5657. joezan - April 22, 1999 - 8:29 PM PT
I scored almost 20 points higher on my 11th grade IQ test, than on my 1st grade test.
Someone once posited it was the LSD.
5659. robertjayb - April 22, 1999 - 8:32 PM PT
Greystoke,
You are among my favorite Fraygrants. Nevertheless,
your Message #5654 astonishes me. Please send me
to confirming sources.
5660. Greystoke - April 22, 1999 - 8:34 PM PT
MsIT, Robertjayb
Check out this article about IQ.
An excerpt:
"Among the twins in the Minnesota study, about three-fourths of the variation in IQ seems to be genetically determined: the heritability is .75. The environmental explanations offered as an alternative are not convincing."
5661. Greystoke - April 22, 1999 - 8:37 PM PT
joezan
"Someone once posited it was the LSD."
You took LSD in 1st grade? My, my, weren't you precocious.
5662. joezan - April 22, 1999 - 8:40 PM PT
Grey:
No. The guy who gave me the test took LSD, silly.
5664. MsIvoryTower - April 22, 1999 - 8:43 PM PT
Yes, twin studies do show a high degree of heritability. However, the problem is that IQ tests are not fixed over the course of people's lives.
You mistake that fact that the article quotes little variation in IQ scores among twin sets for some immutability of IQ. The article you present does not support your earlier statement, which says that IQ doesn't change over the course of a child's lifetime, and there are many studies that show precisely the opposite.
IQ grows over time.
5666. MsIvoryTower - April 22, 1999 - 8:47 PM PT
Second, the range of estimates of studies in this area are from 40% to 80% nature versus the analogous nuture piece.
Although twin studies are interesting, they only provide one piece of evidence on this issue. It's entirely possible that AMONG TWINS IQ varies less than among others in the society because of their genetic link to begin with.
5669. Greystoke - April 22, 1999 - 9:11 PM PT
MsIT, Robertjayb
Here is another interesting IQ site.
An excerpt:
"Psychometricians can make a numerical estimate of a person's intelligence that remains surprisingly stable after the age of five or so, and much convergent evidence suggests that the variations of this measure of intelligence in a population are determined significantly (at least 60 percent) by inheritable factors."
And another one.
5670. Greystoke - April 22, 1999 - 9:22 PM PT
MsIT, Robertjayb
How about this one.
An excerpt:
"IQ mostly stays the same.
IQ at age 18 is predicted very well by measures taken at age 12 (r=.89) or even age 6 (r=.77)"
5671. Greystoke - April 22, 1999 - 9:30 PM PT
goodnight, all.
5673. robertjayb - April 22, 1999 - 9:32 PM PT
Well, Lord Greystoke, it seems you have overwhelmed
me. Nevertheless, I wiil continue to believe that
reading skills are the key to the tests. Notice that
I say the tests. Actual intelligence, competence, you
understand, is another thing entirely.
5682. MsIvoryTower - April 23, 1999 - 6:06 AM PT
Jaysus Greystoke
Nothing in your cites refute my comments. They even suggest the same thing I did. However, if you're only interested in typecasting people, denigrating the role of environment and schooling in creating personality and IQ changes, then, by all means, continue to believe what you like.
IQ raises with education, and even if nature determines as much as 70% (my upper bound for acceptable at this point), that still leaves 30% of measured IQ open to being influenced by environment (in either direction, I might add).
I think you'd like the Bell Curve, though. You ought to read it, it'll make you feel real good about yourself.
5695. PsychProf - April 23, 1999 - 7:43 AM PT
Although the data are clear that IQ Scores(these are not "intellignce scores", but rather only one operational definition) increase during early ages, I believe there are a number of fraygrants who personally establish the notion that such is fixed in first grade. The BoomerLed discussion of "armed teachers" qualifies here.
5702. FreeToChoose - April 23, 1999 - 8:25 AM PT
In Message #5664 MsIvoryTower says:
"IQ grows over time."
In Message #5654 Greystoke says:
"If that's not true then why is it that
you can test a child's IQ in 1st grade and it won't change
significantly for the rest if his/her life?"
In Message #5664 MsIvoryTower says:
"IQ grows over time."
Sometimes, the answer is somewhere in the middle. Grey, the relatively high correlation between first grade and adulthood doesn't lead to your statement. Many, many children can have material changes in IQ over time, and still be not violate the conclusions of the correlation studies.
But please tell me what you intend us to conclude from the factual statement that adult IQ is highly correlated with adolescent IQ? I think you were suggesting that actions such as at that high school are driven by genes rather than upbringing. Am I overstating your inference?
Ms, I have no idea what you intended to say. Obviously, IQ can increase for some people, and it can decrease for others. But this blanket statement suggests that the IQ of an individual will increase over time. Not only is this not true, it isn't even true if you replace "will" with "tends to".
Is it possible you were referring to the Flynn effect?
5746. MsIvoryTower - April 23, 1999 - 9:44 AM PT
FTC
I was trying to say
1) IQ is not fixed and immutable
2) if personality traits (characteristics) are like IQ (in that about 50-60% are heritable the other environmental), then they too are not fixed and immutable.
3) Education and environment affect both, in significant ways.
BTW, there is no evidence that IQ falls. If it changes it's always in a positive direction (unless due to some physiological intervention like drugs or physical harm, or aging).
And, I don't like the implications of Greystokes comments: that bad kids are bad, stupid kids are stupid, and so be it. Nothing to be done. No point in trying to influence them. No point in trying to increase their learning opportunities or create positive environments for them, because, after all, it won't matter in the long run.
No, that's not where I'll stand, thankyouverymuch.
5757. MsIvoryTower - April 23, 1999 - 9:58 AM PT
Besides which, there is plenty of room for looking at this research conservatively, that is, not making broad sweeping conclusions about the role of nature in determining the fates of individuals.
1) There are many contradictory studies
2) the studies that do exist are limited in their generalizability
3) there is still much we don't know
4) there is still a significant role for environment and education in affecting individuals and their *natural* abilities
5) this kind of research has been used very irresponsibly in the past, and I assume will be used so in the present and future
6) evidence from brain studies suggests huge areas of this topic that needs further investigation and reconciliation, such as what is the relationship between later measured IQ and early brain formation, etc.
5758. BobaFett - April 23, 1999 - 9:59 AM PT
Ms:
You are one confused chick.
The fact that IQ's can only be changed in fairly insignificant ways does not mean that education is wasted. An IQ without knowlege is just a number. Kids still have to be educated to the best of their abilities, no matter what their IQ's.
And, of course, we can still *try* to up their IQ's. Even The Bell Curve recognizes that IQ's *can* be improved.
5774. FreeToChoose - April 23, 1999 - 10:27 AM PT
Msit
“I was trying to say
1) IQ is not fixed and immutable”
Agreed.
“2) if personality traits (characteristics) are like IQ (in that about 50-60% are heritable the other environmental), then they too are not fixed and immutable.”
Agreed
“3) Education and environment affect both, in significant ways.”
Well, calling the impact of education significant is arguable. But it doesn't matter. It would be missing the point to debate whether it is true. The goal of education is entirely unrelated to IQ gains.
“BTW, there is no evidence that IQ falls.”
If it doesn't fall then it doesn't gain. The IQ of a cohort is unchanged (by definition) over time.
5788. AuNaturel - April 23, 1999 - 10:46 AM PT
"1) IQ is not fixed and immutable"
Maximum possible IQ under ideal circumstances is probably fixed, but nobody ever gets there.
"2) if personality traits (characteristics) are like IQ (in that about 50-60% are heritable the other environmental), then they too are not fixed and immutable."
This is a big, big maybe. Some characteristics (possibly sexual orientation) may approach 100%. Others may be 100% environmental. There is inadequate data to determine the percentage for something like violence. High levels of testosterone or extra Y chromosomes have been implicated but no real evidence.
5805. MsIvoryTower - April 23, 1999 - 11:02 AM PT
"I don't agree with the ‘tude of Boba in Message #5758, but the point was valid. Education is still important, even if IQ couldn't be changed."
How so?
It may be important for the small minority of children who show high IQ's, but for the rest? Why bother?
Why don't we just put them to work?
5809. FreeToChoose - April 23, 1999 - 11:10 AM PT
MsIvoryTower
“How so?
It may be important for the small minority of children who show high IQ's, but for the rest? Why bother?
Why don't we just put them to work?”
I confess I'm not following your point, assuming you have one. Surely someone in the education business has at least some understanding of the point of education?
But let me start with some softballs:
We educate people so they will have skills to work and to enjoy life.
5814. MsIvoryTower - April 23, 1999 - 11:15 AM PT
FTC
We pour billions of dollars into trying to raise achievement and student gains for low performing kids, the majority of whom test at average or below average on IQ tests.
Why should we bother when it's unlikely that this will happen in the first place? That is, if intelligence (as measured by IQ tests) and personality characters are "set", with little or no influence on them by education?
We should, in fact, just put them in vocational training programs, and educate the small minority who will go on to run the world.
(Note, I am arguing the natural consequences of taking the IQ research as a given, and apportioning so little effects of environment onto the end results.)
5816. AuNaturel - April 23, 1999 - 11:17 AM PT
MS IT:
"Why don't we just put them to work?"
Because there is very little productive work left for an uneducated person to do. Because improving someone's IQ from 90 to 100 is of more use to society than putting a 90 IQ person to wqork.
5817. PsychProf - April 23, 1999 - 11:18 AM PT
My father-in-law has a very high IQ...my mother-in-law is able to make a beautuful and functional quilt...who is smart when it's cold?
5818. doogie - April 23, 1999 - 11:18 AM PT
FTC:
Liberal education is also designed to create people qualified to participate in a democratic polity. Critical thinking skills, desire to participate in civic events, feeling of personal empowerment, etc...
This task is perhaps the most important, but it is incredibly difficult to devise an effective method of teaching or even a relatively agreed upon interpretation of the aforementioned concepts.
5820. MsIvoryTower - April 23, 1999 - 11:20 AM PT
AuNatural
But that would be a significant gain, and, as Greystoke, Fett and FTC want to promote, education doesn't significantly affect IQ (never mind that there is plenty of research that says otherwise).
So, either education can significantly affect IQ or it is peripheral to it, one or the other. It can't really be both if you're going to say as Greystoke did, that bad kids are just bad, and by default, stupid kids are just stupid.
5822. MsIvoryTower - April 23, 1999 - 11:22 AM PT
PP
I wish you'd just straighten all this IQ talk out. You're the one who knows this research AND it's implications.
5823. doogie - April 23, 1999 - 11:23 AM PT
To say that IQ is distinct from the type and amount of information known is a fallacy.
The difficulty in devising a test which doesn't privilege either a particular style of thought or knowledge of a particular subject matter is overwhelming.
As an excellent example, I scored a 178 on the LSAT. I had read or heard of every one of the books in the written comprehension section, which, uh, greatly facilitated my performance on the test.
5824. BobaFett - April 23, 1999 - 11:24 AM PT
*only* 178?
5825. doogie - April 23, 1999 - 11:25 AM PT
I remember, you scored a 180 (or was it on the old scoring system?), but didn't have the GPA to back it up.
5826. PsychProf - April 23, 1999 - 11:33 AM PT
Doogie...whatever your score I never know what the hell you're talking about. Missie...IQ is no more than one measure of the hypothetical construct of intelligence. It has a hereditary component, can be affected by the enviornment and cultural context, and it is more or less important depending on its usefulness within a particular situation. The "debate" surrounding it is purely political and ideological, so facts and data will always be seen through the eyes of the poster. To me, being smart is diverse and multifaceted, and recent theories(Gardner) have emphasized this.
5827. PsychProf - April 23, 1999 - 11:36 AM PT
Gardner and Intelligence
5828. AuNaturel - April 23, 1999 - 11:42 AM PT
"It can't really be both if
you're going to say as Greystoke did, that bad kids are just
bad, and by default, stupid kids are just stupid."
Even if I grant the point that current IQ cannot be improved by an superior environment it is obvious that a motivated 90 IQ person will learn more, do better and go farther than an unmotivated 110 IQ person. Suppose you were a genius but were raised by troglodytes. You'd be a nonfunctional genius.
5829. OhioSTOPAS - April 23, 1999 - 11:43 AM PT
I scored well on my SAT, LSAT, etc.
The results reflected my strong aptitude for taking aptitude tests.
5830. doogie - April 23, 1999 - 11:47 AM PT
PP:
I was trying to express something similar to your Message #5826. The attribute known as IQ is not equivalent to "intelligence" as it is commonly used.
The LSAT (Law School Admission Test) is scored on a 120-180 scale; interestingly enough, anything over 170 is the 99th percentile. 156 is about the 50th percentile. I would have scored much lower on the test had I not been very familiar with the subject matter (and the test presumes that one will not be).
5831. JADEgold - April 23, 1999 - 11:47 AM PT
I'm sorry, but IQ has zip to do with this tragedy. Many are casting about for a lifeline to grab, but the operative causes for this tragedy are the deep disaffection these kids sank into and the easy access to firearms.
5832. PsychProf - April 23, 1999 - 11:49 AM PT
Jade...you are indeed correct, but I was trying to ingratiate myself with Missie, my love fantasy. Here's more... Social Implications of IQ Debate
5833. CalGal - April 23, 1999 - 11:49 AM PT
I don't believe that Gardiner has ever been able to test for any of his intelligences, has he? Other than the verbal/linguistic and spatial/mathematical, which is tested by IQ.
It's not that I don't think it's a good theory--I do.
Incidentally, if asked to bet on which of all his intelligences correlate most closely with a successful life (financial, educational, etc.), I'd bet on it being the verbal/linguistic and spatial/mathetmatical.
And until we change our entire society to value all musical skill as equally as we value brains, this means that the other intelligences don't really matter all that much in any practical sense. Except it would be useful to know how best to teach an artistically intelligent person how to learn math.
5834. CalGal - April 23, 1999 - 11:50 AM PT
"I'm sorry, but IQ has zip to do with this tragedy. "
It was a branch. Greystoke was saying he believed kids were born bad, just as kids were born with an immutable IQ. The Ms picked up on that; it went from there.
5839. FreeToChoose - April 23, 1999 - 11:55 AM PT
MsIvoryTower
“We pour billions of dollars into trying to raise achievement and student gains for low performing kids, the majority of whom test at average or below average on IQ tests.”
By “achievement” do you mean score on IQ tests? If so, then we don't do it. If by “achievement” you mean the acquisition of skills necessary to function in society, then yes, we do do that, and reasonably successfully.
“(Note, I am arguing the natural consequences of taking the IQ research as a given, and apportioning so little effects of environment onto the end results.)”
No, you aren't. For reasons you refuse to share, you seem to be deliberately conflating IQ and education. Why?
5840. PsychProf - April 23, 1999 - 11:56 AM PT
Cal...we have been soulmates for quite a number of days now, and I would like to understand the evolution...In any case, it's Gardner, Howard, and I believe, Gardiner, Chauncey...
5843. FreeToChoose - April 23, 1999 - 11:59 AM PT
doogie
“To say that IQ is distinct from the type and amount of information known is a fallacy. “
Did someone say that?
5844. Rivendell - April 23, 1999 - 11:59 AM PT
Most artistically intelligent people I know are rather good at math - especially geometry, in the case of those in the visual arts.
5845. rickc2000 - April 23, 1999 - 12:01 PM PT
I agree with Jade (what a surprise) but I would add isolation to the roots. Is it a coincidence that all of these school shootings in the past year or so are all in suburban schools? The kids in urban schools kill each other for "business" reasons. Generally related to their durg or other illegal businesses. The mass killings of students seem to be in suburban areas that lack the sense of community and exposure to diversity of more urban schools.
5846. CalGal - April 23, 1999 - 12:01 PM PT
PP,
As I have told you on more than one occasion, we nearly always agree on parenting and childrearing issues. It will pass--I am more ruthless on the subject of intelligence and its implications for society than you are, I think.
But I did misspell Gardner. What do you think of Sternberg?
5847. AuNaturel - April 23, 1999 - 12:01 PM PT
"Incidentally, if asked to bet on which of all his intelligences
correlate most closely with a successful life (financial,
educational, etc.), I'd bet on it being the verbal/linguistic and
spatial/mathetmatical. "
I'd bet it was a combination of verbal/linguistic and spatial/mathetmatical combined with a high "emotional intelligence". Getting along with others is more often critical than knowledge or processing power.
5848. FreeToChoose - April 23, 1999 - 12:04 PM PT
JADEgold
“I'm sorry, but IQ has zip to do with this tragedy.”
So what? Are you the topic police?
“Many are casting about for a lifeline to grab, but the operative causes for this tragedy are the deep disaffection these kids sank into and the easy access to firearms.”
Inter alia.
I also think the issue of ridicule is important, but I doubt you will agree, based upon your usual behavior.
5849. PsychProf - April 23, 1999 - 12:05 PM PT
I have met and heard Sternberg a number of times...we had him here at the college to speak on intelligence, but I am more impressed with his analysis of love..."passion, commitment, and intimacy".
5853. chengster - April 23, 1999 - 12:13 PM PT
I don't want to be the BB police, but I have no earthly idea how this IQ discussion has anything to do with CO. If someone would review the bidding, and put it in context, I would appreciate it.
5909. Greystoke - April 23, 1999 - 4:53 PM PT
MsIT
"Nothing in your cites refute my comments. They even suggest the same thing I did."
Bullshit. My cites support the contention that IQ is, for the most part, inborn, and that environmental factors are far less consequential. Also supported is my opinion that the IQ of an individual at age 6 is an accurate predictor of the IQ of that person in adulthood. You disagreed with me on both points.
"I think you'd like the Bell Curve, though. You ought to read it, it'll make you feel real good about yourself."
I don't understand what you mean. I have neither asserted nor implied that my opinions about inborn IQ and/or behavioral characteristics reflect positively (or negatively) on me or my genes.