Pauli137 wrote: ↑
Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:28 am
It's the narrow view that I advocate abandoning
jakell wrote: ↑
Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:53 pm
As long as what is being measured is properly defined from the outset, and one is consistent about this, there shouldn't be a problem.
You address this in your second point anyway, and it is helpful to seperate IQ (ie, a simple quotent
) from intelligence
. There's no need to abandon IQ, just understand its limitations.
. IQ measures only one or two of Gardner's intelligences. There are others, and they are equally important to the human experience. In particular, our society undervalues these three intelligences: interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. The first two are missing in many individuals with extremely high IQ, and I doubt they are even quantitatively measurable. The third may be measurable, but not easily so.
The trouble is that that "narrow view" would not be favoured by the scientific community** anyway, it is one held by the general public. Trying to hone a definition held by the former is relatively easy, they would value utility and value an opportunity to avoid difficulties arising form controversy, but changing the view of the latter is a Herculean task. Good luck encouraging folks to abandon that.
It's worth pointing out that by "general public" here I don't mean the average Joe, many ordinary folks would not bother with the concept or would feel nonplussed about it. Ironically, to have a strong personal (ie, not parroted) opinion about this requires someone to already a degree of understanding about the concepts, plus the self-awareness to balance critical thinking with emotional responses. Intelligence is entangled
within the problem itself, so even the starting point is difficult.
This last is why I was motivated to post and comment on the video in the OP. Stefan, instead of talking the usual routes of either getting bogged down with the detail, or conversely putting it aside because it is too difficult (which tends to be my response), takes a middle route and grasps that nettle. He says yes, it is a difficult and uncomfortable subject, but let's be courageous and deal with it anyway
- note, he's not talking of the feelings of the so-called 'race realists' here, but those of liberal folks. He's speaking of the application of emotional intelligence.
** I use "scientific" in a loose sense here. Some of the basic data points are difficult to pin down (race for instance), so we're not talking of a hard science. That looseness is inherent sociological fields anyway, it can't be avoided.
By "scientific" I mean a scientific approach
to the data, not the data itself.