Your IQ is a capability. Its there with you from the moment you are born and we literally select for age because the guys who made it weren't so retarded they thought a 150 IQ 4 year old could do the same feats as a 150 IQ 50 year old.
Your intelligence capacity is that, but I've seen nothing to show that IQ demonstrates what your achieved intellectual capacity will end up actually being. Just where you are from a relative position. It really seems like it makes more sense to use it as a way of seeing on whether or not your cognitive abilities are developing as expected by testing every year.
And some of the early tests sound like they were made by retards if "genetic intelligence" is what they were going for. Asking questions about the names of baseball teams in early tests is pretty dumb. Especially when you hand the tests to people who can't read, or don't speak English (especially if all the questions are in English).
Even with genetic brain capabilities in mind, the IQ test can't eliminate environmental factors, because the subject is living in an environment. Starvation and head trauma will inevitably change the outcome even if we assume the early tests to be accurate.
And to go back to my original point, I think that the difference is whether we are testing by group, by age, or by group and age. My example is by group exclusively, not by age cohort.
And some of the early tests sound like they were made by retards if "genetic intelligence" is what they were going for.
Well a lot of the early tests were also being used as eugenical barometers and developed with very ulterior motives in mind.
Psychology as a field has a stark difference between "trying to properly understand the brain" and "learning to manipulate the brain to our ends" and its been that way from basically the outset. And category 2 there is often far more numerous, funded, and powerful so it drowns out the rest.
Starvation and head trauma will inevitably change the outcome even if we assume the early tests to be accurate.
Well of course literal brain rotting actions will diminish the brain's ability. But I don't think the equivalent to losing your fingers means your arm muscles are also now less capable, only that you can no longer manage to reach that capacity yourself. Its a pedantic difference in how it manifests in reality, but the difference is huge in the scientific details.
I think that the difference is whether we are testing by group, by age, or by group and age
Of course it will be, the problem is we as a people can no longer properly define a "group" for the purpose of these tests beyond "the entire world" which leaves a lot of improper testing and poor control being thrown into the pot while calculating the "Average."
So in the end, the IQ scale will be useless beyond a very generalized picture until we can sort that out. And I doubt we ever will.
But I don't think the equivalent to losing your fingers means your arm muscles are also now less capable, only that you can no longer manage to reach that capacity yourself. Its a pedantic difference in how it manifests in reality, but the difference is huge in the scientific details.
Yeah, I'm focusing that because, using your analogy, IQ is like measuring your grip strength. Yes, grip strength at relative age will be determined by genetics in a large part, but there will be an environmental impacts that can effect grip strength. Sure, we can infer that there will be a trend that stronger gripped children may be pre-disposed to being stronger gripped adults, but this isn't a certainty because of environmental factors.
It isn't a certainty, but if we can show a consistent trend in one direction or another we can better accommodate and adjust expectations towards both an individual or a group.
In the case from OPs picture however, the "environmental factors" is just a handwave excuse they could not define nor name to ignore the uncomfortable truth of black people's lower intelligence as a whole because it would ruin their "we are the same species" indoctrination.
Well, there's nothing to suggest that black people are a different species. The fact that blacks and whites can have fertile children makes that a pretty straight-forward answer.
More than anything, I feel like looking at why black IQ's are low would show very clear cultural results that they would need to hide under racialism. Leftism causes lower IQ's in populations due to a large number of environmental factors, not least among them is a major effort to remove meritocracy as a social filter. Several decades of social deconstruction, anti-meritocracy, anti-family policy, random violence, low quality food, high crime, magical thinking, vice addiction, rampant corruption, predation culture, and low information clearly cause major IQ collapse in a society.
Black communities in America may never have been worse since the Left began revolutionizing them. The success of the Civil Rights movement may have successfully done more damage to black populations in the US than slavery, Jim Crow, and mandatory illiteracy ever did. Indians on reservations seem to be going the same thing, and even White communities are destroyed through similar efforts with de-industrialization in the midwest, or the Progressive hell-hole of the Pacific North West.
Leftism is an anti-civilization death cult that seems to kill everything it touches. It is no wonder the bloodiest era in human history takes place immediately after the Progressive Era... unless we admit that we are still in it.
Your intelligence capacity is that, but I've seen nothing to show that IQ demonstrates what your achieved intellectual capacity will end up actually being. Just where you are from a relative position. It really seems like it makes more sense to use it as a way of seeing on whether or not your cognitive abilities are developing as expected by testing every year.
And some of the early tests sound like they were made by retards if "genetic intelligence" is what they were going for. Asking questions about the names of baseball teams in early tests is pretty dumb. Especially when you hand the tests to people who can't read, or don't speak English (especially if all the questions are in English).
Even with genetic brain capabilities in mind, the IQ test can't eliminate environmental factors, because the subject is living in an environment. Starvation and head trauma will inevitably change the outcome even if we assume the early tests to be accurate.
And to go back to my original point, I think that the difference is whether we are testing by group, by age, or by group and age. My example is by group exclusively, not by age cohort.
Well a lot of the early tests were also being used as eugenical barometers and developed with very ulterior motives in mind.
Psychology as a field has a stark difference between "trying to properly understand the brain" and "learning to manipulate the brain to our ends" and its been that way from basically the outset. And category 2 there is often far more numerous, funded, and powerful so it drowns out the rest.
Well of course literal brain rotting actions will diminish the brain's ability. But I don't think the equivalent to losing your fingers means your arm muscles are also now less capable, only that you can no longer manage to reach that capacity yourself. Its a pedantic difference in how it manifests in reality, but the difference is huge in the scientific details.
Of course it will be, the problem is we as a people can no longer properly define a "group" for the purpose of these tests beyond "the entire world" which leaves a lot of improper testing and poor control being thrown into the pot while calculating the "Average."
So in the end, the IQ scale will be useless beyond a very generalized picture until we can sort that out. And I doubt we ever will.
Yeah, I'm focusing that because, using your analogy, IQ is like measuring your grip strength. Yes, grip strength at relative age will be determined by genetics in a large part, but there will be an environmental impacts that can effect grip strength. Sure, we can infer that there will be a trend that stronger gripped children may be pre-disposed to being stronger gripped adults, but this isn't a certainty because of environmental factors.
It isn't a certainty, but if we can show a consistent trend in one direction or another we can better accommodate and adjust expectations towards both an individual or a group.
In the case from OPs picture however, the "environmental factors" is just a handwave excuse they could not define nor name to ignore the uncomfortable truth of black people's lower intelligence as a whole because it would ruin their "we are the same species" indoctrination.
Well, there's nothing to suggest that black people are a different species. The fact that blacks and whites can have fertile children makes that a pretty straight-forward answer.
More than anything, I feel like looking at why black IQ's are low would show very clear cultural results that they would need to hide under racialism. Leftism causes lower IQ's in populations due to a large number of environmental factors, not least among them is a major effort to remove meritocracy as a social filter. Several decades of social deconstruction, anti-meritocracy, anti-family policy, random violence, low quality food, high crime, magical thinking, vice addiction, rampant corruption, predation culture, and low information clearly cause major IQ collapse in a society.
Black communities in America may never have been worse since the Left began revolutionizing them. The success of the Civil Rights movement may have successfully done more damage to black populations in the US than slavery, Jim Crow, and mandatory illiteracy ever did. Indians on reservations seem to be going the same thing, and even White communities are destroyed through similar efforts with de-industrialization in the midwest, or the Progressive hell-hole of the Pacific North West.
Leftism is an anti-civilization death cult that seems to kill everything it touches. It is no wonder the bloodiest era in human history takes place immediately after the Progressive Era... unless we admit that we are still in it.