on the topic of iq, i have a lot of problems with the way people seem to interact with the concept. there’s a bunch of assumptions all baked into it:
iq is a variable that actually exists in nature
people’s iq is static and follows a standard distribution
iq tests are capable of objectively measuring or at least approximating this variable
this variable is a good stand-in or even synonymous with cognitive ability
cognitive ability is univariate or single-faceted, able to be described with a single number
cognitive ability equates to or correlates with usefulness, happiness, sociability, success, whatever
finally, that any of this really matters, like in a materially impactful way, or is something that we should focus on
it’s not that each of these statements is 100% wrong, it’s that each shouldn’t be assumed to be true. but the way i usually see iq invoked kinda just uncritically runs with all of them, contained within a neat little ideological package.
also a pet theory i like (that isn’t actually true or provable) is that gifted programs are meant to remove children deemed smarter from their communities and funnel them into middle management and academia, so they don’t become agitators for change in their communities and workplaces
That could be true, but I think only if there’s a systemic effort to diagnose and put those children into specialized establishments. Where I’m from, it doesn’t appear to be the case.
on the topic of iq, i have a lot of problems with the way people seem to interact with the concept. there’s a bunch of assumptions all baked into it:
iq is a variable that actually exists in nature
people’s iq is static and follows a standard distribution
iq tests are capable of objectively measuring or at least approximating this variable
this variable is a good stand-in or even synonymous with cognitive ability
cognitive ability is univariate or single-faceted, able to be described with a single number
cognitive ability equates to or correlates with usefulness, happiness, sociability, success, whatever
finally, that any of this really matters, like in a materially impactful way, or is something that we should focus on
it’s not that each of these statements is 100% wrong, it’s that each shouldn’t be assumed to be true. but the way i usually see iq invoked kinda just uncritically runs with all of them, contained within a neat little ideological package.
also a pet theory i like (that isn’t actually true or provable) is that gifted programs are meant to remove children deemed smarter from their communities and funnel them into middle management and academia, so they don’t become agitators for change in their communities and workplaces
That could be true, but I think only if there’s a systemic effort to diagnose and put those children into specialized establishments. Where I’m from, it doesn’t appear to be the case.
Get back to your green region you smart guy, we’re having a moment of melancholy over arbitrary metric here.
IQ is like the difference between a CPU and a GPU expressed in one number. You should rather care for your strengths and weaknesses.