@AntY - eviltoast
  • 0 Posts
  • 42 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle




  • I used the example to illustrate a point. The tests have a target population that they are constructed for. This is also the reason as to why modern people score really high on old tests, because they are not the target population. The thing is, people aren’t very different, neither across cultures nor across time. We should expect the average person of today to be just as intelligent as the average person of 1924, but they score differently in the test. It’s almost as if the test doesn’t measure intelligence at all! If the tests actually measured intelligence, they wouldn’t need to be specifically designed for a certain population.

    When an IQ-test is designed, a number of assumptions are made, e.g., normal distribution, that an underlying factor is well described by the battery of questions and that this underlying factor is the best thing that can explain the variation seen. All these assumptions are debatable at best. I mean, it’s just factor analysis, and all the assumptions of that statistical method applies.


  • AntY@lemmy.worldtoPolitical Memes@lemmy.worldHe doesn't know
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    If you’re measuring heart rate, breathing and sweating, I guess you could use a polygraph. If you want to measure a potential cognitive decline in a single person, you can have them do several of these tests to see if there’s a trend. There is nothing pseudoscientific about using these methods in this way. The pseudoscience comes in when we’re trying to tie the results to truthfulness in the case of the polygraph or intelligence in the case of the IQ test. Or even worse, when trying to compare two individuals from their results.


  • AntY@lemmy.worldtoPolitical Memes@lemmy.worldHe doesn't know
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    No, studies on IQ have shown that the test design often assume something about the population taking the test. If you produce a test for British students in secondary school and give it to miners in Zimbabwe, then the miners will probably achieve way lower scores than is it expected. This is because the students are more used to taking tests. IQ tests have been used in this way to promote racist ideas, when the real problem is the methodology behind IQ tests.

    There’s a whole book about this, “the mismeasure of man”, by Stephen Jay Gould.










  • The municipality where I live made a study on green house gas emissions by where people lived. Curiously, the people living in the city center where those with the largest environmental footprint and those living more than 20 km away from the city caused the least emissions. They claimed that the difference was mainly due to lifestyle. People in the city tended to travel more by plane, ate food that had been prepared in restaurants rather than making it themselves, shopped more clothes and so on.

    When there was a bus strike in the same city, air quality improved markedly. I suspect that those who take the bus in this particular city are those who would’ve otherwise biked (university students in Europe).

    Living in a city comes with certain limitations to what you can do in your weekends. You can easily go out to consume and thus cause emissions. When living in the countryside, you can walk to the closest lake and fish your dinner without any emissions. Pretending that cities is the most environmentally friendly place to live is to ignore what people do except working, sleeping and traveling between the two.