Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

empleat t1_iwud71b wrote

Reply to comment by Souchirou in For world philosophy day 13 thinkers share the philosophical questions that will define this century | Including Noam Chomsky on destruction, Naomi Oreskes on climate crisis and Carissa Veliz on innovation by IAI_Admin

Also raise average IQ by 15-20 points :D

−9

Newtothiz t1_iwulnqu wrote

Ironic since most philosophers reject IQ as an overall prerequisite for intelligence.

34

mementoTeHominemEsse t1_iwusji8 wrote

Whereas most psychologists don't. Not entirely sure why what philosophers think in that regard is relevant.

2

Newtothiz t1_iwutpur wrote

Maybe because Philosophy searches for the metaphysical presuppositions that stand at the roots of every discipline?

6

mementoTeHominemEsse t1_iwuz612 wrote

They lay the ground work of all disciplines. And if philosophers were to criticise the ground work, or the "roots", of IQ (statistical psychology) that would be one thing. However just as a physicists opinion on black holes carries more weight than the opinion of a philosopher, the same goes for IQ.

3

Newtothiz t1_iwv0sr2 wrote

From the perspective of the common sense you're not wrong, but on a theoretical plane not only is the appeal to authority not an argument, but also philosophers themselves never just give opinion but arguments which are supposed to mentain their power indifferent of the domain they are used in. And also in general most theoretical physicists make appeal to philosophy, for the simple fact that to have a yet proven theory means to go beyond the subjective evidence you can empirically prove and to generalise, aka. do metaphysics. Actually everytime you go beyond pure experience by making a universal claim like "Dogs like this" ; "Women are like this", you are making a universal and so metaphysical claim. There is no escape metaphysics and so there is no escape philosophy. Hope this helps since it's my last reply.

Edit* Also I don't want to discredit anyone's knowledge but everyone who trully wants to understand the basic problems of modern science should read Hume.

−2

Lammetje98 t1_iwuvenw wrote

We do reject it as a complete measure of intelligence and see it as a measure to assess academic potential. It’s intelligence in our western school system yes, and it seems to be stable over time.

6

Lord_Euni t1_iwuwujp wrote

Agree with your first point. Not sure if I understand the rest correctly but if you're saying IQ is somehow stable over time, that's neither true for society as a whole nor for individuals.

1

Lammetje98 t1_iwuwyz5 wrote

Next to practice effects and the Flynn effect it’s a fairly stable measure. Most people won’t go from a 130 to 80 if the test is reliable.

Edit: essentially, it’s the best thing we have, while knowing it’s far from perfect.

3

mementoTeHominemEsse t1_iwv0al0 wrote

IQ tests test the essence of most mental abilities though. Given people grew up in roughly similar environments, IQ is very valid as a measure of intelligence.

−2

creditnewb123 t1_iwutx5r wrote

I think it’s relevant. If you study psychology at university you might be taught what intelligence is and then think about how to measure it (a perfectly sensible question to ask).

If you study philosophy at university you’re much more likely to think about questions like “what is intelligence?”.

Along those lines, the philosopher doesn’t necessarily challenge whether or not an IQ test is a valid measure of what we commonly understand intelligence to be. They question whether the thing it measures is really a complete definition of intelligence (and they have a point IMO).

3

Lammetje98 t1_iwuvlfk wrote

Psychology also knows it’s not a complete measure, and we don’t assume it is. It’s one operationalization of a very complex construct.

4

mementoTeHominemEsse t1_iwv01a3 wrote

No matter your precise definition of intelligence, I assume you, and anyone for that matter, defines it as an array of mental abilities. What mental abilities exactly you think form intelligence isn't that relevant, because IQ tests test the essence of pretty much all mental abilities.

−2

Yetanotherone4 t1_iwv4wv5 wrote

Waiting on sauce, and also not sure why philosophers would be considered knowledgeable on this subject.

2

Newtothiz t1_iwv5ng1 wrote

People who talk about "source" in the case of arguments haven't read a philosophy book in their life. Prove me wrong.

1

mementoTeHominemEsse t1_iwvy1te wrote

He's not asking for a source as in argumentation; he's asking you to back up the claim that most philosophers agree that IQ is not a good measure of intelligence.

1

Newtothiz t1_iww8j8b wrote

Source: Any book on the philosophy of science, Decartes Meditations, Spinoza's Ethics, the whole German Idealism movement from Kant's Critique of Judgement to Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, Heidegger's Being and Time, French Postructuralists like Foucault, Lyotard, Deleuze. This isn't a topic you just ask for "source" when you are completely unaware of the whole historical development of the idea you're asking for

1