#IQ testing beyond mainstream limits

[in-sightpublishing]

On High-Range Test Construction 22: Paul Cooijmans on High-Range Tests and Statistics

              Publisher: In-Sight Publishing Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014 Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada Journal: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal Journal Founding: August 2, 2012 Frequency: Three (3) Times Per Year Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed Access: Electronic/Digital & Open Access Fees:…

[thosearentcrimes]

Intelligence

On a recent post I was pretty glib about the notion of intelligence, to the point of outright denying that it is measured by IQ, and even doubting its very existence. On reflection, this is a bit of an unusual position, since the existence of intelligence is almost self-evident, and certainly I routinely behave as if intelligence were both real and variable. As such, I feel like I should clarify my position a bit.

Intelligence is a term so vague as to be effectively meaningless, unless it is very precisely defined for a particular context. Intelligence research both does not precisely define intelligence, and contains mutually contradictory definitions. Because I really really hate Charles Murray (may his collaborator Herrnstein rest in piss) and his pile of racist and classist vitriol “The Bell Curve”, I will be picking on the Bell Curve apologetic letter to the Wall Street Journal (lol) “Mainstream Science on Intelligence“ which was signed by 52 (out of the 131 to whom it was sent) "experts in intelligence and allied fields". Fun fact: One of the signatories of this letter is Hans Eysenck, possibly the most monumental scientific fraud of all time, who claimed that lung cancer is not caused by smoking but by bad vibes. Other fun fact: He is by far not the worst person to have signed this tripe (that is, to my limited awareness, J. Philippe Rushton).

The first point made by the article is that intelligence is “A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience.“ This definition is actually significantly more ambiguous than even it concedes. Apparently not satisfied with the lack of clarity in that sentence, the author of the letter later described intelligence as ”The ability to deal with cognitive complexity” which is frankly laughable. I will happily concede the central conceit, that these activities require roughly the same general qualities of a person, because it is at the very least plausible. Instead, I would like to note that this definition does not specify whether or not intelligence involves the ability to do any of these things (except for learning) quickly, which it really should, for reasons we will come back to. To address specific components of this “general mental capability”, is intelligence the ability to solve a wide range of problems in a satisfactory manner, or is it the ability to solve problems that few other people can solve, or is it the ability to find particularly good solutions for ordinary problems? If it is all three, then to what degree do you weight these things? Which problems are admissible here? “Physical dexterity” is largely the ability to estimate center of balance and calculate ballistic curves. Given that, is hitting a moving target with a ball “intelligence”, and if not, why not? We could claim that hitting moving targets with balls is something that is learned through experience, but learning from experience is a part of intelligence as well! If my complaints concern problem-solving, it is because it is the only one of these that can be assessed quantitatively and at scale, the others only being measurable by way of problem-solving itself if at all. Some of the others can be assessed individually and/or qualitatively, but that is incompatible with the theory and practice of intelligence research. Now, I believe all of the questions I posed can be answered both ways, depending on context. In fact, if all we want “intelligence” for is a contextually-dependent blob of generalized cognitive ability, then I have no objection, beyond its somewhat limited utility as a concept and tendency towards tautology.

The second point of the article is where it all really breaks down. "Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well.“ Intelligence tests basically means IQ, as far as I can tell. The article operates further as if it had said IQ here, and the Bell Curve operates using IQ as its test of choice (IQ being a test designed to produce the normal distribution whose shape gives the book its name). If we compare a popular IQ test like WAIS to the definition of intelligence we have already given, we find that it is inconceivable that it measures intelligence at all. The “vocabulary” section does not measure speed of learning, it measures total learning performed and memory, and memory isn’t even a component of intelligence as defined! Neither is it clear why general knowledge questions would reflect any of the components of intelligence as given. I am willing to grant that spatial reasoning is a component of intelligence but it is less clear to me why this section is timed, given that the only thing intelligence as defined explicitly requires us to do quickly is learn. There is an entire “working memory” section to the WAIS. Unless we count rote short-term memorization as learning, and we should not, then there is no reason to consider any of this relevant to intelligence as it has been defined. Additionally, at no point is the participant required to hit a moving target with a ball, or construct a stable structure of some sort. This would be reasonable if it had already been specified that these sorts of tasks do not fall under intelligence, but it wasn’t. As such, the claim the letter makes, that intelligence tests measure what they have defined as intelligence, is blatantly false. Intelligence tests measure familiarity with academic test-taking environments and strategies, compliance with test-giver commands, memorization, spatial reasoning, general knowledge, pattern identification, and mathematical problem-solving. Only a small component of that is what intelligence was defined as earlier, and entire fields of what intelligence was supposed to be are missing in this evaluation.

To get a good run-down of some of the many problems with The Bell Curve in particular, see Shaun’s excellent video. For more writing on the folly of intelligence measurement in general, criticisms of bioessentialism, excellent writing about biology in general, and also baseball, read basically anything by Stephen Jay Gould.

[guiltyidealist]

Of Dogs and Autism

“Discrete trial training (DTT...) is a technique used by practitioners of applied behavior analysis (ABA) that was developed by Ivar Lovaas… DTT is a practitioner-led, structured instructional procedure that breaks tasks down into simple subunits to shape new skills. Often employed up to 6–7 hours per day for children with autism, the technique relies on the use of prompts, modeling, and positive reinforcement strategies to facilitate the child's learning. It is also noted for its previous use of aversives to punish unwanted behaviors. […]

“DTT is used to reduce stereotypical autistic behaviours through extinction and the provision of socially acceptable alternatives...   Intervention can start when a child is as young as three and can last from two to six years. […] The first year seeks to reduce self-stimulating ("stimming") behavior... 

“[It] is ideally performed five to seven days a week with each session lasting from five to seven hours, totaling an average of 35–40 hours per week. Each session is divided into trials with intermittent breaks.  The trials do not have a specified time limit to allow for a natural conclusion when the communicator feels the child is losing focus. Each trial is composed of a series of prompts... that are issued by the "communicator" who is positioned directly across the table from the individual receiving treatment. These prompts can range from "put in"," put on"," show me"," give to me" and so on, in reference to an object, color, simple imitative gesture, etc.  The concept is centered on shaping the child to correctly respond to the prompts, increasing the attentive ability of the individual, and mainstreaming the child for academic success.  Should the child fail to respond to a prompt, a "prompter," seated behind the child, uses either a partial-, a simple nudge or touch on the hand or arm or a full-, hand over hand assistance until the prompt has been completed, physical guide to correct the individual's mistake or non-compliance.  Each correct response is reinforced with verbal praise, an edible, time with a preferred toy, or any combination thereof. […] 

“There is only weak evidence that the Lovaas method is effective.

“... Lovaas's original technique also included more extensive use of aversives such as striking, shouting, or using electrical shocks. These procedures have been widely abandoned for over a decade.  […] Only one institution, the Judge Rotenberg Center, still employs electric shocks as aversives… 

“Gresham and MacMillar (1998) specifically cite a lack of a true experimental design in Lovaas' (1987) experiment on early intervention.  They charge that he instead implemented a quasi-experimental design of matched pairs regarding the distribution of subjects within the experimental and control groups. [They] also state a lack of a true representation of autism in that the subjects were neither randomly sampled from the population of individuals with autism nor were they randomly assigned to treatment groups.  The internal validity of the study was also called into question due to the possibility of skewed data resulting from three influential threats.  Instrumentation, changes or variations in measurement of procedures over time, was argued to have been altered in both the pre-test and post-test conditions which were confounded by a differentiation in ascertaining cognitive abilities and intelligence of the subjects.  […]   External validity was called into question concerning sample characteristics.  Lovaas' (1987) criteria for acceptance into the program required a psychological mental age greater than 11 months and a chronological age less than 46 months in the case of echolalic children.  Schopler et al. (1989) purport that if both the intellectual and echolalia criteria were rigidly adhered to at the North Carolina institute, approximately 57% of the referrals would have been excluded from the program. 

“Other criticisms include a failure to operationally define the use of the term 'reinforcement' for compliance, the use of a Pro-rated Mental Age, and the statistical regression of the child's IQ over time.  Boyd (1998)addressed the potential impact of a disproportionate sex ratio of females to males on the control group's mean IQ score. […] In a rejoinder to Boyd's (1998) article...  Lovaas (1998) listed three reasons as to why the disproportionate ratio's influence on the data was negligible.  The autistic population at the time had a ratio of 4:1.  Lovaas (1998)[24] argued that the ratios for the experimental group, control group 1, and control group 2 of 16:3, 11:8, and 16:5, respectively, were in fact near the expected ratio scale of the general population with the exception of control group 1.  The second argument lay in the studies Boyd (1998) referenced in regards to low intellectual performance in females diagnosed with autism.  One of the studies admitted to having a female subject with Rett disorder, a condition that showed little responsiveness to intensive early behavioral intervention.  Lovaas (1998) concluded by proposing that males may more readily meet diagnostic criteria for autism because of certain salient characteristics inherent in the sex while the subtleties in their female counterparts may be overlooked.”

Autistic children are treated like animals, trained to stop performing behaviors that are not harmful or wrong for no reason beyond allistic people not liking it. ABA therapy needs to stop.