> There is a quite good substantive reason for that other than mere selection
> probability. The actual academic work rarely involves tasks that are tested
> on 'aptitude' tests. AFAIK, typical academic work involves reading
> assignments and writing term papers in your own environment (i.e. home,
> library, or dorm) and, somewhat less frequently, participating in collective
> activities (seminars, group research projects, etc.) involving information
> sharing - rather than picking up a right choice from the four or five
> alternatives spelled out by the testing authority and doing so in a strictly
> controlled and timed environment. These two are very different cognitive
> tasks, and only blind faith that both types of task involve some form of
> 'latent general intelligence' can establish equivalence among them.
I don't believe that IQ tests measure "latent general intelligence".
However, your perception of the differences between "actual academic
work" and IQ tests notwithstanding, the fact remains that IQ scores
fairly accurately predict academic outcomes.
>
>
> The second point is that nowadays life tends to imitate art, or rather
> kitsch. This is true of the academic environment too. More and more,
> academic work involves standardized testing rather than teaching how to
> think independently, less alone critically. From that point of view, your
> claim seems to be true - not because IQ-like testing discovered something
> useful about human cognition (its contribution in that area is less than
> zero, negative, as it obscures more than it reveals, but because its
> practices are aped by academic institutions. And the only reason why the
> latter is happening is that testing is big business that is in a position of
> imposing demand for its product by modifying institutional environment of
> the nation. This is no different from other business practice in the US -
> the auto industry creating the demand for car by forcing government to
> undercut alternative modes of transit, the insurance industry forcing
> government to undercut public health care system, real estate and developer
> business constraining the supply of affordable housing - you get the drift.
>
>
Sure, I agree with this. Social relations shape people with certain
mentalities, and that mentality is assessed pretty well by IQ tests.
> I would go as far as saying that it is not true that IQ and kindred
> "aptitude" tests capture one of several important cognitive skills. They
> capture only a marginal one, while leaving all the important ones out. In
> short, they obscure more than they can possibly explain.
>
>
Well, important for whom? If you want to predict academic performance
or performance in jobs that require extended formal education, IQ tests
do a good job. From the perspective of the capitalist class, that's
pretty important (personnel selection). I don't follow the last
sentence: what do they obscure? Certainly not people's likelihood of
succeeding in various social settings that require formal education!
> Finally, a thought that I believe Ravi would like. Psychometrics, like
> neo-classical economics and kindred brands of positivism/scientism more
> generally - is more religion than science. It is "science" in a superficial
> way only - by ritualistic adherence to certain procedures that are used by
> science. But while real science uses these procedures as the means to an
> end, scientists/positivists use them as an end in itself.
>
>
Read more psychometrics; it's true that there are hacks like Murray and
Herrnstein associated with psychometrics, but there is a lot of
important scientific work being done in the area (see Max's recent web
links for some interesting, rigorous psychometric stuff). Keep in mind
that IQ testing is not equivalent to psychometrics, and many people with
psychometric training reject the claim (as I do) that IQ measures
general intelligence.
Miles