> not if you control for race. rich black kids don't outperform poor white kids. yet that claim still doesn't refute that poor white kids systematically underperform compared to rich white kids. are you implying that there's an intrinsic genetical difference between rich and poors anon ? > 1) iq tests are designed to be culture agnostic. which iq tests are you talking about ? the wisc ? the stanford-binet ? there's a variety of iq tests and they're not culture agnostic. viq takes into account vocabulary, mathematics have been shown to correspond with greater logical reasoning etc. > 2) iq is meant to assess a type of intelligence that is actually useful to society no, "they" don't measure intelligence that "is useful for society". they form an average of select mental scores meant to represent different capabilities. surely you must understand that a kid with sensory issues won't perform the same as one with no issues in a test reliant on vision and dexterity right ? > their iq is unchanged from 50 years ago anon you do realize in which state china was 50 years ago right ? your point doesn't make sense because either: a. you have no idea what you're talking about and just spout basic racist rhetoric you've seen on 4chan b. you don't believe in the flynn-effect, which would've had to happen in a rapidly changing country like china. (which itself is incoherent as you cite the flynn-effect yourself 2 sentences after) > this is not true, the flynn effect has started to plateau no shit, when you reach a certain level of education, that education stops influencing iq. nobody is surprised that as progress in education stalls, so does its properties responsible for change in iq
Unknown