JC> IQ tests are _supposed_ to measure the "Intelligence Quotient" of someone
  > to cope within the culture wherein the test is given, are they not? Would
  > you give an "American" IQ test in China? The tests _have_ to be 
"culturally
  > biased".
Actually, I suppose that's true.  Although I *thought* they measured the
ablility of a person to learn, which is not the same thing as ability
to cope.  As a matter of fact, people who can't cope at all (because
they are extremely schizophrenic, for example) may have very high IQs.
JC> SB> In America, most of them are biased in favor of white middle
  > SB> and upper class folk.
JC> Sounds like the majority of America, population-wise.
Actually, I'm not convinced that the average American is middle and
upper class anymore; although I will concede that the average american
is still white.  Even that won't be completely true much longer,
however, if the demographic projections are correct.  I believe that by
the year 2010, whites are expected to make up less than 50% of the
population of the US, although they will still control most of the
money, and will certainly still contain more people than any one of the
minority groups isolated from the others.
JC> I always thought it odd that when people do poorly on a test they fault
  > the test. Tests are only a measure of _the test-taker's_ knowledge of 
hat
  > the test is about. If one does poorly on a test, then one doesn't know 
he
  > material the test is testing for. (I'm not addressing those that have
  > "test-taking phobias".)
Alhtough I did terribly on that IQ test I took when I was little, I do
great at tests now.  Which is how I won an academic scholarship to
college.  Somewhere in my years of growing up, I realized that the test
makers were no smarter than the test takers, and therefore the test
takers really could figure out how to do well on tests.
JC> "The average IQ is set at 100; about half those that take the test 
chieve
  > scores between 90 and 110." Encarta 97
That is true.  What you may not know, however, is that if a person
scores 80 on an IQ test this week, if he's given another test next week,
he will probably score higher; and if he scores 120 this week; he will
probably score lower.  I learned this from a person who spends his life
testing kids, and evaluating the results.  I questioned the validity of
IQ tests, and he admitted they are not all that reliable.  They are
considered accurate to within 25 IQ points when an adult is tested.  25
IQ points is the difference between retarded and average; (90 is
average; 75 is retarded) or between average and potentially gifted (110
is average; 135 is potentially gifted).
All IQ tests given before the age of 6 are considered completely
invalid. This was discovered in a mass series of tests given in Hawaii.
Thousands of kids were involved.  There was zero correlation between the
results of any IQ test given to the kids as a group before age 6, and
their IQs, as tested, at age 18.  There was not a high correlation
between tested childhood IQ and adult IQ before age 12, except in two
categories:  kids who rated below 50 and kids who rated above 150 at
age 6 tended to stay in those postions, although, even then, there was
not 100% correlation.
                      Sondra
-*-
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ Poetry is an act of peace.   Pablo Neruda
--- Opus-CBCS 1.7x via O_QWKer 1.7 
---------------