2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $7608.77Goal: $10000

Forum:Should IQ tests be standardized within race?

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

IQ tests are biased aganist certain cultural groups. However, biological evidence suggest there is no such thing as "race". But it seems some social surveys report data standardized within the so called "race", making each "race" have the same average of 100. Should this be done? Or should they be standardized in the population?--Scientist (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

IQ tests are already problematic predictors of future success anyway. But no, racial boundaries should not be further delineated. Instead we as a society should strive to equally educate everyone and ensure all races have equal education. Fix the problem. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Not really any point. Race is really poorly-defined and isn't really the biggest factor affecting test scores. If you do race, you might as well do sex, education, socio-economic background, and all kinds of other specific things to the point where the test becomes useless at measuring actual aptitude.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Probably the biggest determining factor in IQ results is education. Which rather raises the question of what IQ tests are testing anyway.
So should we further delineate one rather badly-defined thing in terms of another badly-defined thing? Probably not.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)