Post by Hoosier Hillbilly on Jul 10, 2015 7:32:14 GMT -5
Questions about the nature of intelligence and intelligence testing have sparked increasing controversy during the past two decades.
To determine current opinions among the relevant scientific communities on these issues, the authors used survey research to sample a broad group of experts in educational and developmental psychology as well as those whose specific expertise is intelligence testing. They found that, despite the common understanding to the contrary, most experts continue to believe that intelligence can be measured, and that genetic endowment plays an important role in IQ.
The central question addressed in this book is why expert opinion and public views toward intelligence and its measurement are so widely divergent. The authors conclude that the public's view of the IQ controversy has been shaped by inaccurate media coverage; and more importantly, by changes in the nature of American liberalism as well as the key role of civil rights issues in American life. The increasing influence of new strategic elites in the United States, and the changing role of the mass media, have profoundly affected the character of scientific information communicated to the general public and how it is communicated. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
IQ Range ("deviation IQ") IQ Classification
145–160 Very gifted or highly advanced
130–144 Gifted or very advanced
120–129 Superior
110–119 High average
90–109 Average
80–89 Low average
70–79 Borderline impaired or delayed
55–69 Mildly impaired or delayed
40–54 Moderately impaired or delayed
Critics point out that IQ tests don't measure creativity, social skills, wisdom, acquired abilities or a host of other things we consider to be aspects of intelligence. Although IQ attempts to measure some notion of intelligence, it may fail to act as an accurate measure of "intelligence" in its broadest sense. IQ tests only examine particular areas embodied by the broadest notion of "intelligence", failing to account for certain areas which are also associated with "intelligence" such as creativity or emotional intelligence.
IQ tests generally are reliable enough that most people ages ten and older have similar IQ scores throughout life. Still, some individuals score very differently when taking the same test at different times or when taking more than one kind of IQ test at the same age. Intelligence test scores typically follow what is known as a normal distribution, a bell-shaped curve in which the majority of scores lie near or around the average score.
Most observers, and I, agree that expanding enfranchisement makes a state more democratic. Most expansions of the suffrage bring in, on average, people who are less politically informed or less broadly educated than those already eligible to vote.
Putting these uncontroversial points together leads to the conclusion that as democracies become more democratic, their decision-making processes become of lower quality in terms of cognitive processing of issues and candidate choice. The paradox is both historical – why have democracies expanded the franchise to include relatively ignorant voters? – and normative – why should democracies expand the franchise to include relatively ignorant voters?
This website discusses requiring voters to take a test and I agree with their logic.
uspolitics.about.com/od/Voting/a/Should-Voters-Have-To-Pass-A-Test.htm
This was an interesting website I found also:
chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm
To determine current opinions among the relevant scientific communities on these issues, the authors used survey research to sample a broad group of experts in educational and developmental psychology as well as those whose specific expertise is intelligence testing. They found that, despite the common understanding to the contrary, most experts continue to believe that intelligence can be measured, and that genetic endowment plays an important role in IQ.
The central question addressed in this book is why expert opinion and public views toward intelligence and its measurement are so widely divergent. The authors conclude that the public's view of the IQ controversy has been shaped by inaccurate media coverage; and more importantly, by changes in the nature of American liberalism as well as the key role of civil rights issues in American life. The increasing influence of new strategic elites in the United States, and the changing role of the mass media, have profoundly affected the character of scientific information communicated to the general public and how it is communicated. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
IQ Range ("deviation IQ") IQ Classification
145–160 Very gifted or highly advanced
130–144 Gifted or very advanced
120–129 Superior
110–119 High average
90–109 Average
80–89 Low average
70–79 Borderline impaired or delayed
55–69 Mildly impaired or delayed
40–54 Moderately impaired or delayed
Critics point out that IQ tests don't measure creativity, social skills, wisdom, acquired abilities or a host of other things we consider to be aspects of intelligence. Although IQ attempts to measure some notion of intelligence, it may fail to act as an accurate measure of "intelligence" in its broadest sense. IQ tests only examine particular areas embodied by the broadest notion of "intelligence", failing to account for certain areas which are also associated with "intelligence" such as creativity or emotional intelligence.
IQ tests generally are reliable enough that most people ages ten and older have similar IQ scores throughout life. Still, some individuals score very differently when taking the same test at different times or when taking more than one kind of IQ test at the same age. Intelligence test scores typically follow what is known as a normal distribution, a bell-shaped curve in which the majority of scores lie near or around the average score.
Most observers, and I, agree that expanding enfranchisement makes a state more democratic. Most expansions of the suffrage bring in, on average, people who are less politically informed or less broadly educated than those already eligible to vote.
Putting these uncontroversial points together leads to the conclusion that as democracies become more democratic, their decision-making processes become of lower quality in terms of cognitive processing of issues and candidate choice. The paradox is both historical – why have democracies expanded the franchise to include relatively ignorant voters? – and normative – why should democracies expand the franchise to include relatively ignorant voters?
This website discusses requiring voters to take a test and I agree with their logic.
uspolitics.about.com/od/Voting/a/Should-Voters-Have-To-Pass-A-Test.htm
This was an interesting website I found also:
chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm