>>And for the record, the IQ tests I've seen have been pretty unbiased. There were few to no questions regarding material that would have been learned in school. It was largely pattern recognition, memory function, and ability to put things in sequential order based on logic that were tested.>>
The scholastic bias of IQ tests is rather subtle in that mere experience in schooling, experience doing paper and pencil problems at all, will influence scores on the test. We can also see the pure statistical correlation between schooling and performance. Still, yes, genetics do matter somewhat.
>>All I said was that people who lack intelligence are more likely to find themselves in a position to be impoverished.>>
And what I am saying is that the amount of people who perform poorly on the job market due to lack of innate intelligence is dwarfed severely by those who are barred from success by structural inequalities in our society.
>>Many of my classmates in school were, quite frankly, not the brightest knives in the drawer.>>
I'm gonna start using this expression.
>>On the validity of IQ tests: I think that an IQ test that is specifically designed for a population is valid.>>
Still, IQ tests must discard their pretensions of measuring an innate attribute.
>>yea i know, but i try to make statements that most people can understand. >>
What is the point of throwing out misleading half-truths that people can understand?
>>Would you not agree that IQ's are primarily taken into consideration in middle/high school?>>
Yes, but this is only because these are the ages when the predictive utility of IQ tests can be deployed. I would argue that fluid intelligence always matters, insofar as we are always encountering new situations and trying to make sense of them.
