whir wrote:No, but PISA is somewhat rigged, not because of some conspiracy but because several countries like Denmark or South Korea have special programs to prepare it.KomissarBojanchev wrote:Are international testing accosiations like
PESAbeing controled by the western empire?I'm sure Emotional Intelligence tests are more useful and not totally broken. IQ tests have their uses, aside from bragging rights, when used properly. People like to despise everything that challenges their intelligence because most are terribly immature when dealing with failure.kvs wrote:IQ is a broken concept. It is not merely "political correctness" to diss it. The results depend on things such a knowledge of
western cultural norms.
I disagree completely. The links I posted show that the test measures knowledge that has nothing to do with intelligence.
You are insinuating that anyone who complains about this BS "metric" is just engaged in sour grapes. Get real.
Take the reported numbers comparing different countries. There are no error/uncertainty bounds on them. This is
total BS since the tests are done as statistical samples. So a 2 point difference in IQ testing is meaningless.
A commonly chosen confidence interval is 68 percent. Suppose you are trying to predict what an 11-year old child’s IQ score will be at the age of 21 and you know that there’s a .70 correlation in the general population between IQ measured at age 11 and IQ measured at age 21 (this correlation is at the upper end of what is typically found). Based solely on that information, what range of IQ scores can you expect he will obtain on his twenty-first birthday?
It depends how confident you want to be. If you are only 68 percent confident, you can expect that the child’s true score is somewhere within 10 points of his 11-year-old score (in both directions—10 points higher or 10 points lower than his original IQ score). But that’s with only 68 percent confidence. As Alan Kaufman notes, “I wouldn’t cross a busy intersection if I had only a 65% to 70% probability of making it to the other side.”
For high-stakes decisions, test administrators have the option of increasing their confidence interval to 90 percent or even 95 percent. Of course, higher confidence comes at a cost: it widens the range of possible IQ scores. In the example of this 11-year-old boy, if you want to be 95 percent confident of what this child’s IQ score will be at age 21, you’d have to expect a range of 20 points in either direction.
The mere fact that IQ measuring clowns use a 68% confidence interval tells me all I need to know. No scientific paper
would get away with using such a useless interval. The only acceptable confidence intervals are 90% and higher. The
higher the better. And as we see, the BS IQ test becomes progressively useless as one tries to apply tighter statistical
constraints. One could take this as a proof of the uselessness of this test.