(I think) I'm the IQ is a construct poster you're referring to.

Even if I believed IQ accurately measures something innate (and that that something approximates what we think of as intelligence or, at the upper reaches, genius) and if we had some way of assessing IQ that could control for the effects of SES/environment, I wouldn't assume that the people with the highest IQs are the natural leaders. Maybe the natural academics, LOL!

And if I wanted to create a better world by increasing IQ, I'd probably focus on making the middle 80% smarter rather than the top 2%.

This is another reason why I wonder whether IQ really measures what we want to measure. Once you start talking about leaders or scientific breakthroughs, I'm not at all sure that the success stories involve people with the highest IQs. I think that an approach that starts from looking at people who have actually accomplished the sorts of things we'd like to see more of and asking what makes them the kind of people they are/enabled them to achieve what they achieved is a more promising approach than positing innate intellectual capacity/talent and trying to test for it and then foster it in the kids who test highest.

Anonymous wrote:I'm catching up after an absence, and I'm amazed by the civil tone and the fact that new info and ideas continue to be added. Here are my thoughts, YMMV.

1. Some posters seem to have agreed that some part of IQ is innate. Whether this takes the form of a starting floor, or of an ultimate ceiling on IQ, isn't clear. But I'm not sure we know this yet. Sure, there are people with LDs or executive function problems, but that's not what we're talking about here. As one poster said better than me, IQ is a construct, moreover by the time it stabilizes (about age 8), kids have been exposed to a whole lot of environmental factors.

2. The idea that IQ is innate is contradicted by the idea that SES influences IQ, which most here seem to agree about.

3. As a consequence, I'm uneasy about statements like one PP made, to paraphrase, that "it's a tragedy that we don't support gifted kids with lots of federal/state money, because they are our future leaders.". This sounds a bit like creating an entitlement for kids who already come from privileged backgrounds (given that everybody seems to agree there is a connection between IQ, SES and enriched environments). Some of you step up to this problem by saying we need to help the gifted at all SES levels, ie at inner city schools. But if you're coming from a position that IQ is innate, then you can justify diverting money away from that low-SES kid who at age 8 measured average, when in fact what you're measuring is the impact of that kid's environment on him.

Maybe I'm not understanding your comment, but there are certainly low-SES kids who show intelligence at a very early age--isn't that innate? I don't think making that assumption equates to a justification of diverting money away from low-SES children. As much as I believe that we should be helping all children reach their potential, I think we should also be supporting gifted kids from all "walks of life."

I'm catching up after an absence, and I'm amazed by the civil tone and the fact that new info and ideas continue to be added. Here are my thoughts, YMMV.

1. Some posters seem to have agreed that some part of IQ is innate. Whether this takes the form of a starting floor, or of an ultimate ceiling on IQ, isn't clear. But I'm not sure we know this yet. Sure, there are people with LDs or executive function problems, but that's not what we're talking about here. As one poster said better than me, IQ is a construct, moreover by the time it stabilizes (about age 8), kids have been exposed to a whole lot of environmental factors.

2. The idea that IQ is innate is contradicted by the idea that SES influences IQ, which most here seem to agree about.

3. As a consequence, I'm uneasy about statements like one PP made, to paraphrase, that "it's a tragedy that we don't support gifted kids with lots of federal/state money, because they are our future leaders.". This sounds a bit like creating an entitlement for kids who already come from privileged backgrounds (given that everybody seems to agree there is a connection between IQ, SES and enriched environments). Some of you step up to this problem by saying we need to help the gifted at all SES levels, ie at inner city schools. But if you're coming from a position that IQ is innate, then you can justify diverting money away from that low-SES kid who at age 8 measured average, when in fact what you're measuring is the impact of that kid's environment on him.

I'm catching up after an absence, and I'm amazed by the civil tone and the fact that new info and ideas continue to be added.

Here are my thoughts. Some posters seem to have agreed that some part of IQ is innate. Whether this takes the g

Anonymous wrote:Just curious if the OP is actually still following the thread. It's taken some interesting turns!

OP here.
I'm still checking in once in a while. I had no idea my 1st time on this site would have so many responses

Anonymous wrote:Many of the opinions expressed in this thread demonstrate a lack of understanding of both IQ tests and "general intelligence".

For those of you who are genuinely interested in intelligence and its measurement, this is a balanced and concise introduction:

http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192893211/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297290447&sr=1-10

Thanks for your helpful input.

Many of the opinions expressed in this thread demonstrate a lack of understanding of both IQ tests and "general intelligence".

For those of you who are genuinely interested in intelligence and its measurement, this is a balanced and concise introduction:

http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192893211/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297290447&sr=1-10

Thanks 15:09. 13:30/16:28 posting again. To be fair, instead of just poking at your claim of bias, I should make my point clear.

I don't see how the tests are biased in any meaningful way. They attempt to measure the intelligence of students. They're certainly not perfect, and intelligence can obviously improve/degrade over time for various reasons. But they do serve as one measure of potential usefulness.

There is correlation with SES. I described a couple reasons why I think that's so, and there may be others.

But for the reasons I described, I see the correlation with SES as something that actually suggests the tests are accurate measures, and not an indicator of inaccuracy of "pseudo-intelligence."

Maybe what you're saying is that the cycle is self-perpetuating, and that high SES parents will continue to breed high-IQ kids, who become high SES parents, who breed more high-IQ kids, etc. If that's your point, then I agree. But I don't see any problem with high-SES parents (a) having kids, or (b) supporting those kids in maximizing their potential. IMO, the part of this particular problem that our society needs to address is ensuring that low-SES but high-IQ kids have access to programs that can maximize their potential too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But, if your tools for measuring intelligence (WPSSI and SAT) are biased isn't the positive SES correlation and positive feedback loop only a self fulfilling and simply self serving prophecy and a measure of "pseudo-intelligence" ?

I don't understand. What makes you say they're biased?

Here is an excellent article that addresses your question:
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rm04186/rm04186.pdf

You drop a 35-pager report on me without even a two-sentence summary? Ouch!

I just took a quick review, and it's argument seems to be that because of various cultural and economic issues, not many low-SES children are making it into the gifted programs. I don't see much explanation of how the intelligence tests themselves are biased. Maybe I missed that? The closest I see is a couple paragraphs on pages 16-17, where the author notes that IQ tests were constructed by white professionals, but doesn't describe any specific bias.

Can you just tell me why you think they're biased?

BTW, I am 13:30 (not 13:39)! Thanks for the correction. Sorry for the earlier confusion. I feel like I've been living a lie.

Ha ha! Oh well....sorry, I actually have some work to get done before I can leave today so thought I could get away with a "no summary" report recommendation.

I will definitely address your question in my own words on the subject and any further cited research will include a summary. Good afternoon 13:30, 13:39 and others....this is 15:09 signing off for the day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But, if your tools for measuring intelligence (WPSSI and SAT) are biased isn't the positive SES correlation and positive feedback loop only a self fulfilling and simply self serving prophecy and a measure of "pseudo-intelligence" ?

I don't understand. What makes you say they're biased?

Here is an excellent article that addresses your question:
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rm04186/rm04186.pdf

You drop a 35-pager report on me without even a two-sentence summary? Ouch!

I just took a quick review, and it's argument seems to be that because of various cultural and economic issues, not many low-SES children are making it into the gifted programs. I don't see much explanation of how the intelligence tests themselves are biased. Maybe I missed that? The closest I see is a couple paragraphs on pages 16-17, where the author notes that IQ tests were constructed by white professionals, but doesn't describe any specific bias.

Can you just tell me why you think they're biased?

BTW, I am 13:30 (not 13:39)! Thanks for the correction. Sorry for the earlier confusion. I feel like I've been living a lie.

Just curious if the OP is actually still following the thread. It's taken some interesting turns!

Thanks for this study. I will download and take a look at this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But, if your tools for measuring intelligence (WPSSI and SAT) are biased isn't the positive SES correlation and positive feedback loop only a self fulfilling and simply self serving prophecy and a measure of "pseudo-intelligence" ?

I don't understand. What makes you say they're biased?

Here is an excellent article that addresses your question:

http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rm04186/rm04186.pdf

Actually, *I'm* 13:39 and my theories may be "fancy," LOL!

I think that the poster who has been referring to herself as 13:39 may really be 13:30, which might account for some confusion. At any rate, there are enough overlapping arguments coupled with disagreements on other points that it's really hard to tell whom you're talking to (or about) at this stage in the discussion!

FWIW, I've seen SES (or, perhaps more precisely, willingness/ability to devote family resources) plus mental attitude seem to be more of a predictor of success than physical endowment in one (non-school-based-in-the-US) sport. And Bounce has an interesting story about ping-pong in the UK -- which also makes the resource point but at the community level.

Anonymous wrote:But, if your tools for measuring intelligence (WPSSI and SAT) are biased isn't the positive SES correlation and positive feedback loop only a self fulfilling and simply self serving prophecy and a measure of "pseudo-intelligence" ?

I don't understand. What makes you say they're biased?