Duns, et al, Free Will Vs. Determinism

by larc 58 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  larc

  Dear Duns,

  Since I have a little time on my hands before I go beddy bye, and the board is slow, I thought I would give more off the top of my head information on IQ and IQ tests.

  The first sucessful attempt to construct an IQ test was made by Alfred Binet in France in the early 1900's. Its major purpose was to determine the children who could not progress at the rate of the average student, as well as the students who could proceed at a faster rate. The test was successful at making these distinctions. The test is given to one child at a time and takes about an hour to administer. His test was translated into english and is called the Stanford Binet.

  At the out break of WWI, the government wanted a similiar test that could be given to a large group at one time, so that it would be less labor intensive to administer. Their objective was to determine inductees that could handle the more complex assignments requiring technical skill. Two tests were developed, the Army Alpha and the Army Beta. The Army Beta had spoken instructions but no reading requirements so that the poorly educated, poor readers could take it to determine their learning potential. It was the historical origination of tests later called Culture Fair Tests, such as the Ravens Progressive Matrices. After the war, the Army Alpha and similiar tests were modified and combined and became the Wonderlic Personnel Test. It was used in industry to select the brightest job applicants. In the 1940's David Wechsler developed the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for children (WISC) and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), which represented a significant improvement in several ways over the Stanford Binet. All of the aforementioned test are still in use today, but with revision and update from time to time.

  It is interesting that the measurement of intelligence came long before the theories of intellegince came, and there are several. The tests I mentioned, measure an overall ability, sometimes referred to as Spearman's G Factor. Others have developed more complex models of intelligence based on Factor Analysis, Guilford's model being one of the most complex. Although measurements of unique intellectual factors can be made, the tests usually have a sizable "g" component, even when attempting to measure a unique factor.

  What would be a good alternative name for the construct we call IQ? I think it would be, "academic aptitude and achievement." That was the original design and objective both by Binet and the Army.

  A classic study by Ghisselli showed that IQ tests had a low but significant correlation with job success. The tests had higher correlations with success in company training programs, as would be expected. A more recent meta analytic study by Hunter and Schmidt (Psychological Bulletin, 1998) showed that IQ tests were the single best predictor of job success across all jobs and all ethnic groups. (Interestingly enough, the second highest predictor was integrity.)

  If you have any questions - feel free to ask.
• 

  larc

  Duns,

  Further IQ facts. The average score is a hundred with a standard deviation of 15. This means that 2/3rds of the population have scores between 85 and 115. Do scores along this continuum make a difference? You bet. An adult with a verbal IQ on the WAIS can read at the third grade level at best. Most are functionaly illiterate. At the other extreme, Terman's classic study with people in the top one percent have productivity levels in terms of patents and copywrights that are ten times higher than those that are above average but not that gifted. Obviously, someone with an IQ of 70 can barely write a sentence let alone write a book.

  Is IQ an important construct? No question about it.
• 

  larc

  erata,

  In the sentence about the third grade reading level, I left out the IQ value which is 70.

  Since I had to come back to explain this, I will mention that this is based on a study I conducted many years ago that was in the Journal of Rehabilitation. I compared WAIS verbal IQ with reading comphrension as measured by the Nelson Reading Test. The sample size was about 300. The data also showed that verbal IQ set an upper limit for reading comprehenion in the IQ range from 70 to 100. Above 100, IQ didn't make a diference up through a reading level of 11th grade.

  This raises another interesting question. Does IQ affect free will? I would say that people with very low IQs also have a narrower range of free will than someone like you or me.
• 

  larc

  Duns,

  All of the stuff above was to address your statement, "Similarity in IQ does not necessarily = similiar intelligence. Well, yes it does. Of course, as one leaves their teens and developes their unique interests and talents the individual differences in how IQ is manifest becomes apparent. However, the raw "horsepower" remains about the same over a life time.

  You know Duns, if you would have had me as a teacher, you might have become a psych. major. Don't I just make it come alive!!
• 

  dunsscot

  Larc,

  :Even if determinism is absolutely true, it is a bad thing to teach people. As an input, it creates in the minds of people the idea that they are not to blame for anything. Our society is that point right now. We have become a nation of fault finders and blamers. People are less willing to take personal responsibility for their own actions.:

  Philosophers who object to the notion of strict determinism (in its manifold forms) often do so for this very reason. How can we hold people responsible for their actions when they do not have "free will"? The Texan woman who drowned her five children recently is one case that makes this question arise as well as the cases of pedophilia that folks have regularly discussed on this board. How can anyone find fault with molesters or child killers, if we do not have free will? Another question that I wonder about is, does it really matter what we teach people about free will, if they are not really free with regard to their volitional faculty?

  :Here, I think your idea of the invulnerables is a useful one. What about the ones from a lousy home who turned out well. What about the men that looked at pictures of naked ladies and the was the end of it. They didn't go out and rape or abuse children.Whenever I hear a story that a man raped a woman and it was her fault because she showed cleavage and leg, I want to puke.:

  I know that I have not provided an extended description of invulnerables. I was primarily going on what my sociology professor told me. But the concept is clear enough and there are supposedly examples of such invulnerables, as you note. My sociology professor was (by her own admission) reared in a highly dysfunctional home. But she was able to overcome her traumatic childhood experiences.

  :Therefore, I hope the book proves me wrong, because I would like to see a good alternative to what I am presenting. If the book is good, I will get a copy myself. I guess in summary, I am saying that the theory of determinism is useful as a framework for scientific inquiry. It is a very bad theory to be adopted into mainstream society. Thus, I am at the same point as I was when I started this thread. As a scientist, I believe in determinism. As a human being, I believe in fee will.:

  Personally, I do not think the debate between those who believe man has free will and those who do not will ever be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Those who presuppose determinism will continue to do so, and those who advocate free will be convinced that they are free sans apodictic evidence that confutes their position. Having said the foregoing, I will let you know what I think about the book and you can decide whether you would like a copy or not.

  It sounds like you are feeling the same way that Kant did, when he wrote his _Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics_.

  The great thinker from Konigsberg discussed the antinomies of reason vis-a-vis free will in this work and basically contended that we cannot satisfactorily adjudicate the issue of free will over against determinism since we are epistemically restricted to the world of phenomenal appearances. Free will, according to Kant, is a noumenal matter. Therefore, we can never know we are free on the basis of reason alone, because reason cannot plumb or fathom the Dinge-an-Zich. There are admittedly reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue. It seems that we are at an impasse as far as reason is concerned. I opt for free will, however.

  Lastly, I will just note that you make a distinction between being a scientist and a human being. I think such distinctions are contrived, artificial, and stem from a Neo-Kantian Gestalt.

  Duns the Scot

  "Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
• 

  dunsscot

  Larc,

  :As a general measure of intelligence, IQ tests have very high reliability and high construct validity.:

  I agree. But there are other problems with IQ tests.

  :The correlation between IQ scores of identical twins raised together is about .9. The reliability of the test is .95. Therefore, the IQ of twins is nearly identical.:

  Rod Plotnik observes that the median correlation in IQ scores for identical twins raised together is .85. On the other hand, the median correlation in IQ scores for identical twins reared apart is .72. It thus seems that we have an interplay between nature and nurture going on vis-a-vis these test scores. Plotnik also notes the reliability of the test. But he reminds us these results can be misleading if we do not keep two significant things in mind: "how intelligence is defined and what genetic influence means." His comments can be found on page 292 of the textbook he put together. Plotnik further reminds us that IQ tests fail to measure certain types of intelligence. This fact alone makes me critical of IQ tests. See the studies by Gardner (1997), Sternberg (1997) as well as those by Mayer and Salovey (1997).

  Duns the Scot

  "Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
• 

  larc

  Duns,

  I am not going to read any books for awhile. I have provided plenty of material on IQ tests you can consider and comment on if you wish.
• 

  dunsscot

  Larc,

  :In the 1940's David Wechsler developed the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for children (WISC) and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), which represented a significant improvement in several ways over the Stanford Binet. All of the aforementioned test are still in use today, but with revision and update from time to time.:

  As I mentioned earlier, I am not crazy about IQ, SAT or GRE tests. My thinking has admittedly been influenced by certain theories of intelligence put forth by previously mentioned psychologists. But I think that theories of multiple intelligence have adequately shown that intelligence cannot be circumscribed by Spearman's G factor. What is more, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale has its own set of problems. Here are some things I have found while researching the quiddity of intelligence. The comments are my own observations in light of the research I have conducted.

  ". In addition to the arguments posed by Sternberg and Gardner, the book What is Intelligence? (edited by Jean Khalfa), outlines various types of intelligences (mathematical, logical, musical). In view of the fact that intelligence is such a broad concept, the book provides the following stark observation: "The IQ notion of intelligence as a single dimension along which to judge children and adults, is among the most personally and socially damaging notions of this century" (17).

  "Actually, certain sociologists have demonstrated that social and cultural variables most definitely affect a test-taker’s IQ results. This fact cannot be successfully disputed when it is considered in the light of recent sociological and psychological evidence. Scholar J. Blaine Hudson points to a major factor shaping the scores of minorities on intelligence tests by noting: "racial differences in average IQ scores are simply one measure of the impact of racism and racial inequality" (145).

  A similar observation is made in The IQ Mythology by Elaine and Harry Mensh: "Jefferson's assertion that 'one could scarcely find' a black person 'capable of tracing and comprehending Euclid' soon proved embarrassing. Most blacks were slaves, and as such were barred from learning to read, let alone being permitted to study mathematics. Yet it was a black mathematician and astronomer who confronted Jefferson with the most telling repudiation of his views' (104-105).

  :It is interesting that the measurement of intelligence came long before the theories of intellegince came, and there are several.:

  But remember that intelligence preceded and supersedes intelligence tests and theories.

  I might also ask what you think of the Flynn effect. Lastly, have you ever read the book entitled _Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth_ written by six Stanford sociologists?

  Duns the Scot

  "Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
• 

  larc

  Duns,

  I spent considerable time giving you a history of IQ testing and a good working definition, and you blow it off with a causal remark that you are critical of IQ tests because they don't measure every unique aspect of intelligence. They weren't designed for that purpose!! Nonetheless, they are the best single predictor of occupational advancement and academic success e.g. graduate school. I also provided you with descriptions in the differences in the ability level on the IQ continuum, which are striking. As far as I am concerned you are just spouting the acedemic Zeitgeist which is the popular opinion to take.

  If there is a better design for a GENERAL measure of intelligence, then someone would design it.

  Since you are into the books, you might specify the aspects of intelligence that are not measured by standard tests. For the test that measure the unique factors, also specify how large the "g" factor is in each case. If you decide to take on this task, you can skip one distinction - crystalized versus fluid intelligence. IQ tests measure crystalized intelligence.

  By the way, did you find a quote for me re: Ellis, and did you read the thread re: Ellis?
• 

  dunsscot

  :Duns,
  I am not going to read any books for awhile. I have provided plenty of material on IQ tests you can consider and comment on if you wish.:

  I have already provided some comments and will try to post some information regading your other thoughts. Suffice it to say that it looks like we are on two different sides of the fence when it comes to IQ testing and free will. If you want to read a book in the future, try _The Volitional Brain: Towards a Neuroscience of Free Will_ (edited by Benjamin Libet, Anthony Freeman and Keith Sutherland). It was published in 1999 by Imprint Academic. ISBN is 0-907845-11-8. I just received my copy today and it looks pretty good.

  Enjoy!

  Dan

  Duns the Scot

  "Nobody is taller than himself or herself."