Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Isn't that something we all already know? A high IQ has never guaranteed performance would be stellar, nor did a lower IQ indicate performance might be dismal.
Exactly. I thought everyone already knew that, too.
LOL - no, I'm sure they didn't teach that at Lane Tech!!
Actually, in our district there were high performers because the school systems were nationally ranked well and because of it a lot of Asians live here, making us look even brighter. So the kids didn't need the boost. This was part of the 'everyone gets a trophy' philosophy of the 90's.
Are you, Mathguy, among the famous who went to Lane? Blago, Frankie Laine, Johnny Weissmuller, John Podesta, Adrian Zmed...the list goes on and on.
My Dad, a civil engineer.
Quote:
They marched to their own drum in that school. The good old days!
The racists and genetic determinists are enraged. Taleb shows how IQ and performance don't correlate. IQ tests are only useful to prove intellectual disabilities.
Nope but when I went to U of IL (Champaign) my dorm had almost 100 lane tech grads in it.
My school sent 1-4 a year to U of IL...Lane tech sent a few hundred lol.
P.S. IQ has always had a fraught correlation with success due to the accompanying mental issues relative to the *normal* population. I personally am very able to deal publically but even still I have my moments and own issues. Some of my friends over my life have stuggled more with this and some are no longer with us. My best friend, who has an IQ likely 150+ like myself and is smoother than myself socially often says to me "it's the illusion of patience" when dealing with most of humanity that are frankly just not able to grasp or comprehend complex issues. If this sounds arrogant then I apologize but it's honest. Both of us care for special needs relatives in our lives, it makes you distinctly aware of functional rifts. Makes you more aware but less judgmental imo. For example, my mom is dumb as a post compared to me and by FAR the better person.
This thread includes the two elephants in the room that we ignore in education: the intellectual capabilities of the people at the front of the room and the intellectual capabilities of the "regular" students. It's entirely possible that the English teacher is teaching modern crap "literature" because he isn't up to teaching Shakespeare (and it's much easier). And through all the staff meetings in which I've been present, not once has the question ever been raised: "Are we asking our average students to do things they're incapable of doing?"
There are two basic types of IQ tests, those that measure crystallized intelligence (the accumulation of knowledge, facts, and skills that are acquired throughout life) and those that measure fluid intelligence (the ability to reason and think flexibly, solve new problems, use logic in new situations, and identify patterns). Crystallized intelligence can be improved through learning/education. Fluid intelligence is a lot less likely to improve. It's innate.
Raven's Progressive Matrices is a good example of a fluid intelligence IQ test. It's non-verbal, so there is no cultural bias.
If you restrict to one school then you've already narrowed the range of LSAT scores you're looking at to the point that of course it loses relevance. It's like looking at height and basketball ability and saying that when you restrict the data set to Duke players height doesn't correlate much with success in basketball, oblivious to the fact that almost all the players are tall compared to the general population.
Oddly if you restrict it to Duke players, height is really a negative. Quite a few relatively short (for the NBA) drafts, and the last 7 footer from Duke was way back in '87 as a sixth round pick. Holding out for Vrankovic to break the spell? I'm not. Disregarding that he's not a freshman, which means the NBA is already bored of him, he just doesn't get the play time. And it's not because Bolden is so dominant. I'd put it at 50/50 Williamson sees some fairly significant time in center.
But then that's also the other difference. While Duke is a particularly tall team for college, there's not that huge spread in heights in college ball like there is with law school LSAT scores. They're not just randomly throwing darts at tall people and ending up with Duke's roster. Davis, where I went, like just about any college has lots of tall players. They're just not might make it to the NBA good. If they were, yeah, they wouldn't have gone to Davis. We suck at basketball. It's not a coincidence that the majority of current NBA players come from just four of the Division I conferences. LSAT is to law school as scouting is to playing basket ball. Duke isn't full of 6'11" players and Davis full of people under 6'2". Harvard is full of people with 170 LSAT scores. Going to Golden Gate University with a 170 is like an NBA caliber player going to Davis. Doesn't happen.
The racists and genetic determinists are enraged. Taleb shows how IQ and performance don't correlate. IQ tests are only useful to prove intellectual disabilities.
Of course, that is why the most brilliant scientists, mathematicians, and physicists had low IQs!
Condemning IQ tests is the safe haven of those rationalizing individuals or groups with lower IQs. I can tell you it is not by accident that all of my friends (most are neurosurgeons) have very high IQs. If you have taken an IQ test, they are mostly pattern recognition. However, detection of some of those patterns involves mathematical ability and the ability to understand the basis of logarithms and calculus.
In my opinion, effort and hard work trumps intelligence in most cases. However, raw IQ points are essential for certain professions and are a necessary baseline criteria for performance. It is like having a high performance sports car: it is of little use if it sits in the garage- you have to get it out on the road and drive it to appreciate its capabilities.
Of course, that is why the most brilliant scientists, mathematicians, and physicists had low IQs!
Condemning IQ tests is the safe haven of those rationalizing individuals or groups with lower IQs. I can tell you it is not by accident that all of my friends (most are neurosurgeons) have very high IQs. If you have taken an IQ test, they are mostly pattern recognition. However, detection of some of those patterns involves mathematical ability and the ability to understand the basis of logarithms and calculus.
In my opinion, effort and hard work trumps intelligence in most cases. However, raw IQ points are essential for certain professions and are a necessary baseline criteria for performance. It is like having a high performance sports car: it is of little use if it sits in the garage- you have to get it out on the road and drive it to appreciate its capabilities.
That can be true, but referring back to my post on crystallized vs. fluid intelligence, just knowing a lot isn't as much of a mark of intelligence as being able to reason and think flexibly, solve new problems, use logic in new situations, and, yes, even identify difficult to discern patterns.
That's why we see liberal arts PhDs, though highly educated and likely to know a lot, ending up on Food Stamps, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
