ON: Not Everyone Is Smart Enough To Study Engineering, Accounting, or Computer Science
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4
Not everyone is smart enough, eh...?
You know, they did this study where they had these people take IQ tests (for the study)...and the people pretty much did as predicted. IQ group of 79-ish did 79-ish, 99 did 99-ish, and high group did high.
Then they told them that the better they did, they would get some treat or reward...I forget what it was...
Anyway, suddenly, the 79 group scored in the 90s.
Which tells you something about IQ tests and motivation and what really creates/perpetuates ability.
You know, they did this study where they had these people take IQ tests (for the study)...and the people pretty much did as predicted. IQ group of 79-ish did 79-ish, 99 did 99-ish, and high group did high.
Then they told them that the better they did, they would get some treat or reward...I forget what it was...
Anyway, suddenly, the 79 group scored in the 90s.
Which tells you something about IQ tests and motivation and what really creates/perpetuates ability.
To wit, however, I'm puzzled:
What "study?"
Who is "they?"
What "people?"
An IQ group of 79-ish...79 what? A Stanford-Binet, Weschler, or what (other) score of 79? Perhaps it isn't understood that 79, per many IQ tables, is dull-normal (WAIS, WISC, Binet, CTMM, Otis-Lennon)? Where 100 is the statistical average for all...? So borderline retarded people scored in a manner consistent with what the test is attempting to measure, and that is puzzling...how? And 99 percenters scored where they should, on the respective scales, as-well?
Or is the suggestion that people with an IQ of 79 were offered hot cross buns or whatnot, and suddenly scored at 99th percentile? What were they then, frustrated (and hungry) geniuses? What was the test administrator smoking that day? Oh wait: we don't know, because it didn't happen that way and never has.
Actually, my interpretation of the above comments makes me glad to know that the study referred-to (?) was internally-consistent, then. Dumb begets dumber, i.e.
Lastly, perhaps it isn't sufficiently clear that IQ "scores" are not nearly as good a way to represent IQ (or G, general intelligence) as standard deviations (SD), right? Square root of the variance? Measurement of percentages under the bell curve, in a given data set? Y'know, math is hard and all that?
Or wait: IQ does not matter. "Anyone can do anything, if they apply themselves" (chuckle). Nothing could be further from the truth, pretty obviously.
Not terribly impressed with comments (opinion vs. science) that confound the debate with double-talk.
Here are my references, for any additional comments I may make regarding ability, socioeconomic status, and IQ (and the statistically significant correlation therein) within this thread:
(1) "Bell Curve, the" by Charles Murray and Edward Herrnstein (1994), Penguin Press.
(2) U.S. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 11,321 subjects (n). IQ was assessed at age 16 to 23 years and the participants were followed up to 40 to 47 years of age.
Most salient point of item (2):
"General cognitive ability, assessed by cognitive tests and often referred to as intelligence quotient (IQ), reflects a general capacity of abstract reasoning and learning potential. An increasing number of studies have shown that high IQ in childhood or early adulthood predicts low mortality risk over the life course. However, the mechanisms underlying the association between IQ and mortality remain uncertain. One possibility is that IQ predicts mortality because IQ is related to social and economic circumstances predicting mortality. An alternative scenario suggests that the effect of these circumstances on mortality is largely accounted for by IQ."
Blondebaerde's Helpful Translation: higher IQ correlates well with higher socioeconomic status, and the healthier behaviors typically found therein (nutrition, lifestyle, other decisions affecting mortality), leading to lower death rates (higher survival rates).
