[truthteller]

from your link: "The American Psychological Association's report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that in the United States IQ tests as predictors of social achievement are not biased against African Americans since they predict future performance, such as school achievement, similarly to the way they predict future performance for Caucasians."

so the consensus in psychometrics is that iq tests are not systematically biased against particular groups.

and of course it measures a lot more than a person's ability to take intelligence tests". just look at the "social outcomes" section of the wikipedia page...

[lutusp]

> The American Psychological Association's report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that in the United States IQ tests as predictors of social achievement are not biased against African Americans since they predict future performance ...

The flaw in the reasoning should be obvious to anyone but a psychologist -- the test outcome becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, rather than an unbiased predictor of future performance. The contempt for science among psychologists is shocking.

> so the consensus in psychometrics is that iq tests are not systematically biased against particular groups.

Psychologists also came to a consensus among themselves (and, as usual, without any scientific evidence) that Asperger's was a real mental illness, and that Recovered Memory Therapy was a real therapeutic method. Fortunately, and to some extent because of these credibility issues, society is in the midst of dumping psychology as a serious endeavor:

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia...

In summary, until there is some science in brain research, all this talk about IQ testing is overreliant on effects without any clue about causes -- on descriptions without explanations.

Notice the name of President Obama's recently announced program -- the "Brain Initiative", not the "Mind Initiative". The handwriting is on the wall.

[truthteller]

the point is that they predict future performance equally for different groups, not just that they predict performance. your language is alarmingly exaggerated and pompous for someone who lacks basic reading comprehension skills and is entirely ignorant about the subject of intelligence testing.

[lutusp]

> the point is that they predict future performance equally for different groups ...

That is false, and its falsity has been proven repeatedly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Test_bias

Quote: "However, IQ tests may well be biased when used in other situations. A 2005 study stated that "differential validity in prediction suggests that the WAIS-R test may contain cultural influences that reduce the validity of the WAIS-R as a measure of cognitive ability for Mexican American students,"[123] indicating a weaker positive correlation relative to sampled white students. Other recent studies have questioned the culture-fairness of IQ tests when used in South Africa.[124][125] Standard intelligence tests, such as the Stanford-Binet, are often inappropriate for children with autism; the alternative of using developmental or adaptive skills measures are relatively poor measures of intelligence in autistic children, and may have resulted in incorrect claims that a majority of children with autism are mentally retarded."

Just one sample from a large literature on this topic.

> your language is alarmingly exaggerated and pompous for someone who lacks basic reading comprehension skills and is entirely ignorant about the subject of intelligence testing.

Nice argument. Do give us more samples of your logically flawed reasoning. The readers of this forum will surely appreciate your credibility sacrifice.

[barrkel]

FWIW, you're replying to Paul Lutus: http://www.arachnoid.com/administration/ ; I think you can assume he can read.