Re: Brain size, IQ
2 Sep 1996 17:35:16 -0600
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Ron Kephart <email@example.com> wrote:
>My feeling is that their is little or no point to the discussion of
>IQ, because the discussions (at least the ones I have seen) take the
>notion of "IQ" for granted as a measure of something called
That would be a worthy thread all its own, IMO. If IQ tests don't
measure various types of intelligences (I too reject a unitary general
intelligence, but think there are good developmental reasons for the
illusion of such a beast to emerge), why are they so darned predictive of
upward and downward socioeconomic mobility? Why are they so predictive
of school grades and why are they tied to developmental integrity?
These are fair questions, I think.
>"IQ" represents performance on a particular test, called an "IQ test",
>by a particular individual at a particular time and place. As far as
>I know, no one has ever proven that this measure represents
>something "real" inside the heads of the people who take the tests.
'Not sure what that means ("real"). But it represents something
relatively constant within a lifetime which has predictive value.
I believe that MRI and nerve conductivity and reaction time studies
indicate that IQ does at least correlate with something "real" inside the