonne, those classmates will probably be on an academic par. So, comparing the IQ scores of the French and Gabonese populations at large has no discernible applicability.
And I remain skeptical about the origin of the tests. The first question I asked, that was never answered:
Who devised the test?
Even so I am curious what it is you think IQ measures?
I'll come back to this in a minute.
A history test measures, roughshod, someone's ability to produce considered thought and description about historical data, and a math test - I hope we agree - measures, in part, mathematical ability
Neither. Like all school tests, they measure how much of the material taught that semester the student has retained by the end of the course. In History, it's a test of memory+understanding of how events and populations interacted in some particular age; In Math, it's a test of understanding of the operations; their correct and appropriate usage. A dull student - average and below - can do very well on both, with adequate preparation.
The IQ test measures a range of abilities: memory, reading comprehension, pattern recognition, numerical skill, visual orientation, logic, problem solving - i forget what else is in there. The idea is to see how
quickly the subject makes
conceptual connections.
The presumption is that none of the subjects has ever encountered this material before; that they' all coming to each question unprepared; speed of comprehension of what's being asked is part of the test.
Since the test has so many different aspects, and several questions in each specialized area, it also measures in which areas a subject has greater and lesser facility.
The highest scorers are those who do well in the most areas.
Other advantages are: fluency in the language and culture of the test-maker, years of formal education, experience of test-taking, confidence and ease in the test environment, motivation to perform.
Thus, someone who scores high in one area but wipes out in three others, may get a mediocre or even low score overall, and yet be perfectly suited to a specialized job.
Someone who scores high in all areas may be a dilettante generalist, or may be temperamentally suited to some speciality - the IQ test doesn't reflect which, while an aptitude or psychological test would. (Or, you could save everybody a lot of time and just ask him.)
Assessment of education works of standardized tests, so IQ is part and parcel of this. There is a need to assess ability, and IQ is the bedrock of how we assess a students ability.
No, it isn't. An experienced elementary school teacher is.
[Everybody is born with the natural ability to reason - at varying rates of speed and levels of complexity]
Then you understand the difference in ability and hence what IQ is actually attempting to measure. Anyone can reason in a human context, but when it comes to abstract reasoning many fall short even if the problem is identical to the everyday rational problem (context, and being able to shift from one area to another is a sign of "intelligence")
I know what IQ is. I know what intelligence is. I know what a Bell curve is.
I know that this range of intelligence and abilities and temperaments has always been present in any population (not just humans) and that populations of social animals have operated for millions of years without putting these measured traits on a graph. I don't see the graph making any difference to how people interact in normal life - though I can see it causing friction in academic environments.
The relevance of either 'race' or nationality to any of this is still as deep a mystery as ever.