The consequence of not offering classes on IQ and human intelligence
sciencedirect.com
sciencedirect.com
Education about IQ testing could also be put in context of eugenics, social policy across history. Intelligence testing has ugly roots.
I honestly don't mean to sound condescending but, as you grow older and gather more life experience, you'll understand how the above quoted paragraph is absurd, even though it sounds like a smart and reasonable statement to you now.
As I've grown older it never ceases to amaze me how ugly debate online can be when a simple "I don't agree" will do.
Ah. Wonderful. I'm roughly a decade younger than you so we can speak more meaningfully.
It's not that I don't agree with you, it's that: if we want to learn about a given phenomenon x, we don't do that by studying things that are about x but not x. We try to narrow our approach to the simplest measurable features of exactly the thing because the world is complicated and confusing!
The younger set tend to always want to debate about something other than the phenomenon in question because they have a point to make that they feel strongly about and making the point is more important than the phenomenon to be studied (E.g. You try to teach a class on monetary inflation, and a vocal student immediately wants to discuss income inequality and economic justice rather than the actual math of hedonic adjustments). That was the heuristic I applied when reading your comment.
So, in reference to the article, the important questions are those listed, starting with: what _is_ intelligence? (Because humanity hasn't yet even developed a sophisticated science of intelligence, we can't yet intervene to reliably increase it in individuals.)
>if we want to learn about a given phenomenon x, we don't do that by studying things that are about x but not x.
But if we want to learn about x, we often have to consider the real life implications of x.
You want to argue against a point no one is making so … go nuts.
Cool. Thanks for contributing much of substance. Or is your only contribution tone policing according to your weird standard of what constitutes discourse?
The relationship of I.Q. to the eugenics movement, its application to social policy justifying the sterilisation of people at the low extreme, to exclude immigrants, to argue for substantive racial differences justifying laws of exclusion and difference, I really don't think can be ignored.
"Importance" is in the eye of the beholder I find. If it's not important to you, so be it. I don't doubt there is a model of intelligence which an I.Q. test can try to quantify but I doubt intelligence a singleton, is quantifiable so simply, or based on the evidence to hand that rules based on the statistics of intelligence do very much good.
Ha! You're definitely not 62. This is something high schoolers and undergrads say and think is a profound and true observation but it's trivial.
An exercise: Try saying "there is probably no field of curing cancer which does not have downsides"
> Importance" is in the eye of the beholder I find.
No it isn't. Moral relativism will not get you far, which is what life teaches.
The whole point of education is to learn to discern an objective hierarchy of importance. E.g. play video games or study for test. We then say "that person has good judgement" when they can consistently figure out what is truly important which allows them to make progress in life.
The reason political battles, even if frequently silly, are so heated is because people do believe certain values are absolutely more important than those of their opponents and are willing to fight for them.
Anyway, now we're digressing. But thanks for the conversation and have a good week.
Let's start with basic statistics and data interpretation, media literacy, skepticism, theory of mind, case studies of genocides and rise of authoritarianism, civics, social and group psychology.
Meh, everyone has their pet causes that they believe are the more or most important thing while everything else is a "distraction".
The context of the paper however is teaching of psychology students who, by definition, are required to understand human cognition. Therefore, much of your syllabus wouldn't be appropriate for them, and the rest is already taught.