very_poggers_gay [they/them]

  • 0 Posts
  • 30 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: June 20th, 2021
  • very_poggers_gay [they/them]@hexbear.nettonews@hexbear.net•Bulletins and News Discussion from August 12th to August 18th, 2024 - Marshall Plan: Now As Farce - COTW: IrelandEnglish
    5·
    11 days ago

    Yeah, for sure! I can info-dump for ages, but I’ll try to be brief.

    Generally, “intelligence” or “IQ” refers to someone’s ability to think about and solve different kinds of abstract problems. The “IQ” that is the focus of most people’s criticism is the “Full-Scale Intelligence Quotient” that a test might produce. This is a single score based on someone’s performance on like 10 or more different tasks on an intelligence test. Here’s a breakdown of the standard intelligence test for adults:

    The squares on the right side are the names of specific tasks, and they are designed to capture different kinds of cognitive functions:

    • “Verbal Comprehension” is about solving problems with words;
    • “Perceptual Reasoning” is about solving problems with visual and spatial information;
    • “Working Memory” is about efficiently learning and remembering things;
    • “Processing Speed” is about quickly solving simple problems.

    The four scores that capture someone’s performance on these different areas are almost universally more important and useful than someone’s FSIQ, which has them all lumped together. Sometimes, the FSIQ is the simplest way to communicate someone’s overall ability to solve problems with their mind. Other times, we don’t even report the FSIQ, because there is enough difference between the four areas that the FSIQ isn’t actually useful. In contrast, it is always important to look at the composite scores for the different areas, so we can more precisely describe someone’s strengths and weaknesses, like if they are better or worse at solving visual/spatial problems than verbal problems; how quickly or efficiently they can process information; how easily can they remember new information; etc. … Like, you can have two people with similar FSIQ’s, but completely different strengths and weaknesses. One person could have a lower than average FSIQ, but score higher than 99.9% of their peers in a specific area. There’s a lot of nuance in intelligence testing that gets lost in the “IQ” discourse.

    There’s also a lot of confusion about what “average” means, and what makes someone above, below, or within average. One thing that makes the ‘real’ tests different from others, is that they come with a normative sample, meaning the test manufacturer has enough testing data from people of all ages to estimate the average scores for specific age groups. There are important limits to these comparisons though, for example, when assessing people with different ethnic/racial backgrounds and, ironically, neurodivergent people.

    When someone gets an IQ score between 85 and 115, that means they are in the average range for their age group. Children and youth are typically grouped by each 1-2 years of age; Adults are grouped by 5-10 years. The average range is also surprisingly large, accounting for 50% or even 68% of people. People have to score a lot higher or lower than the exact average to be considered actually above or below average.

    Nowadays, scores from an IQ test are best for describing someone’s strengths and weaknesses, and for personalizing supports and recommendations. Measuring intelligence is like half the criteria for diagnosing intellectual disabilities (the second half is about how independently someone can manage everyday living). The diagnostic criteria for specific learning disorders (e.g., difficulties with reading, writing, and/or math) no longer requires intelligence testing, but it is helpful for the descriptive/explanatory piece I mentioned above.

    I guess at the core of it, I think there is a cultural issue with “IQ” that psychologists need to do more to address. “Intelligence”, as psychologists understand it, is very different than the “intelligence” discussed outside of academia and psychology clinics. For psychologists, intelligence is a very real, meaningful, albeit imperfect construct. It took decades for psychologists to agree on what they think “intelligence” is and how they can measure it. Mfers were so desperate they created new statistical methods, like factor analysis, to measure “intelligence”. But these methods are now the standard in social sciences. I’d wager that intelligence is the most researched psychological concept, although idk for sure.

    I was not really brief, fml.

  • very_poggers_gay [they/them]@hexbear.nettonews@hexbear.net•Bulletins and News Discussion from July 29th to August 4th, 2024 - Haters Stay Mad(uro) - COTW: VenezuelaEnglish
    22·
    25 days ago

    There’s a lot of comfort that can come from believing that the disastrous COVID-19 pandemic - with all the death and disablement it caused - started from a single point and was only made possible by someone’s mistake on the other side of the world, whether it was a lab leak caused by a random technician or someone unknowingly eating infected meat. That belief tells us that the pandemic was preventable, and that as long as people are being careful at work and eating foods deemed normal by the West (b/c racism, obviously), it shouldn’t happen again. Keep calm and carry on type shit.

    The fact that strains of SARS-Cov-2 responsible for the global pandemic were circulating in Africa, Europe, North America, and Asia for months before major outbreaks without our awareness means that we could already be well on our way to another global pandemic. The next virus could already be circulating, and we probably won’t know until it’s too late. That is some cosmic horror.