>>11688175a couple problems
>thank you for proving my point that this cannot possibly be a measure of latent intelligence, then.What I said doesn't prove your point. There's this thing called an "idealized model", in which small liberties are taken and error accounted for to estimate a true value. IQ tests are a sort of idealized model of latent intelligence, in which, while it may not give precise scores and measurements, it's accurate enough to be a good representation of latent intelligence.
>[citation needed] I guarantee you that pattern recognition is a practiced and honed skill that depends on your upbringing. Your ability to do it may largely be innate, but your proficiency can be trainedYou contradict yourself here. First you say that pattern recognition is a practiced and honed skill dependent on upbringing, then you say your ability to recognize patterns may be largely innate. Which is it? Also, we've both agreed that you can in fact study for IQ tests; that's not what the argument is about. We're talking about whether or not the practice is notable, whether most people do in fact practice for them whether willingly or unwillingly through upbringing, and whether this practice can be controlled through social/economic factors like going through the same schooling system in similar areas.
>When did I say this? You didn't say it, I did. I'm saying that this is what would happen if you took away the gifted program.
>my gifted program had no IQ exam entrance.Then you're not talking about the same gifted program. Standard gifted programs across the nation require an IQ of 130 to get into.
> I was talking about the people claiming "you need a certain IQ to go into computer science" or stuff like that, which is bogus.You're implying that IQ should be abolished or taken out of education, which continues with my line of reasoning that it's harmful to actually gifted kids.
