Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
A generous interpretation could be that it's a bad metric because you can train for it
Very generous and wrong. Any psychiatrist would tell you to not practice, and a when not practiced it's a very useful metric. We couldn't make as strong hypotheses about the effect environmental lead had on earlier generations without IQ tests. We couldn't measure the very interesting trend upwards in IQ scores over time regardless of lead, which implies anything from a structural problem with the test to a real improvement in intelligence in the general population since the test's invention. We couldn't quantify the genetic or environmental influences on intelligence without IQ either.
It's like saying a psychiatric test for depression is bad because you can practice to know the answers a depressed person would give.
not to double reply to you but the issue here isn’t training versus not training for the test; the issue is that psychiatrist and psychologist can’t rotely sort out what influences “training” and other activities actually had on the results of the test versus what a theoretical, “pure” test result would’ve been. frankly i’d imagine different psychologist in different context would want to control for this in a variety of ways. maybe in one experiment, telling the population not to train is the best way to get at the data you want. but for the most part? no. absolutely not. the claim that telling people to not train or study for an IQ test somehow is a be all end all control for wanton influences & noise in IQ results is total bunk. think about this. what even qualifies as studying for an IQ test? is the teenage boy incidentally studying for his ACT’s at the same time as a population IQ test, who consequently scored higher than the median average for his age range, cheating or invalid in his results? most people and psychology studies would likely say no, not really. this demonstrates some of the fundamental flaws in IQ and g-factor that psychologists have to recognize while working with them. there’s truly no real way to sort out what is “cheating/invalidating” on an IQ test versus what data is potentially legitimate. because objectively speaking, what IQ measures is incredibly subjective. on top of all that, either way, it’s impossible and impractical to try and control for every single thing people do in their daily lives.
EDIT: stray “a” removed
Here I took part of the point being that you can practice, and to some extent you may be unwittingly doing so. That's part of the upward trend. That's part of having to localized the test for a culture. We're to some extent practicing just due to the world immediately around us.
Should you or your kid intentionally practice? Probably not, but I took practicing and mentioning that to be part of the larger point that the test can be predictive for some things, but isn't destiny.