On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> Miles:
> > It's a pretty good proxy for academic ability. It doesn't really
> > measure everyday, practical intelligence very well. (The "book
> > smarts"/"street smarts" cliche is apt here.)
>
> I'm sorry but you are plain wrong. The correlation between IQ and academic
> "ability" - if any, is not empirical nut by definition. That is to say,
> people who score low in IQ-like tests are not admitted to the academia and
> thus cannot provide counterevidence or at least the counterevidence they may
> provide does not weigh as much as the supporting evidence.
I can't believe I'm the defender of IQ testing on LBO; in fact, I'm a voiciferous opponent of the claim that IQ measures intelligence. However, I'm unwilling to misinterpret rigorous scientific research to support my position. Woj misunderstands or brazenly misrepresents the relevant research here. In longitudinal studies, people with higher IQ scores earlier in life tend to have higher academic outcomes later in life. This is not simply a mortality/attrition confound.
If you look at the IQ tests, it's pretty obvious why people who do well in academic contexts do well on IQ tests. The items on the test include vocabulary, math, geography, memorization, pattern-matching--all of the basic academic skills and knowledge you gain in school. Think of IQ tests as something like the SAT or the ACT: a standardized test to assess academic achievement/ability. --And just as SAT scores are correlated with college grades, so is the Stanford-Binet.
Miles