Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [evol-psych] Re: RT Measures Confirm Male IQ Advantage

Expand Messages
  • Joao Sousa
    Folks: Why not to work with only absolute scales of cognitive performance, without ANY normalization to age groups, sex, populations, and so on? After all,
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Folks:

      Why not to work with only absolute scales of cognitive performance, without
      ANY normalization to age groups, sex, populations, and so on? After all,
      isn't it what we do for height? We measure height in cm, or inches, and we
      don't try to construct a height quotient in order to all age groups
      measuring the same average = 100. So, why not the same simple principle to
      cognitive measures, such as Reaction Times, etc?

      Absolute values are more scientific. If we did this for RT, for example, or
      other cognitive measure, there would be a curve of the progression of the
      RT with age, perhaps with a peak at 25-30 years old, and declining
      thereafter. What would be the problem of some of these measurements being
      much age-dependent?

      People interested in sex differences, ethnic differences, and so on, would
      continue equally free of researching them, perhaps patters would be even
      clearer.

      This is the way zoologists work when they measure anything in animals. They
      don't construct normalized quotients bound to averages of 100... For
      example, they acknowledge that giraffes are taller than gazelles, they
      don't say that both have height quotients of 100. Think on this, studies of
      cognitive skills would gain more credibility.


      At 18:36 30-09-2006 -0600, you wrote:

      >Roger Masters: To put it bluntly, "standardized testing" has had many
      >benefits, but as currently conceived it is a bureaucratic convenience that
      >can have unjust effects in specific cases. It is a FUTURE task to identify
      >and confirm any such cases and propose means to increase fairness (such as
      >a supplemental test tailored to a well-verified perceptual difference).
      >
      >Jay R. Feierman: If the purpose of IQ tests is to predict academic and
      >economic success in the industrialized world, then the tests, as currently
      >constructed, are remarkably useful. It would not be fair to construct a
      >test in which persons did better on the test but this increase in test
      >score did not translate into academic and economic success in the
      >industrialized world.
      >
      >Roger Masters: My concern is that the variability of personality types has
      >quite obviously been adaptive for our species precisely because it
      >guarantees differential responses to novel ecological or social
      >conditions. It is therefore of questionable utility to underming this
      >diversity of perception and response.
      >
      >Jay R. Feierman: I agree with you except that the issue is not just
      >personality types but rather types of individuals who don't do well on the
      >standard IQ tests. They vary in more than personality variables. Those
      >individuals also do not do well academically or economically in the
      >industrialized world. So other than tweaking the tests for its intended
      >purpose, I see no reason to try to make IQ tests more fair. Life is not
      >fair. I'm not as good in a particular sport as some of the people with
      >whom I compete. What good would it do me to have constructed a test of my
      >aptitude for this particular sport where I did better in the test but no
      >better on the playing field? Where fairness comes in is when IQ test score
      >differences between races are used to say that one race is less
      >"intelligent" than other races but where intelligence is defined as that
      >which is measured by the tests and in the school and marketplace in the
      >environment where what the test predicts are born out. Each variety of a
      >species, which includes racial varieties of the human species, is
      >optimally adapted to the environment in which it evolved. To test one
      >variety in the environment in which another variety evolved and then to
      >conclude that the variety which was tested in the environment in which it
      >did not evolved did not do as well as the variety which was tested in its
      >home environment tells us as much about the tester as it does about that
      >which is being tested.
      >
    • Nils K. Oeijord
      Hi Joao! Hi all! Agree! But one absolute scale for men and another absolute scale for women. Because it s unscientific to compare things that cannot be
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Joao! Hi all!

        Agree! But one absolute scale for men and another absolute scale for
        women. Because it's unscientific to compare things that cannot be
        compared. The IQ of today is pretty primitive and oversimplified.
        We can do much better.

        Best,
        Nils K. O.



        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Joao Sousa
        <j.d.sousa@...> wrote:
        >
        > Folks:
        >
        > Why not to work with only absolute scales of cognitive performance,
        without
        > ANY normalization to age groups, sex, populations, and so on? After
        all,
        > isn't it what we do for height? We measure height in cm, or inches,
        and we
        > don't try to construct a height quotient in order to all age groups
        > measuring the same average = 100. So, why not the same simple
        principle to
        > cognitive measures, such as Reaction Times, etc?
        >
        > Absolute values are more scientific. If we did this for RT, for
        example, or
        > other cognitive measure, there would be a curve of the progression
        of the
        > RT with age, perhaps with a peak at 25-30 years old, and declining
        > thereafter. What would be the problem of some of these measurements
        being
        > much age-dependent?
        >
        > People interested in sex differences, ethnic differences, and so
        on, would
        > continue equally free of researching them, perhaps patters would be
        even
        > clearer.
        >

        <Snip>
      • Michael Lamport Commons
        That is what we do with highest stage. Hierarchical complexity of tasks is on an absolute ordinal scale running from 1 to 14. People s performances are on an
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          That is what we do with highest stage. Hierarchical complexity of tasks is
          on an absolute ordinal scale running from 1 to 14. People's performances
          are on an interval scale of the same range.

          My Best,

          Michael Lamport Commons, Ph.D.
          Assistant Clinical Professor
          Program in Psychiatry and the Law
          Department of Psychiatry
          Harvard Medical School
          Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
          234 Huron Avenue
          Cambridge, MA 02138-1328

          Telephone (617) 497-5270
          Facsimile (617) 491-5270
          Commons@...
          http://dareassociation.org/



          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Joao Sousa" <j.d.sousa@...>
          To: <evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 12:40 AM
          Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: RT Measures Confirm Male IQ Advantage


          > Folks:
          >
          > Why not to work with only absolute scales of cognitive performance,
          > without
          > ANY normalization to age groups, sex, populations, and so on? After all,
          > isn't it what we do for height? We measure height in cm, or inches, and we
          > don't try to construct a height quotient in order to all age groups
          > measuring the same average = 100. So, why not the same simple principle to
          > cognitive measures, such as Reaction Times, etc?
          >
          > Absolute values are more scientific. If we did this for RT, for example,
          > or
          > other cognitive measure, there would be a curve of the progression of the
          > RT with age, perhaps with a peak at 25-30 years old, and declining
          > thereafter. What would be the problem of some of these measurements being
          > much age-dependent?
          >
          > People interested in sex differences, ethnic differences, and so on, would
          > continue equally free of researching them, perhaps patters would be even
          > clearer.
          >
          > This is the way zoologists work when they measure anything in animals.
          > They
          > don't construct normalized quotients bound to averages of 100... For
          > example, they acknowledge that giraffes are taller than gazelles, they
          > don't say that both have height quotients of 100. Think on this, studies
          > of
          > cognitive skills would gain more credibility.
          >
          >
          > At 18:36 30-09-2006 -0600, you wrote:
          >
          <Snip>
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.