You can not measure intelligence as it is an abstract concept that doesn’t have a clear definition to begin with. Even if you could, there is zero possibility of it changing in a meaningful way as humans are still humans.
You are arguing against yourself here, if it’s fundamentally not possible to measure it then speculation around what a measured value could and could not be used for is useless, especially in such absolutist terms.
If it is measurable then variation could and would exist, based on the external interactions with whatever phenomenon would affect this variable.
With the exception, of course, of it being some fundamental constant, which would be unusual in a scientific sense.
The rest i mostly agree with, though i might move around the cause and effect a bit on some of those, but it doesn’t really change the outcome.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
I take issue with the idea that a test can somehow measure intelligence. Standardized tests measure information and skills learned in class. When scores are lower is doesn’t mean the students are dumber. It means the school system is failing to teach.
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
It doesn’t measure intelligence, and this is a fortune article not a peer reviewed paper.
What it is, is that test scores are historically correlated with cognitive function. The depression of the measurable metric is assumed to be following the depression of an unmeasurable metric.
The alternate is, there’s a divorce between these metrics and that disruption is caused by the things you said.
Senal@programming.dev 2 days ago
I agree that there is no universally accepted general definition of intelligence , there are some very specific subset that can be somewhat reliably measured but that’s not even close to a general score.
Standardised tests measure the ability to pass the tests, last i checked it was mostly rote memorization more than applications of skills learned. ( my info could be out of date or incorrect on this )
That’s not strictly true and it’s also not a mutually exclusive scenario.
For a given metric of “dumbness” it is possible for it to go up and down independent of school teaching standards and approaches. or even a combination of the teachings standards + some other things
Also if you are going to argue that perceived “dumbness” can only be attributed to failing to teach , that assumes a usable metric for “dumbness” that can be measured.
I’m mostly agreeing with your points, i’m just not seeing how “can’t measure smartness” and “smartness can only be falling due to teaching failures” can be posited simultaneously.