[lbo-talk] Elite Institutions/SATs

[andie nachgeborenen]

Oh, just great. You defend the SAT, which measures
literally _nothing_, because it is crude approximation
to IQ tests, which measure the mythical "G," utterly
discredited by all but the true believers (except in
its orginal role of identifying or ruling out people
who might need special help), in the forlorn hope that
other intellectual capacities that we cannot also
measure are "correlated" with each other, though how
we know this if we cannot measure them is anybody's
guess. Ferchrissake, Luke, you should be able to see
throgh this series of fallacies and errors. It's
embarrasing to see you humiliate yourself in this way.

jks

--- Luke Weiger <lweiger at umich.edu> wrote:
> Brian/Joanna/Justin/Jacob:
> 
> I'm not going to vigorously defend the SATs or the
> theory of G.  I
> analogized the SAT with a crude measure of obesity
> (i.e. the Body Mass
> Index) because I think it's a crude measure of
> intelligence (and the verbal
> portion does in fact yield scores that are an
> excellent proxy for IQ, see
>
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/95sep/ets/grtsort2.htm).
>  Brian's analogy
> between IQ tests and his AQ (athletic quotient) test
> is excellent, though
> perhaps it would be tighter if the athletic
> abilities tested correlated
> highly with one another (e.g. jumping and sprinting)
> in the same way that
> the intellectual abilities commonly tested by IQ
> tests correlate highly with
> one another.  One final note: I believe Michigan's
> current boy wonder
> philosophy prof scored in the 1100s on his SATs.
> 
> -- Luke
> 
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com