Citing national IQ correlations with GDP without addressing the ENORMOUS ethical controversies surrounding them is very dangerous territory. These measures come with cultural bias, unequal access to education and historical contexts. At the very least, there should be some serious caveats.
Good point, you're absolutely right to raise this. There is no such thing as a truly culture-free IQ test, and cross-national comparisons are always embedded in complex historical and social contexts. That said, IQ tests do tend to measure similar constructs across cultures (e.g. processing speed, working memory), which is why we do see relatively stable correlations with GDP in the literature I believe. I’ll revise the text accordingly.
Thanks for being open to that! I think it's really important because without context, readers might take those national IQ claims as solid fact. Unfortunately, I've seen commenters use similar claims (like from The Bell Curve) to push “race science” narratives.
Yes you're completely right! I didn't really think of that at the beginning, because this wasn't really the focus of the text. But of course I don't want to be misunderstood as spreading some race science narratives.
I added this part now. Hope that makes it clearer!
"However, such correlations must be interpreted with caution. That's because cross-national research faces major methodological challenges, including the comparability and representativeness of samples, differences in test familiarity, and test administration conditions. Many studies have been criticised for poor sample quality and limited representativeness. More rigorous studies, are rather rare and methodologically demanding. Moreover, although the g-factor appears psychometrically universal, it may require culturally specific interpretations, as no text is completely culturally free. Thus, while cognitive ability seems relevant to national development, we must see these results as embedded in historical, educational, and structural contexts."
Also I hope it is going to be even clearer in my next article when I talk about neuroscience, genetics and intelligence.
More or less intelligent people, success... All this is just one step away from a very dangerous game. I hope you will include Jacques Rancière's concept of "equality of intelligence" in your further reflection.
Citing national IQ correlations with GDP without addressing the ENORMOUS ethical controversies surrounding them is very dangerous territory. These measures come with cultural bias, unequal access to education and historical contexts. At the very least, there should be some serious caveats.
Good point, you're absolutely right to raise this. There is no such thing as a truly culture-free IQ test, and cross-national comparisons are always embedded in complex historical and social contexts. That said, IQ tests do tend to measure similar constructs across cultures (e.g. processing speed, working memory), which is why we do see relatively stable correlations with GDP in the literature I believe. I’ll revise the text accordingly.
Thanks for being open to that! I think it's really important because without context, readers might take those national IQ claims as solid fact. Unfortunately, I've seen commenters use similar claims (like from The Bell Curve) to push “race science” narratives.
Yes you're completely right! I didn't really think of that at the beginning, because this wasn't really the focus of the text. But of course I don't want to be misunderstood as spreading some race science narratives.
I added this part now. Hope that makes it clearer!
"However, such correlations must be interpreted with caution. That's because cross-national research faces major methodological challenges, including the comparability and representativeness of samples, differences in test familiarity, and test administration conditions. Many studies have been criticised for poor sample quality and limited representativeness. More rigorous studies, are rather rare and methodologically demanding. Moreover, although the g-factor appears psychometrically universal, it may require culturally specific interpretations, as no text is completely culturally free. Thus, while cognitive ability seems relevant to national development, we must see these results as embedded in historical, educational, and structural contexts."
Also I hope it is going to be even clearer in my next article when I talk about neuroscience, genetics and intelligence.
Thank you for being so genuinely receptive!
More or less intelligent people, success... All this is just one step away from a very dangerous game. I hope you will include Jacques Rancière's concept of "equality of intelligence" in your further reflection.
Thank you for your feedback. I will definitely look into this. I think it fits quite nicely in my next article on the point "nature vs nurture".