Chris Woodhead= Cnut

[padraig (u.s.)]

Tests that aim to be 'fair' minimise use of the former and maximise that of the latter.

only - what tests are those?

cos while I can only speak from experience mine was that standardised testing in the U.S. is very much about memorization of facts, up to & including the SATs. there is also an entire cottage industry in the U.S. of SAT preparation - very much tutoring on how to take tests as opposed to how to think - available of course only to kids whose parents can pay for it.

also, anecdote on kids & knowledge: when I was 10 I made it to the Chicago regional spelling bee & I have a very distinct memory of a black kid getting the word "oilcloth", pronouncing it "oilcloff" & then spelling it o-i-l-c-l-o-f-f. which of course was right to him.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

only - what tests are those?

Well, there are tests that are intended to be 'culture-fair' and require no factual knowledge as one would usually understand the term eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven's_Progressive_Matrices. Takers may still benefit from prior experience, within their milieu, of problems of the same kind or of the testing process, amongst other things (speculations...)

One could imagine attempting to strip cultural specificity from Matt B's anagram test: replace the letters with random symbols; provide a sheet of accepted arrangements of those symbols -> test involves recognising that an anagrammed selection contains the same symbols as a combination of the 'words' on the aforementioned sheet. It would be the most tediousest thing ever.

 

[josef k.]

Clearly, the education system functions to mold characters at every level of its operation, up to and including universities... More interesting to me then the question of who benefits and who loses from the existing system (questions which are basically managerial) is the question of what norms and standards the process produces...

For instance, a privileging of the value of knowledge and cultural capital, a link between education and status, and then again, certain power-networks formed (or not formed)...

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Takers may still benefit from prior experience, within their milieu, of problems of the same kind or of the testing process, amongst other things (speculations...)

so essentially, no, those tests don't exist then, is what you're saying?

especially that bit about the testing process. just having more experience with taking tests is an advantage. in knowing how to answer a multiple choice question, how to manage time, etc. - that's what all that SAT tutoring stuff, is for example, just tricks to doing better on tests.

also, not be a jerk but even in the wiki you linked a "distinguished university professor" sez:

To use an instrument developed in the West on semi and possibly illiterate people is a fool's errand. Then they use the results to say that half the people in Africa are mentally retarded. It's laughable

which yeah would seem problematic.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

so essentially, no, those tests don't exist then, is what you're saying?

Hey, these things are all on a continuum: if I write a test that requires you to employ logic but set it in the abstruse world of my close friends, you would fail. This would be highly culture-specific and completely different in intent to the RPM. 'Speculations' meant that they were musings of mine, not an official line. Science is provisional, after all (in both directions).

especially that bit about the testing process. just having more experience with taking tests is an advantage. in knowing how to answer a multiple choice question, how to manage time, etc. - that's what all that SAT tutoring stuff, is for example, just tricks to doing better on tests.

True, but most IQ tests are not meant to be trained for, for these reasons. Even if everyone trained, the scores would still be given relative to everyone elses' performance, like scores on some of the aptitude tests in the States. This is, as I stated earlier, a problem with such testing: ppl have not settled on some kind of absolute metric, it's all comparative.

also, not be a jerk but even in the wiki you linked a "distinguished university professor" sez: which yeah would seem problematic.

But other distinguished university professors wouldn't say this, I would guess (otherwise wiki would say so)

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

True, but most IQ tests are not meant to be trained for, for these reasons. Even if everyone trained, the scores would still be given relative to everyone elses' performance, like scores on some of the aptitude tests in the States. This is, as I stated earlier, a problem with such testing: ppl have settled on some kind of absolute metric, it's all comparative.

but if it's comparative & some people have advantages that others dont then...I mean it's not really comparative...

as to you can't train for IQ tests - I say, bollocks. you're training for an IQ test every day from birth, thru your day-to-day experiences. there is no intelligence in a vacuum.

I still don't see how you've at all backed up any of your claims about success & intelligence being linked...*EDIT* or rather, the idea that success is hereditary via intelligence. or perhaps you can sum up your position better?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

but if it's comparative & some people have advantages that others dont then...I mean it's not really comparative...

as to you can't train for IQ tests - I say, bollocks. you're training for an IQ test every day from birth, thru your day-to-day experiences. there is no intelligence in a vacuum.

I still don't see how you've at all backed up any of your claims about success & intelligence being linked...*EDIT in progress*

Oh jeez I don't want to get embroiled in another argument...

What I meant re training is that you CAN train for an IQ test but if you train, it skews the results. If I give a matrices-style IQ test to my students and they have never done one before, then I can expect the results to give a better impression of their comparative strengths than if half the class had had them drilled into them over the past few months. The perfect training would, in fact, be doing the same test the second time around after having been told the answers! (This would be completely culture-specific and utterly unhelpful )

The whole point of a test like the Raven's is to see if ppl can think on their feet: fluid intelligence; not memorise procedures and reapply them... (crystallised, culture-bound intelligence)

I'm not trying to convince you, personally, of anything! I'm just telling you stuff because I enjoy these different interpretations of the world. I'm quite happy knowing that there are alternative ways of understanding and letting them survive. I'm still undecided on these matters, but am certainly not going to be swayed one way or the other on Dissensus, because the discussion is inevitably going to be non-expert (myself included) and a shadow of conversations on the very same topics that have *always* run in the literature. If you want to 'clarify' my position (whatever that is, given that the 'me' on here is not me), then just follow the ends of the threads that I have left lying about...

 

[vimothy]

Clearly, the education system makes certain demands of its students: We talk, meet, network, send in applications, answer questions, attend classes, get drunk...

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Oh jeez I don't want to get embroiled in another argument...

alright. tho I didn't know we were arguing. I thought we were just discussing. is it only an argument if we disagree then?

the whole testing bit is, anyway, kind of a side issue it'd seem. as in, it doesn't say much about hereditary intelligence either way cos there's no "objective" test & even if there was it couldn't be applied in objective conditions.

...but am certainly not going to be swayed one way or the other on Dissensus...

?? alright then I guess...

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Clearly, the education system makes certain demands of its students: We talk, meet, network, send in applications, answer questions, attend classes, get drunk...

how many of these do you really have to do to be a student tho? I think just the paperwork mostly. & you have to pay for it of course, by hook or crook.

I reckon that's what you could sum education up to - paperwork & $$$, only maybe not in that order.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

[Dissensus not changing my mind]

Well, only because none of the objections are new...Like most of these things psychology requires that you suspend partial disbelief and take something to be true, for the benefit of erecting a system upon it. Now, Dissensians, in their iconoclastic fervour, desire for utter simplicity or dislike of cognitive dissonance, have a tendency immediately to want to dig down to these alternative systems' axioms and remove them. But, in light of their necessity (and provisional nature), this is a move that is somewhat moot!

Another reason is that the arguments you get on here are never new and always better expressed elsewhere (why would they not be?) Dissensus might remind you of sth, or point you in a direction, but an internet forum is not going to wield particular power of conviction...Especially since I am not decided either way! (Or at least, thinking psychometrically, am 'decided' one way; thinking sociologically am 'decided' the other! ;-) )

 

[vimothy]

I only know the education system in the UK, TBH. I would say some of them. It's not meant to be definitive. Obviously for some (OU students, e.g.), university qua university is less important. But that's only one institutional type. Just got out of a meeting with some Ed researchers and this was its basic gist. Find the research here.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

an internet forum is not going to wield particular power of conviction...

well, of course. I'm not sure why this really needs to be stated. I mean it just seems ridiculous to argue something for 15 pages & then say "oh it's all pointless cos we're not child development experts" or whatever. as if there was some kind of false pretense that we were hashing out education policy. but, I mean, whatever...

 

[swears]

Clearly, the education system makes certain demands of its students: We talk, meet, network, send in applications, answer questions, attend classes, get drunk...

Yeah, I think the university system is there to socialise you into the professional or creative classes as much as anything else. Particularly nowadays. In the circles I move in (outside of my work) people around my age are really suprised I didn't go. My mate who went to medical school at Liverpool uni (redbrick) knew people who wouldn't associate with anyone from John Moores (the former poly) because they felt it was beneath them.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

But that's only one institutional type.

right, people go to school for different reasons.

but I mean, really, it's $ (& $ via opportunity cost) - you spend more to presumably get more.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

well, of course. I'm not sure why this really needs to be stated. I mean it just seems ridiculous to argue something for 15 pages & then say "oh it's all pointless cos we're not child development experts" or whatever. as if there was some kind of false pretense that we were hashing out education policy. but, I mean, whatever...

It transpires that there is no interesting discussion to be had as the majority of Dissensians hold in their hands a pair of their own well-worn objections that they imagine to be all-conquering trump cards. There is obviously no point discussing degrees of cultural bias in tests if a failure to achieve utter objectivity and absence of bias (whatever that would look like) is considered to undermine the whole enterprise. Similarly, interpreting society through findings in psychological research is a futile exercise if someone turns up and bluntly asserts that intelligence doesn't exist (which obv will continue happening in a thread of this size).

Repairing the foundations is tiresome, and ppl fail to realise that the discussion is only interesting IFF you temporarily let them stand. (Imagine going along to an academic conference and ceaselessly harrassing the speakers about things that are axiomatic to their subject and already understood not to be cut-and-dried and probably either unjustifiable in the terms afforded by their own subject or even absolutely undecidable, philosophically speaking!)

 

[nomadthethird]

well I'm pretty sure that one reason which has been (credibly, as I understand) for the preponderance of black athletes is that black people - on average - have more fast-twitch muscle fiber. or perhaps that should be a greater density of fast-twitch muscle fiber. so that there is a higher concentration of great athletic talent - all professional athletes being essentially genetic freaks - among black people than whites (& everyone else I guess).

plus just on empirical evidence - there are tons of second-generation pro athletes in the NBA, NFL, baseball, etc. presumably in footie too but i wouldn't know about that.

tho I reckon the mental attributes are probably more a mix of nature/nurture than the physical stuff which is almost entirely genetic?

Huh. I have no idea what "fast-twitch" muscle fiber is. I don't think it exists. There are two kinds of muscle tissue, smooth or striated.

But I do think there's an overly simplistic medical explanation for why there are more African-American (not necessarily African) athletes in the U.S., and it's the same one that's touted as an explanation for why African-Americans are more prone to heart disease/high cholesterol/high bp than non-black Americans: only those slaves with especially resilient sodium channels, who held on to most of the sodium they ate, were able to survive the horrible conditions (including severe dehydration) on the ships. This was adaptive at the time, but now it means that their descendents are going to have a high risk for heart disease. I would assume that this would hold for stronger more muscular people as well, they'd be more likely to survive. It's the kids who'd have no chance in hell.

Of course, I would think that anyone who lives constantly under stress, the way impoverished oppressed people do, is going to have a higher risk of heart disease than someone who has a cushy job and lots of vacation and can afford healthier food, etc.

Could be a combination of both.

 

[nomadthethird]

It transpires that there is no interesting discussion to be had as the majority of Dissensians hold in their hands a pair of their own well-worn objections that they imagine to be all-conquering trump cards. There is obviously no point discussing degrees of cultural bias in tests if a failure to achieve utter objectivity and absence of bias (whatever that would look like) is considered to undermine the whole enterprise. Similarly, interpreting society through findings in psychological research is a futile exercise if someone turns up and bluntly asserts that intelligence doesn't exist (which obv will continue happening in a thread of this size).

Repairing the foundations is tiresome, and ppl fail to realise that the discussion is only interesting IFF you temporarily let them stand. (Imagine going along to an academic conference and ceaselessly harrassing the speakers about things that are axiomatic to their subject and already understood not to be cut-and-dried and probably either unjustifiable in the terms afforded by their own subject or even absolutely undecidable, philosophically speaking!)

You continue to operate under the increasingly specious assumption(s) that the "establishment" has decided what intelligence is, the important parties have agreed upon what this means, and therefore that there are grounds for this discussion to take place on that don't call into question these fundamentals but attempts to build upon them.

Well, you're wrong. Cognitive scientists largely disagree with psychologists and psychiatrists, who definitely disagree with school teachers, who in turn think they have it figured out but are constantly undermined by neurology.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Well, you're wrong. Cognitive scientists largely disagree with psychologists and psychiatrists, who definitely disagree with school teachers, who in turn think they have it figured out but are constantly undermined by neurology.

The parting shot is quite witty, but you haven't really understood where I'm coming from.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

But I do think there's an overly simplistic medical explanation for why there are more African-American (not necessarily African) athletes in the U.S...I would assume that this would hold for stronger more muscular people as well, they'd be more likely to survive. It's the kids who'd have no chance in hell.

definition of fast twitch muscle fibers

essentially - slow twitch muscles are for aerobic, fast twitch are for sprinting, lifting weights, anything requires short sharp bursts of intense activity, which is what most sports are, aside from distance running/cycling/etc.

as far as that bit about sodium, yeh I really dunno. the bit about muscles doesn't really explain why they'd have more (or more effective) fast twitch muscles, just that on average they do.

Of course, I would think that anyone who lives constantly under stress, the way impoverished oppressed people do, is going to have a higher risk of heart disease than someone who has a cushy job and lots of vacation and can afford healthier food, etc.

this I don't know about. surely there are detrimental effects of living under stress but I wouldn't be surprised if affluent people - at least in certain countries, like the States - actually have a higher rate of heart disease. overly rich diet, sedentary lifestyle, etc.