From: usenet@baradel.demon.co.uk   
      
   In message , Aqua   
    writes   
   >Gerry Quinn wrote:   
   >>  And that they have some repeatability, as witnessed by twin studies,   
   >>or  individuals who can confidently describe themselves as "160   
   >>people".   
   >   
   >I'd be really worried if people didn't test roughly stably on IQ tests,   
   >considering the enormous amount of effort and resources that's expended   
   >on making sure that happens.  That doesn't tell you anything about   
   >whether you're looking at an artifact or not.   
   >   
   >Besides, I did a US and European IQ test right after each other once   
   >(again, party trick) and scored 20 more points on the European one   
   >(can't remember exact value - 175?, as it was the difference that   
   >amused me), and also in the process formed a very poor opinion of   
   >whoever had written that US test.   
   >   
   >(This is not a critique of US IQ tests in general, just my observation   
   >based on doing those two particular tests on that particular day, and   
   >that's how they were described.  And I repeat my opinion that IQ tests   
   >are party tricks, even European ones that give me flatteringly high   
   >scores.)   
   >   
   Indeed. If anyone doubts that IQ tests are culturally biased, then they   
   only need to try one written for people from a different culture or   
   indeed a different time. I have somewhere a booklet of the type of logic   
   and verbal reasoning tests I practised as an 11-year old to prepare me   
   for the 11 plus test. Looking at it now, I can no longer work out what   
   the right answer is supposed to be in some cases because more than 40   
   years have passed and the question doesn't make sense any more. Another   
   more trivial example happened last year while flying to the US, I tried   
   one of the "fun" IQ tests in the in-flight magazine. When I looked up   
   the answer to one question I couldn't do, I just thought, "Duh?" It was   
   something about Tutenkhamun and only worked if you referred to him as   
   "Tut", as though this was a common thing to do, but it's something that   
   I'd never heard before in my life. It's not something that we would ever   
   do in the UK.   
   >   
   >> My objections are not to any rational critique of the role or   
   >>methodology of IQ, but to propagandistic attemps to denigrate any   
   >>attempt to study or discuss such matters, in the interest of a pre-   
   >> developed politically correct thesis about human nature.  Which is   
   >>what  you're doing, and why you can't propose any reasonable arguments.   
   >   
   >Huh?  Do you know _anything_ about cognitive science?  IQ is old   
   >science, 1950s at the latest.  The current research is all about   
   >separating out 'modules' of brain function, trying to identify and test   
   >them, etc.  IQ turns out to correlate best with something called   
   >Working Memory Capacity, but I don't think anyone cares that much,   
   >since it's like going back and double-checking ether models.   
      
   The brain is a much more resilient and elastic thing than previously   
   thought. Studies of people who have studied strokes or head injury show   
   that even a damaged brain can reorganise itself to regain speech and   
   movement. Also all these ideas that people can't learn new things once   
   they reach a certain age are also incorrect. Learning may be slower than   
   in youth, but other factors make up for that easy facility to absorb new   
   stuff that youngsters have.   
      
   To be honest, the biggest factor regarding career choice and hence   
   choice of university course at the moment is TV. Apparently thought pure   
   science courses are in decline and have been for years, forensic science   
   is the new craze. Looking at law (which was mentioned previously in this   
   thread), women see female lawyers on TV being successful and it   
   therefore becomes something they aspire to. Ditto forensic science with   
   TV series showing it as something cool.   
      
   Who actually does pure science these days? There are very few career   
   prospects and it's hard work and when you're funding your own degree,   
   who wants to put themselves through a tough course when there's no   
   obvious career route to enable you to earn a decent wage and pay off all   
   the debts you will have accumulated by the time you graduate? Much   
   better to do something you enjoy.   
      
   Helen   
   --   
   Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)