• LinkedinLenin [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    on the topic of iq, i have a lot of problems with the way people seem to interact with the concept. there’s a bunch of assumptions all baked into it:

    • iq is a variable that actually exists in nature

    • people’s iq is static and follows a standard distribution

    • iq tests are capable of objectively measuring or at least approximating this variable

    • this variable is a good stand-in or even synonymous with cognitive ability

    • cognitive ability is univariate or single-faceted, able to be described with a single number

    • cognitive ability equates to or correlates with usefulness, happiness, sociability, success, whatever

    • finally, that any of this really matters, like in a materially impactful way, or is something that we should focus on

    it’s not that each of these statements is 100% wrong, it’s that each shouldn’t be assumed to be true. but the way i usually see iq invoked kinda just uncritically runs with all of them, contained within a neat little ideological package.

    • LinkedinLenin [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      also a pet theory i like (that isn’t actually true or provable) is that gifted programs are meant to remove children deemed smarter from their communities and funnel them into middle management and academia, so they don’t become agitators for change in their communities and workplaces