Our way to measure IQ is build on the core assumption that IQ doesn’t really change. Our way to measure depression is on the other hand build on the assumption that depression changes over our lifetime.
We likely need a new way to measure intelligence or stupidity to say well that a treatment increases it within a span of a year.
That’s a good point—if a type of question on an IQ test shows variability from year to year, do psychologists say it’s a bad type of question and remove it from the test?
Yes. A high test-retest correlation is one of the most basic criteria for an IQ test question or any inventory/item intended to measure something which is considered reasonably stable. (If it can’t even measure itself, how is it going measure anything else?)
They do, but there are also efforts to develop tests that measure other important aspects of cognition, which have an important bearing on things like how well you can function in society and how much of a risk you are to other people (these tests are, more or less, measuring what the rationality community might refer to as rationality). See, for example, What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought by Keith Stanovich.
The situation here is a bit comparable to the standard test for psychopathy, which includes questions like “did the patient ever harm animals as a child?” The test was designed by a psychologist, and not meant to be used in a criminal justice context. But it has nevertheless become standard. The problem is that it makes rehabilitation extremely difficult—you can’t change answers to historical questions, so rehabilitated criminal psychopaths are sometimes unable to score high enough to have their status changed, which affects parole options.
Not directly relevant, but a comparable to study if someone seriously takes a stab at a “stupidity test.”
I’m not sure that’s completely true. Rehabilitation is difficult in principle. Parole boards should not put dangerous people on the street even if they have improved slightly.
In a perfect world, parole boards would give the credence for recidivism and have credence calibration based on it. People on such a board can use questions like “did the patient ever harm animals as a child?” to inform themselves to the extend it helps them make better predictions.
Yes, there’s are people who complain about the metrics and who think they are unfair. The makers of these scales also don’t like them to be used for this purpose.
At the same time I’m not convinced that the metrics aren’t up to the task.
Yes, IQ tests are medical measurements and they’re helpful to medical practitioners.
Yes IQ is only loosely related to what we call “intelligence” in the broader sense. The term “IQ” is really consufing because a) it does not measure intelligence and b) it’s not a quotient.
Our way to measure IQ is build on the core assumption that IQ doesn’t really change. Our way to measure depression is on the other hand build on the assumption that depression changes over our lifetime.
We likely need a new way to measure intelligence or stupidity to say well that a treatment increases it within a span of a year.
That’s a good point—if a type of question on an IQ test shows variability from year to year, do psychologists say it’s a bad type of question and remove it from the test?
Yes. A high test-retest correlation is one of the most basic criteria for an IQ test question or any inventory/item intended to measure something which is considered reasonably stable. (If it can’t even measure itself, how is it going measure anything else?)
As far as I understand, they do. Or they say that there are training effects and those count really count for the true IQ.
They do, but there are also efforts to develop tests that measure other important aspects of cognition, which have an important bearing on things like how well you can function in society and how much of a risk you are to other people (these tests are, more or less, measuring what the rationality community might refer to as rationality). See, for example, What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought by Keith Stanovich.
The situation here is a bit comparable to the standard test for psychopathy, which includes questions like “did the patient ever harm animals as a child?” The test was designed by a psychologist, and not meant to be used in a criminal justice context. But it has nevertheless become standard. The problem is that it makes rehabilitation extremely difficult—you can’t change answers to historical questions, so rehabilitated criminal psychopaths are sometimes unable to score high enough to have their status changed, which affects parole options.
Not directly relevant, but a comparable to study if someone seriously takes a stab at a “stupidity test.”
I’m not sure that’s completely true. Rehabilitation is difficult in principle. Parole boards should not put dangerous people on the street even if they have improved slightly.
In a perfect world, parole boards would give the credence for recidivism and have credence calibration based on it. People on such a board can use questions like “did the patient ever harm animals as a child?” to inform themselves to the extend it helps them make better predictions.
Put “psychopath test parole” in your favorite search engine and you’ll find plenty of media coverage over the issue.
Yes, there’s are people who complain about the metrics and who think they are unfair. The makers of these scales also don’t like them to be used for this purpose. At the same time I’m not convinced that the metrics aren’t up to the task.
Yes, IQ tests are medical measurements and they’re helpful to medical practitioners. Yes IQ is only loosely related to what we call “intelligence” in the broader sense. The term “IQ” is really consufing because a) it does not measure intelligence and b) it’s not a quotient.