I'll go on the record to say that IQ is as real as any other social construct like money, God, or nationality. Depending on your predilection that can range from worthless to "party of the fabric of reality itself."
IQ isn't a social construct. It is a actual quantitative measure of how well the brain can process information. This is why lead blood concentration causes a predictable decrease in IQ.
You can measure how much money you have in your bank account and money is a social construct. Spending money leads to having measurably less money. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
You might be confusing "social construct" with fake. That's not at all what I'm saying.
IQ isn't a social construct because intelligence is not a social construct. A social construct is something that is created by everyone agreeing that it is real, like money. Human intelligence is a function of how the human brain works and is NOT a social construct.
It's funny arguing with someone who has reified the concept so thoroughly that dereification is unthinkable.
First off I'm setting aside the argument that intelligence is constructed or not. Ssecondly, social ontologists would say that you're arguing from grounding.
You're arguing that because one thing is grounded in the other and the latter is real that the former is real as well. It also sounds like this is taken as axiomatic, to which I simply say, prove that's how grounding works.
Everything is a social construct. It is just a vapid meaningless statement sociologists use to legitimize their expertise and colonize other fields of inquiry that were traditionally the domains of philosophers and scientists. The whole thing is just repackaged Marxist analysis of everything as a social relation.
Things that only work if everyone thinks they are real ARE social constructs. Money is the best example of these. But some pretentious people just LOVE to feel smart by saying everything is a social construct like it is some profound insight that we would all be in awe of.
"sociologists use to legitimize their expertise and colonize other fields of inquiry that were traditionally the domains of philosophers and scientists. The whole thing is just repackaged Marxist analysis of everything as a social relation."
It’s a very heterogenous academic field. Some parts of it are scientific; some parts are pseudo-scientific; some parts are simply non-scientific, which, of course, doesn’t mean that those parts are less worthy or worse than scientific parts.
I am not familiar enough to understand what information you are trying to convey using that term. Can you confirm that IQ is a social construct in exactly the same way all other things I listed are social constructs?
Then it seems extremely disingenuous that you only mention money, God and nationality as if you have an axe to grind. Why not say that it is a social construct like the Global Warming, the Holocaust and gender dysphoria?
HN members on average hold views on these topics that are more apt to view as socially constructed than other topics. By focusing on these topics, we can explore why they might be socially constructed and why those reasons are necessary and sufficient. Once establishing that, we can examine IQ to see if they apply as well.
Don't mistake me bringing them up as an endorsement or critique of them in and of themselves. Besides, bringing up global warning, the holocaust, and gender dysphoria will inevitably attract follow-ons who want to debate the validity of those topics.
I'm not here to do that. What I want to establish is what the salient aspects you think constitute a social construct by using these topics as an example. If you want to switch to a different set, by all means, go ahead and choose them instead. I personally think it will be a less productive discussion, but I'm willing to play along.