re: #278 Obdicut

Well, yes, according to your definition, that’s true. not according to mine. I’m not sure why this is a problem for you; I’m obviously using a definition suited for my argument— that’s because I’m attempting to actually convey something through that argument.

With respect, I think you are formulating an argument, then finding examples to fit it. In my experience it should be the other way around.

I’m not sure why you think I think that. Can you explain?

A) Tests of achievement within a domain do not test for achievement outside of that domain.

Your definition of domain strikes me as narrowly defined to fit a narrow definition, as per the above point.

B) “IQ test” isn’t a coherent phrase, given the wide variety of things that are called IQ tests.

IQ tests may possibly be used incoherently, but I know what they are and they are not incoherent, nor are SAT tests which are one form designed to predict academic direction and talents.

C) Genetics aren’t really even possible to talk about, with relationship to intelligence or achievement or anything of that sort, due to the influence of environment (meaning, at the molecular level) on expression of genes.

Starting an argument by saying something isn’t possible to be talked about is not a good idea. ;=) It most certainly can be talked about and within broad ranges can be demonstrated, but it is not a measure that I was talking about.

What I’m mainly arguing against with you is the idea that SAT scores are predictive rather than descriptive.

:shrug: They measure talent and knowledge which in turn is predictive of success in an area, to a statistically significant level. That is a fact.

Fun discussion, but now I have to do something else. I’ll check back later.