My hot take from Wan show's education discussion. What do you think?

[Thready]

I feel like I should reach out and post about a point Linus and Luke made on Wan show about education. This is not an argument or rebuttal. I just want to say my piece and ask for any constructive input from the community since this is a forum. I have a master's in educational psychology and a master's in educational technology. I dropped out of high school at 17, only to come back and finish a year late. I spent 6 years in college getting a 4 year degree after suffering setbacks from undiagnosed mental illness. I worked in special education for a few months, but became disillusioned with the American school system for some of the same reasons Linus and Luke talked about. I also have serious reservations about American schooling to the point where I decided not to pursue a PhD in school psychology, but instead a PhD in science education.

 

I'll just get into it: Linus and Luke talked about streamlined learning, specifically how to maximize learning in a student's interests and eliminate learning in areas that they believe will never be relevant to a student's future. They both brought up an interesting point. Learning needs to be interesting, relevant, and relatable. Students need to know that what they learn actually matters, and they need to be able to know the real-world application of what they are learning. In many US schools, learning is done in a vacuum, in isolation from reality. There's a joke that goes, "I didn't learn how to do my taxes, but I know that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell." That reflects how schools don't actually help children understand the broader applications and implications of what they learn.

 

The problem with that joke is this, and this is where I would like Linus's and Luke's opinion: Learning that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell is necessary for us to have a basic understanding of our biology. Learning about molar mass early is how we bring a kid from complete ignorance about physics to possibly becoming interested in it. Kids don't need to dive into the details, but they need an exposure to these subjects.

 

Without children learning about biology, we won't have adequate doctors. If you never learned about biology in middle school and high school, chances are you won't be interested in medical school. There are actually studies of doctors who say that their interest in biology started in middle school and high school. If they weren't "forced" to study biology in school, they might have never gone into medicine.

 

I don't think children in school should be learning how to do taxes. That sentiment is brought up a lot online and it bothers me because learning how to do taxes, in my opinion, will put kids to sleep so fast. If you want to turn a mind off to the wonders of the universe, then you eliminate the arts and sciences and replace them with... taxes. Sure, there should be a class in high school, but taxes should not be core curriculum, IMO. I think we should learn civics, and thus the reason why we pay taxes, rather than the mechanics of paying taxes.

 

Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, and Albert Einstein are three of my heroes and I always think of them when it comes to pedagogic education. According to them, children should learn about how the universe functions in a way that can relate to their lives. But what is relatable is the question. Yes, taxes are relatable, but so is how the human body and the universe work. How do we judge which topic is more relevant to growing minds? If we leave it up to non-experts (school boards which are the bane of my existence) to guide what children learn, that's not ok with me personally because non-experts don't have the perspective of these topics. Someone with a law degree shouldn't be in charge of the science curriculum, but that's how things function partly in the USA.

 

It's not that learning physics doesn't matter, it's that it's taught in such a way that children will never understand its relevance to their lives. Does anyone have any thoughts? I feel like someone is going to attack me for this since this is the internet after all and I'm somewhat agreeing/disagreeing at the same time with something Linus talked about. 

 

EDIT: Also, aptitude tests in middle school and high school are horribly flawed, to the point where their validity has been questioned on the same level that IQ tests have been questioned. I scored low on all aptitude tests in school because I was undiagnosed autistic and ADHD. I'm now about to enter a PhD program AND an MFA in creative writing.

[Blue4130]

If learning biology creates future doctors, the what about all the future accountants? That's why we need to learn taxes in school. 

[dalekphalm]

16 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

If learning biology creates future doctors, the what about all the future accountants? That's why we need to learn taxes in school. 

I 100% agree that taxes need to be taught in school. But you definitely don't want to teach it too young.

 

I'd probably do a course on taxes in Grade 8 or Grade 9 - young enough that most students likely haven't had a job yet, so they can be prepared about taxes before their first job. Old enough that they're at least somewhat maturing and can digest the information.

 

Maybe have a refresher course in Grade 12 right before they graduate.

 

In my opinion, education needs to start extremely broad, and narrow and specialize as you work up the educational tower.

 

A student should be exposed to every major subject at least once throughout their educational career. Does that mean they need 8 years of biology? Maybe not, but they need to learn some biology.

 

A well rounded education is important to make sure that the student is well rounded in their basic knowledge of how all aspects of the world work.

 

I think High School in particular needs to allow greater specialization though - especially in a preparatory manner for jobs and post-secondary education (college/university, etc).

[Yoinkerman]

American taxes is one page of extremely simple calculations lol

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Yoinkerman said:

American taxes is one page of extremely simple calculations lol

Not being an American, I'll take your word for it.

 

But, even that one page of "extremely simple calculations" is a lot to take in for your average person.

 

For one, half of the freaking planet doesn't seem to know how a graduated tax bracket system works. I don't know how many stories of people I've heard that have "refused a raise because it'll put me into a higher tax bracket and I'll take home less money!"

 

Now, granted, under incredibly niche circumstances, getting a raise actually could result in less take home pay if you were at the top of a benefit or credit eligibility range, and you lost eligibility with the new income - but that's very rare.

 

That, and just... knowing how to do the taxes. Even if they're simple, having someone show you how it's done can be very reassuring for some people.

 

My wife is a highly educated, very smart person, and she really has no idea how taxes work. She also has no idea how most financial stuff works in general - stuff like tax advantaged accounts (RRSP's and TFSA's here in Canada), nor how to buy ETF's or Mutual funds (or than go to the bank and ask them to do it for her). She's not an idiot, but it's not something she's interested in so she's not likely to learn out of her own curiosity - but had she been educated about it in school, she likely would remember how to do it.

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, Yoinkerman said:

American taxes is one page of extremely simple calculations lol

For the majority of wage-earners, taxes are not terribly complex.

 

However, teaching the student about the basics of financials I feel to be quite prudent, such as budgeting, financial instruments, debt, starting a small business, etc. In game terms, a tutorial to literally how society works.

[YellowJersey]

I'm not a school teacher, but I work in education.

 

I personally think there needs to be two sides to education that needs to be taught together.

First side: traditional education or "theory": math, chemistry, biology, physics, social studies, literature. That does not mean that each student needs to have the same education in all these subjects. I look at it like an RPG where you start off with a few points in each specialisation and then you can level up the skills you want. But students should have a certain amount of knowledge in all the basic fields. However, I think that once you hit high school, you should have start having more choice in specialisation so that you can focus more on what you're interested in and less on what you're less interested or capable in. The problem is determining what constitutes a sufficient base level of knowledge before students can start specialising and how much students can disregard areas that they're not interested or capable in. That's the hard part. How much biology meets the minimum standard? How much math should an arts student be able to avoid? I have no idea. Devil's in the details.

 

 It's also worth nothing that students in high school should not be expected to know what they're going to do with their lives. Some will have a good idea of what they want to do post-graduation, but some don't and I think it's wrong to require students to have that plan in place. I didn't fall into my current career until I was 28 and I could never ever have anticipated that I would end up here. If you told me at age 16-27 that I would end up doing what I'm doing, I would have told you that you're insane. Also, sometimes people embark down one path, realise later that it's not for them, and so they should have a well rounded education that allows them to pursue other things rather than locking them into one field. So, on the one hand, students who do have an idea of what they want to do should be enabled to focus on those areas but students who don't have that figured out should not be prejudiced or pressured.

 

Second side: practical education: life skills and professional development. Absolutely things like taxes, basic understanding of the law and how the courts work, how to drive, how to cook, how to do basic household maintenance, accounting, budgeting, coding, interview skills, how to find a job, and so on. I think this is the type of education that is severely lacking.

[Jtalk4456]

7 hours ago, Thready said:

I feel like I should reach out and post about a point Linus and Luke made on Wan show about education. This is not an argument or rebuttal. I just want to say my piece and ask for any constructive input from the community since this is a forum. I have a master's in educational psychology and a master's in educational technology. I dropped out of high school at 17, only to come back and finish a year late. I spent 6 years in college getting a 4 year degree after suffering setbacks from undiagnosed mental illness. I worked in special education for a few months, but became disillusioned with the American school system for some of the same reasons Linus and Luke talked about. I also have serious reservations about American schooling to the point where I decided not to pursue a PhD in school psychology, but instead a PhD in science education.

 

I'll just get into it: Linus and Luke talked about streamlined learning, specifically how to maximize learning in a student's interests and eliminate learning in areas that they believe will never be relevant to a student's future. They both brought up an interesting point. Learning needs to be interesting, relevant, and relatable. Students need to know that what they learn actually matters, and they need to be able to know the real-world application of what they are learning. In many US schools, learning is done in a vacuum, in isolation from reality. There's a joke that goes, "I didn't learn how to do my taxes, but I know that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell." That reflects how schools don't actually help children understand the broader applications and implications of what they learn.

 

The problem with that joke is this, and this is where I would like Linus's and Luke's opinion: Learning that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell is necessary for us to have a basic understanding of our biology. Learning about molar mass early is how we bring a kid from complete ignorance about physics to possibly becoming interested in it. Kids don't need to dive into the details, but they need an exposure to these subjects.

 

Without children learning about biology, we won't have adequate doctors. If you never learned about biology in middle school and high school, chances are you won't be interested in medical school. There are actually studies of doctors who say that their interest in biology started in middle school and high school. If they weren't "forced" to study biology in school, they might have never gone into medicine.

 

I don't think children in school should be learning how to do taxes. That sentiment is brought up a lot online and it bothers me because learning how to do taxes, in my opinion, will put kids to sleep so fast. If you want to turn a mind off to the wonders of the universe, then you eliminate the arts and sciences and replace them with... taxes. Sure, there should be a class in high school, but taxes should not be core curriculum, IMO. I think we should learn civics, and thus the reason why we pay taxes, rather than the mechanics of paying taxes.

 

Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, and Albert Einstein are three of my heroes and I always think of them when it comes to pedagogic education. According to them, children should learn about how the universe functions in a way that can relate to their lives. But what is relatable is the question. Yes, taxes are relatable, but so is how the human body and the universe work. How do we judge which topic is more relevant to growing minds? If we leave it up to non-experts (school boards which are the bane of my existence) to guide what children learn, that's not ok with me personally because non-experts don't have the perspective of these topics. Someone with a law degree shouldn't be in charge of the science curriculum, but that's how things function partly in the USA.

 

It's not that learning physics doesn't matter, it's that it's taught in such a way that children will never understand its relevance to their lives. Does anyone have any thoughts? I feel like someone is going to attack me for this since this is the internet after all and I'm somewhat agreeing/disagreeing at the same time with something Linus talked about. 

 

EDIT: Also, aptitude tests in middle school and high school are horribly flawed, to the point where their validity has been questioned on the same level that IQ tests have been questioned. I scored low on all aptitude tests in school because I was undiagnosed autistic and ADHD. I'm now about to enter a PhD program AND an MFA in creative writing.

I think you contradict yourself a bit here. At one point you say don't teach taxes because it's boring, then you say we have to teach subjects in a way that matters and isn't boring. It seems you're either exempting personal finance from that rule or assuming there's no way to make money interesting. I'm now 31 and there's very few grade school assignments or projects I actually remember at this point. 1st is building a castle model for history class. 2nd is the million dollar project. 6th grade math class, we were told to spend a million dollars and had to include tax. The closer we got to 0, the better our grade was. We had certain percentages we could use for investment and charity, etc. So we were in charge of the 4 basic functions, add, subtract, multiply, divide, which was the lesson if you will. the closer you got to 0 left,  I remember this project well. I got myself a nice house, installed an above ground pool, bought a few cars including a hummer for some reason (can't stand 'em now) and 1 cent stamps which are tax free to get all the way to my 100 grade. 

I remember how fun it was picking things out, making goals and plans, choosing between this car and that, picking my house. It was math, no doubt about it, but it was fun. To pretend that taxes could not be made into an engaging lesson in a high school math class is no different than pretending that learning about the mitochondria can't be made fun. my 3rd project I vividly remember was a 3d foam sculpture of a human cell, mitochondria and all. you seem to like science, as do I, but to someone else, biology might be boring. every subject can be boring to some, seem useless to some. But we need a good rounded education not just for the raw knowledge, but the logic that comes with. I work in IT, I NEVER need to know about mitochondria, but I still know basic things about biology and many other subjects. The goal isn't to hyperfocus on a kids future career (which may change wildly even in college years and adulthood). The goal is to provide a well rounded base of human knowledge that gives me enough understanding of my world to do what I need, and enough exposure to different topics that I have some ideas for things I like or dislike and can begin to learn things I want to know as I get older. Picture the curriculum at school

elementary - basics of talking, reading, writing, numbers, social interactions, fitness and gym. You're learning how to be a person and do basic communication

middle - you can talk and read and write, so it's time to use your communication skills to learn the basics of the world. Science, history, academic writing, starting of sex ed, tech classes, art, and of course lovely math. You're learning the basics of human knowledge and getting a feel for all the different things you're able to learn about.

high - still got the cores, math language and science, but now change history to civics and government. Toss in more career and life based learning like shop, drafting, business, cooking, early childhood, more advanced art classes, etc. But you get to choose which ones. You're still learning the basics of human knowledge, but now you're given a chance to take an interest and see what you can do with it in the real world.

While there's a lot of refinement to be done in the education space, especially in America, I don't think the entire foundation is bad. Taxes are a super easy problem, put them in math class with personal finance. That should literally be a whole section of math class. You wanna talk about actually useless knowledge? Talk to high schoolers who have any inkling what they wanna do and see how many need calculus and higher. I'd wager less than 10%, maybe even less than 5%. Precal and calculus can be left to college and be based on the degrees being sought. Trade out high school precal and calc with personal finance and statistics. Statistics because you get a sense for how easily data can be manipulated or twisted and it gives you a great dose of skepticism and logic to think for yourself with. When doing PE/GYM, take out the last two years of run days and gym short embarrassment that literally scar kids and contribute to eating disorders. Replace that with 2 life sciences courses. 1st is family life, care, the annoying baby thing, and a good dose of mental health education. 2nd class is cooking, cleaning, time management, lessons on insurance, debt, etc, things that teach you how to live as an adult, not just know the theory behind it. You think kids would be too bored in taxes class? tell them they can get rid of a year of precal, they won't wait a full heartbeat before learning how to do taxes and personal finance. Throw in the million dollar project, but make it a business loan, have them create their dream business and have them decide what investments are worth it or not. Teach them about working capital, taxes, payroll, throw in sexual harassment for a day since this is turning into a business class. 

[Jtalk4456]

15 minutes ago, YellowJersey said:

I'm not a school teacher, but I work in education.

 

I personally think there needs to be two sides to education that needs to be taught together.

First side: traditional education or "theory": math, chemistry, biology, physics, social studies, literature. That does not mean that each student needs to have the same education in all these subjects. I look at it like an RPG where you start off with a few points in each specialisation and then you can level up the skills you want. But students should have a certain amount of knowledge in all the basic fields. However, I think that once you hit high school, you should have start having more choice in specialisation so that you can focus more on what you're interested in and less on what you're less interested or capable in. The problem is determining what constitutes a sufficient base level of knowledge before students can start specialising and how much students can disregard areas that they're not interested or capable in. That's the hard part. How much biology meets the minimum standard? How much math should an arts student be able to avoid? I have no idea. Devil's in the details.

 

 It's also worth nothing that students in high school should not be expected to know what they're going to do with their lives. Some will have a good idea of what they want to do post-graduation, but some don't and I think it's wrong to require students to have that plan in place. I didn't fall into my current career until I was 28 and I could never ever have anticipated that I would end up here. If you told me at age 16-27 that I would end up doing what I'm doing, I would have told you that you're insane. Also, sometimes people embark down one path, realise later that it's not for them, and so they should have a well rounded education that allows them to pursue other things rather than locking them into one field. So, on the one hand, students who do have an idea of what they want to do should be enabled to focus on those areas but students who don't have that figured out should not be prejudiced or pressured.

 

Second side: practical education: life skills and professional development. Absolutely things like taxes, basic understanding of the law and how the courts work, how to drive, how to cook, how to do basic household maintenance, accounting, budgeting, coding, interview skills, how to find a job, and so on. I think this is the type of education that is severely lacking.

I wholeheartedly agree. high schoolers are extremely fickle things, and the part I think high school does decent is give you the options to try other things. Not nearly enough options mind you, but it does let you pick and try different things. You're not supposed to go to college knowing exactly what you want, imho. You should spend the first year knocking out some core classes and trying some classes from a field you want to try, then you can declare major after you've got a more concrete idea. 

[Quackers101]

Rants.

I'm really annoyed with, "you don't get to play in the adult sandbox, you have to reach that point first". Also with what some other stuff points towards or to poorer areas of the world, the motivation to something or lack motivation for something. Something the digital age can both help or make worse, or access of tools that can restrict our process of thinking, and of doing it the "fast way"?

 

Some people might have to wait 5 years before doing what they want or is able to do at that point in life, but after 5 years of studying that everything changes or never got to do the things they were able to do before. Although there might be other areas that can still be used, if one has the knowledge.

 

At least I do hope VR + AI physics can open up some areas for teaching, having fun, experiement and trying to learn. To real virtual test labs, practice on human dummies for doctors in a mixed reality setting and/or help/assist in real life situations.

 

That school doesn't work either, if the people there don't want to be teached or has social/physical aspects that needs to be taken care of, which could have been used for work in a field they like. I know at certain points in school, I just didn't care anymore, as it lost all meaning to it. And people will have different issues around this, some can come back and others might have some use of what they learned, but by how much? I guess this might go back to programs like "from school and straight to work" initiatives. or by people that starts back up with studying something they do like.

[mr moose]

12 hours ago, Thready said:

I feel like I should reach out and post about a point Linus and Luke made on Wan show about education. This is not an argument or rebuttal. I just want to say my piece and ask for any constructive input from the community since this is a forum. I have a master's in educational psychology and a master's in educational technology. I dropped out of high school at 17, only to come back and finish a year late. I spent 6 years in college getting a 4 year degree after suffering setbacks from undiagnosed mental illness. I worked in special education for a few months, but became disillusioned with the American school system for some of the same reasons Linus and Luke talked about. I also have serious reservations about American schooling to the point where I decided not to pursue a PhD in school psychology, but instead a PhD in science education.

 

I'll just get into it: Linus and Luke talked about streamlined learning, specifically how to maximize learning in a student's interests and eliminate learning in areas that they believe will never be relevant to a student's future. They both brought up an interesting point. Learning needs to be interesting, relevant, and relatable. Students need to know that what they learn actually matters, and they need to be able to know the real-world application of what they are learning. In many US schools, learning is done in a vacuum, in isolation from reality. There's a joke that goes, "I didn't learn how to do my taxes, but I know that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell." That reflects how schools don't actually help children understand the broader applications and implications of what they learn.

 

The problem with that joke is this, and this is where I would like Linus's and Luke's opinion: Learning that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell is necessary for us to have a basic understanding of our biology. Learning about molar mass early is how we bring a kid from complete ignorance about physics to possibly becoming interested in it. Kids don't need to dive into the details, but they need an exposure to these subjects.

 

Without children learning about biology, we won't have adequate doctors. If you never learned about biology in middle school and high school, chances are you won't be interested in medical school. There are actually studies of doctors who say that their interest in biology started in middle school and high school. If they weren't "forced" to study biology in school, they might have never gone into medicine.

 

I don't think children in school should be learning how to do taxes. That sentiment is brought up a lot online and it bothers me because learning how to do taxes, in my opinion, will put kids to sleep so fast. If you want to turn a mind off to the wonders of the universe, then you eliminate the arts and sciences and replace them with... taxes. Sure, there should be a class in high school, but taxes should not be core curriculum, IMO. I think we should learn civics, and thus the reason why we pay taxes, rather than the mechanics of paying taxes.

 

Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, and Albert Einstein are three of my heroes and I always think of them when it comes to pedagogic education. According to them, children should learn about how the universe functions in a way that can relate to their lives. But what is relatable is the question. Yes, taxes are relatable, but so is how the human body and the universe work. How do we judge which topic is more relevant to growing minds? If we leave it up to non-experts (school boards which are the bane of my existence) to guide what children learn, that's not ok with me personally because non-experts don't have the perspective of these topics. Someone with a law degree shouldn't be in charge of the science curriculum, but that's how things function partly in the USA.

 

It's not that learning physics doesn't matter, it's that it's taught in such a way that children will never understand its relevance to their lives. Does anyone have any thoughts? I feel like someone is going to attack me for this since this is the internet after all and I'm somewhat agreeing/disagreeing at the same time with something Linus talked about. 

 

EDIT: Also, aptitude tests in middle school and high school are horribly flawed, to the point where their validity has been questioned on the same level that IQ tests have been questioned. I scored low on all aptitude tests in school because I was undiagnosed autistic and ADHD. I'm now about to enter a PhD program AND an MFA in creative writing.

Thank you for posting this,  I find myself both in agreement but also dismayed by how complex the discipline is and the fact that many simply do not or will not know enough to understand the pitfalls of trying to shoehorn an education into a "one size fits all" mindset.  

 

 

 

As someone who has spent the better part of 17 years working in the school system with special needs students and alongside teachers and pediatricians in both childhood development, general education and special interest education,    I often find a lot of people with hardened opinions regarding how education should be,  some simply try to pedestal other countries systems as if education is a hard science with right and wrong approaches only.  Others have their concepts heavily influenced by their personal experience of school (or even a single teacher), and some by how they were raised (how their parents talked about the importance of school and their opinions on whats good and what isn't).  Education to me is a gumbo pot full of everything from serious issues to the best developmental experiences one can hope for.  Each student needs a teacher that knows how to skillfully ladle out just the right ingredients to nourish them without the unnecessary bits.

 

With regard to the aptitude tests,  I agree but I also disagree.   We have naplan testing where I am from,  it is not really the same as a classic aptitude test, but more of a way to evaluate student performance (or school performance) as a comparison to other students/schools.  The data is publicly available and thus schools put dangerous amounts of effort into preparing students for these tests.    The danger is not from testing itself, but in what they do with the results as it is putting much pressure on students to perform well which causes many to fail simply due to stress (or to think of themselves as not smart/able because they see where they grade against everyone else).   There is also a negative consequence with using that data to evaluate schools, teachers performance etc (as you can probably see), however that is a tangent.  I imagine aptitude testing in the US could be very similar, it would be a useful tool for the teacher if used appropriately, but for any other use it quickly becomes a dangerous tool shaping students rather than helping them shape themselves.  

 

Same with IQ,  I find IQ to be a very good test that is highly accurate (if done properly), the problem is the results need to be kept in perspective and used appropriately.  For schools this means adjusting pedagogy or tailoring an individualized learning plan to alleviate some of the stress a student might encounter, it should never be used to judge the abilities or long term prognosis of a student (I.E using a low IQ to rationalize sending them to a special school in stead of mainstream).   For me the best thing about an IQ score is that I can remind myself that there is not necessarily anything the student is doing wrong or intentionally bad,  or even anything wrong with the activity, just that current circumstances are preventing desired outcomes.  Which means it's time to change tack take a breath and reconnect with the person, not the student.   

 

I could go on for ages on this topic.

[Imbadatnames]

I would argue you don’t know what will be relevant and I’ve found stuff from school I never thought would be relevant turn up as useful. I’m currently in a like of work I never thought I’d be in and that would be the same for a lot of people. Unfortunately the syllabus has to be taught by teachers of varying quality and not all

can make everything interesting.

 

[Imbadatnames]

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Same with IQ,  I find IQ to be a very good test that is highly accurate (if done properly), the problem is the results need to be kept in perspective and used appropriately.  For schools this means adjusting pedagogy or tailoring an individualized learning plan to alleviate some of the stress a student might encounter, it should never be used to judge the abilities or long term prognosis of a student (I.E using a low IQ to rationalize sending them to a special school in stead of mainstream).   For me the best thing about an IQ score is that I can remind myself that there is not necessarily anything the student is doing wrong or intentionally bad,  or even anything wrong with the activity, just that current circumstances are preventing desired outcomes.  Which means it's time to change tack take a breath and reconnect with the person, not the student.   

IQ tests are BS. They literally show that someone is good at taking an IQ test and nothing more. Next you’ll be saying Mensa is more than a bunch of idiots who have nothing better to do that try to brag about an irrelevant test that they had to PAY FOR, some of them multiple times to get in. You can’t measure intelligence using one test intelligence is fairly abstract as a concept. 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

IQ tests are BS. They literally show that someone is good at taking an IQ test and nothing more. Next you’ll be saying Mensa is more than a bunch of idiots who have nothing better to do that try to brag about an irrelevant test that they had to PAY FOR, some of them multiple times to get in. You can’t measure intelligence using one test intelligence is fairly abstract as a concept. 

Someone needs to learn about things before posting.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228859220_The_predictive_value_of_IQ

https://human-intelligence.org/i-q-validity-biological-and-social-iq-correlations/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10463026/

 

As I clearly said, IQ has to be properly established (sometimes it is not and I have witnessed that personally) and results appropriately handled, again it is often misinterpreted and people do stupid things with the results, especially in education where neither the teachers nor aides have any fundamental education in IQ or mental retardation and what that means.  That is not a failing of the test but a failing of the system to use the results appropriately.  

 

Sure you can find lots of wordpress blogs shit canning IQ, but of the very few proper reviews against IQ actually get published and when they do they (very ironically) use the same detachment logic that IQ uses to verify its relevance.  K. Richardson and S Norgate are good examples.  They promote the concept that IQ only correlates as strongly as it does because knowing you have a higher IQ means you will try harder and having a lower IQ means you will give up.  They put it in a much larger format with fancy numbers but essentially that's what it resolves to.  All I can say is given the correlation exists, if suggestion was all it was and all that was required for success,  then they would be telling all the students they have a high IQ and can achieve whatever they want.

 

Again, it comes down to proper use of the testing in both evaluation and interpretation of the results.  High schools should not be doing the tests, nor should they be trying to interpret the results, that is the failure, not the concept of the test itself.

 

 

[Imbadatnames]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Someone needs to learn about things before posting.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228859220_The_predictive_value_of_IQ

https://human-intelligence.org/i-q-validity-biological-and-social-iq-correlations/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10463026/

 

As I clearly said, IQ has to be properly established (sometimes it is not and I have witnessed that personally) and results appropriately handled, again it is often misinterpreted and people do stupid things with the results, especially in education where neither the teachers nor aides have any fundamental education in IQ or mental retardation and what that means.  That is not a failing of the test but a failing of the system to use the results appropriately.  

 

Sure you can find lots of wordpress blogs shit canning IQ, but of the very few proper reviews against IQ actually get published and when they do they (very ironically) use the same detachment logic that IQ uses to verify its relevance.  K. Richardson and S Norgate are good examples.  They promote the concept that IQ only correlates as strongly as it does because knowing you have a higher IQ means you will try harder and having a lower IQ means you will give up.  They put it in a much larger format with fancy numbers but essentially that's what it resolves to.  All I can say is given the correlation exists, if suggestion was all it was and all that was required for success,  then they would be telling all the students they have a high IQ and can achieve whatever they want.

 

Again, it comes down to proper use of the testing in both evaluation and interpretation of the results.  High schools should not be doing the tests, nor should they be trying to interpret the results, that is the failure, not the concept of the test itself.

 

 

I think you’ve misunderstood my point. You cannot measure intelligence with one metric. An IQ test has many issue mainly that it is generally hyper focused on logical problem solving and that you can study for one as they’re a set test. If you do enough you’ll eventually get a high score. If you’re intelligence comes from thinking outside the box for example you won’t score well on an IQ test. 
 

One of  articles then goes on to list brain size as an example of higher intelligence which is complete BS. 

[mr moose]

Just now, Imbadatnames said:

I think you’ve misunderstood my point. You cannot measure intelligence with one metric. An IQ test has many issue mainly that it is generally hyper focused on logical problem solving and that you can study for one as they’re a set test. If you do enough you’ll eventually get a high score. If you’re intelligence comes from thinking outside the box for example you won’t score well on an IQ test. 
 

That's not how they work,  if you are doing tests like that then you are not properly assessing IQ.    Proper IQ tests involve more than just logical problem solving, they involve math, abstract reasoning and verbal intelligence.   Proper IQ is not something you can just resit until you get a good score.  Because by doing that you are not assessing IQ, you are simply playing a numbers game until you fluke the right answers. 

 

Just now, Imbadatnames said:

One of  articles then goes on to list brain size as an example of higher intelligence which is complete BS. 

Brains size, more accurately the brain surface area,  actually does have an effect on IQ.  It is not an absolute, but it is well correlated.   This is another well established fact.

 

https://human-intelligence.org/i-q-validity-biological-and-social-iq-correlations/#cor12

 

 

The problem here is that people put too much weight on IQ, or on brain size,  people tend to fight the facts as if they are somehow personally insulting.  Knowing that having a larger brain correlates with a higher IQ*  does not make anyone less of a human or too stupid to be of importance.   In fact one would argue that not pursuing the study of these correlations for fear of what it might mean is stupid.

 

*It is really important to note that this is a correlation and not an absolute for every case, Einstein had an average size brain (but he did have more surface area, more folds and round bits if you will).

 

 

[Imbadatnames]

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That's not how they work,  if you are doing tests like that then you are not properly assessing IQ.    Proper IQ tests involve more than just logical problem solving, they involve math, abstract reasoning and verbal intelligence.   Proper IQ is not something you can just resit until you get a good score.  Because by doing that you are not assessing IQ, you are simply playing a numbers game until you fluke the right answers. 

 

Brains size, more accurately the brain surface area,  actually does have an effect on IQ.  It is not an absolute, but it is well correlated.   This is another well established fact.

 

https://human-intelligence.org/i-q-validity-biological-and-social-iq-correlations/#cor12

 

 

The problem here is that people put too much weight on IQ, or on brain size,  people tend to fight the facts as if they are somehow personally insulting.  Knowing that having a larger brain correlates with a higher IQ*  does not make anyone less of a human or too stupid to be of importance.   In fact one would argue that not pursuing the study of these correlations for fear of what it might mean is stupid.

 

*It is really important to note that this is a correlation and not an absolute for every case, Einstein had an average size brain (but he did have more surface area, more folds and round bits if you will).

 

 

It’s not really “abstract reasoning” it’s more pattern recognition. I know I’ve done one and scored fairly highly. But overall they’re not worth the paper they’re printed on. Intelligence isn’t one thing and just because you’re good in one area doesn’t mean you’ll be good in another. Myself for example I winged quantum theory exams at university with no revision and not really paying attention in lectures but I really struggled on the basics of driving which took me ages to get, they’re different skills requiring different types of intelligence. An IQ test however wouldn’t pick that up it just picks up the “traditional” intelligence. 

[Heliian]

Everybody has their own view of what and how school should be taught.  

 

It'll never be a perfect solution.  Your job as a parent is to teach your kids what they don't get out of the school and prepare them for the real world.  

 

Trying to teach taxes in school is pointless, there's too many variables and changes annually.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

It’s not really “abstract reasoning” it’s more pattern recognition. I know I’ve done one and scored fairly highly. But overall they’re not worth the paper they’re printed on. Intelligence isn’t one thing and just because you’re good in one area doesn’t mean you’ll be good in another. Myself for example I winged quantum theory exams at university with no revision and not really paying attention in lectures but I really struggled on the basics of driving which took me ages to get, they’re different skills requiring different types of intelligence. An IQ test however wouldn’t pick that up it just picks up the “traditional” intelligence. 

Again, if you did a test in school that did not contain abstract reasoning or verbal intelligence then you did not do an IQ test,  you did something that someone told you was an IQ test.  Maybe you did one of those stupid online test's thinking they represent something.    I can assure you a proper IQ test administered by a psychologist for the purposes of understanding co morbid cognitive and behavioral issues in students is nothing like what you are describing.

 

You are now confusing IQ tests with specific knowledge or aptitudes.   

[Imbadatnames]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Again, if you did a test in school that did not contain abstract reasoning or verbal intelligence then you did not do an IQ test,  you did something that someone told you was an IQ test.  Maybe you did one of those stupid online test's thinking they represent something.    I can assure you a proper IQ test administered by a psychologist for the purposes of understanding co morbid cognitive and behavioral issues in students is nothing like what you are describing.

 

You are now confusing IQ tests with specific knowledge or aptitudes.   

It was literally an IQ test for the government “gifted and talented” grant. 
 

And this is your issue you’re not getting that intelligence isn’t a concrete subject. You can’t measure it and all an IQ test does is test you on a small sliver of subjects making them useless as a measure of intelligence 

[mr moose]

On 1/10/2022 at 11:13 AM, Imbadatnames said:

It was literally an IQ test for the government “gifted and talented” grant. 
 

And this is your issue you’re not getting that intelligence isn’t a concrete subject. You can’t measure it and all an IQ test does is test you on a small sliver of subjects making them useless as a measure of intelligence 

Nope,  you're confusing poor application of IQ with IQ being a poor study. 

 

There is a solid reason it correlates so strongly with many other metrics.  The problem is not IQ or being able to measure it, it is the shit way it is often measured or the results interpreted.  Most IQ tests are run by government agencies,  and often they are not done properly.    Especially given the way you described the test you took, it did not include important metrics (abstract reasoning and verbal intelligence), Classic example of people just doing shit and believing it is legitimate.   Hell, I would bet it wasn't even administered by two observing psyches in a controlled environment. 

 

Again I see this first hand all the time.  I am no stranger to the testing and no stranger to the problems certain institutions have in administering and interpreting the data.

 

 

[Imbadatnames]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Nope,  you're confusing poor application of IQ with IQ being a poor study. 

 

There is a solid reason it correlates so strongly with many other metrics.  The problem is not IQ or being able to measure it, it is the shit way it is often measured or the results interpreted.  Most IQ tests are run by government agencies,  and often they are not done properly.    Especially given the way you described the test you took, it did not include important metrics (abstract reasoning and verbal intelligence), Classic example of people just doing shit and believing it is legitimate.   Hell, I would bet it wasn't even administered by two observing psyches in a controlled environment. 

 

Again I see this first hand all the time.  I am no stranger to the testing and no stranger to the problems certain institutions have in administering and interpreting the data.

 

 

It did include them they’re just not that abstract. It’s essentially a bunch of symbols and asks you what the missing one is. It’s essentially pattern recognition and the entire test is essentially logic. 
 

Overall Psychology is the definition of “we can’t decide what anything means and everything is basically subjective because of that”. You can literally ask 10 psychologists the same questions and you’ll get 10 different answers. 
 

I just think you believe in IQ as a metric and are glossing over its flaws labelling them as institutional errors rather than seeing the issue with trying to quantify an abstract concept using unreliable social science. 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Imbadatnames said:

It did include them they’re just not that abstract. It’s essentially a bunch of symbols and asks you what the missing one is. It’s essentially pattern recognition and the entire test is essentially logic. 
 

Overall Psychology is the definition of “we can’t decide what anything means and everything is basically subjective because of that”. You can literally ask 10 psychologists the same questions and you’ll get 10 different answers. 
 

I just think you believe in IQ as a metric and are glossing over its flaws labelling them as institutional errors rather than seeing the issue with trying to quantify an abstract concept using unreliable social science. 

 

I suggest you go back and read the articles I linked.   It seems you are seriously confusing a poor application of IQ testing and interpretation with IQ being a poor metric.  The research is very thorough and has been going on for a very long time.   The issue is all the cowboys who don;t do it properly giving it a bad name.   You would dismiss the usefulness of a screwdriver on screws because it didn't work when someone used it as a chisel or threw it at a screw and then reported on the results.  IQ is no different,  it heavily correlates to many other traits,  way too much to merely be a coincidence.    

 

But then this is all in the literature if anyone could be arsed reading it before telling the world what they think.

[Imbadatnames]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

I suggest you go back and read the articles I linked.   It seems you are seriously confusing a poor application of IQ testing and interpretation with IQ being a poor metric.  The research is very thorough and has been going on for a very long time.   The issue is all the cowboys who don;t do it properly giving it a bad name.   You would dismiss the usefulness of a screwdriver on screws because it didn't work when someone used it as a chisel or threw it at a screw and then reported on the results.  IQ is no different,  it heavily correlates to many other traits,  way too much to merely be a coincidence.    

 

But then this is all in the literature if anyone could be arsed reading it before telling the world what they think.

You can correlate data without there being an actual link. The issue is I did read your links and personally cannot see where the the data links beyond a correlation on a graph, what doesn’t help is you’ve linked sources that contain erroneous information such as linking intelligence to brain size which you yourself have admitted is false which is proof that a correlation in data doesn’t make a point in and of itself 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Imbadatnames said:

You can correlate data without there being an actual link. The issue is I did read your links and personally cannot see where the the data links beyond a correlation on a graph, what doesn’t help is you’ve linked sources that contain erroneous information such as linking intelligence to brain size which you yourself have admitted is false which is proof that a correlation in data doesn’t make a point in and of itself 

Your lack of understanding does not make it wrong.  Brainsize and IQ are correlated, like it or not.  Even psychologists/psychiatrists who run a hundred miles from these studies (because they don't want to be seen as controversial) don't argue the basic facts.