You're confusing (I HATE 'conflating') IQ with qualities of creativity, intuition, memorization, inference, understanding, and a host of other variable abilities and talents which make us unique and uniquely human.
IQ measures raw processing power. Think of it as the rate at which brain cells register and transmit impulses. There is a "blink test" which correlates reasonably well to measured IQ. A light is flashed and the subject presses a button as soon after the flash as possible. Faster reaction time, quicker brain response, higher IQ. Pretty simple really.
Murray/Herrnstein's "The Bell Curve" is still the standard for understanding IQ in America and all its complex social implications. DeBoer's "Cult of Smart" on the other hand, quickly and ably accepts that IQ is highly heritable and that it matters HUGELY—on an individual basis—in education. He explicit denies the existence of and refuses to discuss group differences (racial, ethnic, sex), and he can do so because it's simply not germane to his argument. For an educator, I think DeBoer's book is the more relevant and important. Should you wish to more fully understand IQ and how it is measured and distributed across America, Murray and Herrnstein are excellent guides.
I guess we'll agree to disagree, somewhat. I don't think we're enormously far from each other.
My point, and I'll stick with it, is IQ as a quantitative measurement has limited usefulness or predictive power. We can both go on and on, but my life experience (including psych courses dealing with IQ), tells me that IQ as a measure of a person's functionality is not reliable. Then agaIn, as psychologists everywhere say, when asked "What is intelligence?", they're facetious answer is, "It's whatever it is that the IQ test measures."
I don't suffer fools gladly—never have, never will. Happily, it looks like your escape from the category is imminent (depending on your reading speed). Here's to INFORMED discussions in the future...
You're confusing (I HATE 'conflating') IQ with qualities of creativity, intuition, memorization, inference, understanding, and a host of other variable abilities and talents which make us unique and uniquely human.
IQ measures raw processing power. Think of it as the rate at which brain cells register and transmit impulses. There is a "blink test" which correlates reasonably well to measured IQ. A light is flashed and the subject presses a button as soon after the flash as possible. Faster reaction time, quicker brain response, higher IQ. Pretty simple really.
Murray/Herrnstein's "The Bell Curve" is still the standard for understanding IQ in America and all its complex social implications. DeBoer's "Cult of Smart" on the other hand, quickly and ably accepts that IQ is highly heritable and that it matters HUGELY—on an individual basis—in education. He explicit denies the existence of and refuses to discuss group differences (racial, ethnic, sex), and he can do so because it's simply not germane to his argument. For an educator, I think DeBoer's book is the more relevant and important. Should you wish to more fully understand IQ and how it is measured and distributed across America, Murray and Herrnstein are excellent guides.
I guess we'll agree to disagree, somewhat. I don't think we're enormously far from each other.
My point, and I'll stick with it, is IQ as a quantitative measurement has limited usefulness or predictive power. We can both go on and on, but my life experience (including psych courses dealing with IQ), tells me that IQ as a measure of a person's functionality is not reliable. Then agaIn, as psychologists everywhere say, when asked "What is intelligence?", they're facetious answer is, "It's whatever it is that the IQ test measures."
Not about disagreeing—about knowledge vs. ignorance. You can do something about that (references given earlier).
A little snarky, aren't we? You have no idea what my range of knowledge and experience is, yet you feel qualified to judge it.
But I have started reading de Boer's book. Frustrating and informative at the same time.
I don't suffer fools gladly—never have, never will. Happily, it looks like your escape from the category is imminent (depending on your reading speed). Here's to INFORMED discussions in the future...
People with a dismissive, condescending attitude are usually compensating for a weak ego.
Small dicks, too...