When I looked in your link and found basically nothing about what you were talking about. You also didn't highlight a sentence, so it makes me question whether or not you just wanted to get me to waste time because you hadn't looked anything up.
Also, your comment about the SAT's doesn't really mean anything either as that's not really an effective scientific measurement of intelligence. I'm not really convinced you know what you're talking about.
I remember seeing an average IQ score chart that changed with age, but I couldn't find from where. So I started looking up source material to see what I could find. As best as I can find at the moment, I have seen some statements about 5 year olds scoring higher than 16 year olds, which suggests that there is, at least, an age cohort comparison. So, I'll accept that perhaps a baby can get a 100 on an IQ test. So long as the test where the IQ test is only testing babies.
However, this still doesn't the idea that younger populations can effect the IQ tests. Again, if we set the cohort to race and not by age, significantly younger populations will have lower average IQ's because they will still be compared to the average IQ individual of all of the races. Again, children do not have the same IQ capacity as adults, this is not a debatable point. To get the results you are talking about, you would have to have cohorts by race and age. However, I never really hear you, or anyone else, argue this. It doesn't make sense to claim that a white baby has an IQ of 100 and a black man has an IQ of 98, therefore the baby is smarter; it objectively isn't because, again, it doesn't have Object Permanence. Compared to all people within a demographic, of any age, the children will always have some of the lowest average IQ, by definition.
I think this is might be why you brought up the SAT's because you think that IQ is predictive. That does not seem to be the case either. From what I've seen in the literature so far, it's not clear that higher IQ children (among their age group) grow up into higher IQ adults (among their new age group), and that multiple studies looking into race & IQ noted that the average IQ of black children reduced with age, and were attempting to find the source of that.
The point of IQ tests is about understanding the ability of the ability of the mind to process difficult and abstract cognitive tasks. It seems fairly obvious that using IQ tests for prediction of later age IQ is a problem since the brains of children are clearly not finished developing, so the tests actually can't be the same kind of tests that adults can take. The children will obviously fail at more difficult questions / tasks (again, children who don't have Theory Of Mind can't abstract to any significant degree). If these children are starved or concussed before they reach adulthood, what they could have achieved in IQ may be lost. It's not possible to control for those variables, so any sort of developmental changes will alter it's predictive quality.
The point for an IQ test is not to administer it as early as possible, but to keep doing it to keep track of how the subject is developing mentally.
And again, most of the research rejects your claim about 'wasting money teaching niggers'. It in fact explicitly states that the ability to learn and IQ are different issues, and that even low IQ individuals have the ability to learn, thus different teaching methods between lower & higher IQ individuals would be successful.
I guess to sum it up: you're conflating IQ by race and IQ by age, intentionally.
Luckily for you I'm not dishonest.
When I looked in your link and found basically nothing about what you were talking about. You also didn't highlight a sentence, so it makes me question whether or not you just wanted to get me to waste time because you hadn't looked anything up.
Also, your comment about the SAT's doesn't really mean anything either as that's not really an effective scientific measurement of intelligence. I'm not really convinced you know what you're talking about.
I remember seeing an average IQ score chart that changed with age, but I couldn't find from where. So I started looking up source material to see what I could find. As best as I can find at the moment, I have seen some statements about 5 year olds scoring higher than 16 year olds, which suggests that there is, at least, an age cohort comparison. So, I'll accept that perhaps a baby can get a 100 on an IQ test. So long as the test where the IQ test is only testing babies.
However, this still doesn't the idea that younger populations can effect the IQ tests. Again, if we set the cohort to race and not by age, significantly younger populations will have lower average IQ's because they will still be compared to the average IQ individual of all of the races. Again, children do not have the same IQ capacity as adults, this is not a debatable point. To get the results you are talking about, you would have to have cohorts by race and age. However, I never really hear you, or anyone else, argue this. It doesn't make sense to claim that a white baby has an IQ of 100 and a black man has an IQ of 98, therefore the baby is smarter; it objectively isn't because, again, it doesn't have Object Permanence. Compared to all people within a demographic, of any age, the children will always have some of the lowest average IQ, by definition.
I think this is might be why you brought up the SAT's because you think that IQ is predictive. That does not seem to be the case either. From what I've seen in the literature so far, it's not clear that higher IQ children (among their age group) grow up into higher IQ adults (among their new age group), and that multiple studies looking into race & IQ noted that the average IQ of black children reduced with age, and were attempting to find the source of that.
The point of IQ tests is about understanding the ability of the ability of the mind to process difficult and abstract cognitive tasks. It seems fairly obvious that using IQ tests for prediction of later age IQ is a problem since the brains of children are clearly not finished developing, so the tests actually can't be the same kind of tests that adults can take. The children will obviously fail at more difficult questions / tasks (again, children who don't have Theory Of Mind can't abstract to any significant degree). If these children are starved or concussed before they reach adulthood, what they could have achieved in IQ may be lost. It's not possible to control for those variables, so any sort of developmental changes will alter it's predictive quality.
The point for an IQ test is not to administer it as early as possible, but to keep doing it to keep track of how the subject is developing mentally.
And again, most of the research rejects your claim about 'wasting money teaching niggers'. It in fact explicitly states that the ability to learn and IQ are different issues, and that even low IQ individuals have the ability to learn, thus different teaching methods between lower & higher IQ individuals would be successful.
I guess to sum it up: you're conflating IQ by race and IQ by age, intentionally.