Ok, let's see if I can address your other points now. BTW, if the OP feels like I am derailing his thread, please let me know-- I gots no problem shutting up here.
Isn't that Pascal's Wager?
I guess it might be, but the cost is some nominal sum of money (say, 50$ or 100$, which is about the most I'd pay for it). The potential benefit is vast, but we get the benefit only if they're right, and my skepticism is wrong (i.e., if it's true that people really do differ in learning styles, and matching learning to the style significantly boosts school performance). That's a big win worth the cost, since we're talking about a son's future.
Even if I think the win is improbable, I suspect it's still rational to do the program, as the potential (but improbable) benefits outway the certain but nominal costs.
Were this some type of woo therapy, then no way. But, the hypothesis seems reasonable, and certainly seems like an empirical question. So, yeah, if it's a pascal's wager, I'd take it here.
Claus Spots a Moving of Goal Posts.
Relatively, all of a sudden?
What you gave me was an argument based on what you "think". You pulled out some definitions of "intelligence" from...somewhere, you pointed to "debatable" evidence, you used words like "likely", "pretty much", "some view", "I see", "indirect", "reasonable", "to me". To top it off, you were very uncertain of what IQ measurements actually measure.
Ain't gonna work with me. You know me better than that.
Scientists have to use weasel words. I said relatively because they're not perfectly stable. They are stable vastly moreso than one would expect by chance, and given the correlation between grades (as one example) and IQ, one could calculate the probability of a 90 IQ person getting straight A's. It would be very small but larger than zero. So, I think the qualification "relatively" is accurate, but does not diminish the thrust of what I'm arguing (that IQ tests have vast practical utility for predicting things; and that IQ rank is "relatively" stable t/o the lifespan, which is exactly what Neisser et al conclude).
I realize I am in the minority here, and some are sure I'm either a woo/idiot, racist or both. So, I try to use qualifications for claims I make so people don't accuse me of over-selling the data.
The Neisser cite is authoritative, and the dozen or so authors of it include none of the major "g" theorists out there. In fact, Sternberg is the third author, and he's about as anti-g as it gets.
It represents the APA's consensus (10 years ago) about what the field knows and doesn't re IQ (hence the title of the article).
I am not. I am going with what you said. I am going with your claims.
No, I don't think you are saying that not all people are equally capable of learning. I think you are saying that all people are not equally capable of learning the same, but that people can learn to improve themselves, to some degree.
Isn't that true? Because if you are saying that not all people are equally capable of learning, then I cannot understand how you can advocate that the dumb are educated in any way.
No; I think learning is just applying brain power; some brains are more powerful than others. The differences (within the normal range of IQ) are purely quantitative. Smart and dull brains process info the same way; the former just do it faster and more efficiently.
I think anyone with an IQ of 70 or so can eventually memorize the 10 commandments. How fast and how well they're learned though would be predicted largely by IQ.
The development of crystallized intelligence however is much more domain general; it's literally absorbing facts about the world. Everyone does this, but smarter brains are more efficient absorbers, and so acquire knowledge faster and better.
But learning's not all or none in this context.
Now what if you said: Should we teach a 70 iq rocket science? I'd argue it's a waste of time. You may eventually find a counterexample (and if I practice real hard I someday might make it in the NBA).
This is an extreme example, though, and I don't think we know enough to say what an 87 should be taught versus a 93.
No, I am not. I am saying that IF the theory of IQ is true, THEN we have no reason to educate the dumb. It has nothing to do with offing those with a higher risk of a certain disease.
I dont think it follows -- you seem to be assuming that learning is step like. One gets to the next step or stays forever at the current step. It's not (they are learning curves not learning steps). How much you eventually acquire, and how fast you get there, is determined by IQ, but everyone should be able to rise up his or her curve to his or her ability determined ceiling.
What do you think of "The Mismeasure of Man"? You're at odds with one of the greatest skeptical minds here. You better whip out your best arguments.
But it isn't a case of being merely "ok", is it? If IQ determines your abilities, now and until you die, you are judged by your IQ, which in turn determines your whole life.
You can be an Epsilon or an Alpha. But don't think that Epsilons can be Alphas just like that.
IQ determines / reflects cognitive ability. That in turn predicts (strongly but imperfectly) many life outcomes. But that's all IQ measures. There are other things that also contribute to success-- personality motivation, opportunity, etc. There are also other types of important abilities-- musical, physical, people-type skills.
Just because IQ is the most important piece of the pie doesn't force the conclusion that we must label people only by IQ and then wash our hands to any type of intervention.
I've never claimed that, nor do I think my world view even remotely forces that conclusion.
I hope I didn't screw up the quotes.
