Yes it does, it's one of the most widely cited studies for IQ research. My uni had the class do a research project based on this study, you might just be looking at the wrong page.
It doesn't, see attached screenshot of tests carried out on the cohort.
There are fields of biology that were largely discarded due to its racist foundations, (does eugenics ring any bells to you?).
IQ is a predictor of outcome only once you have discarded every other variable, I don't see why such a weak predictor is being so stringently defended by you.
Did I ever argue for the tossing out of psychometrics?
IQ in its current state has not been extracted from its racist origins. If the sole basis of modern genetics was fascists and their hangers-on trying to find a new way to root out removed your arguement may have a point, but it has moved on from the eugenicists of old. Whereas the basis of IQ testing is largely unchanged from its origins and the consequences of that remain largely unexamined by the people that argue in its favour.
The theories of Arthur Jensen, a (now deceased) proponent of eugenics via IQ testing have been used argue against the establishment of welfare programs and affirmative action.
Charles Murray, the surviving author of The Bell Curve is still rattling around pushing for segregated education in order to form a "cognitive elite".
The framework behind IQ has not changed since its racist beginnings, until those can be addressed any not racist benefits are merely a byproduct of an attempt to maintain a tool used legitimise racialised hierarchies.
Genetics on the other hand has discarded the racist theories that spawned it.
If so, how is someone being racially discriminated against by IQ tests continuing to be used?
See again, my example of the 2020 grading controversy, where students were marked below their expected grades based on an algorithm that used average demographic SAT scores. 36% of GCSE students were graded significantly lower than they should've been. You wanna guess the racial make-up of schools hit harshest by this?
what has genetics discarded that IQ tests haven't?
Well for starters eugenics has been rejected in the mainstream consensus of geneticists. Their crackpot theories are rejected and their racism is unsupported by their academic peers. James Watson publicly expressing his bigoted views on race and IQ resulted in a barrage of complaints by his peers in the field of genetics.
On the other hand in psychometrics:
Charles Murray, (to name but one prominent eugenicist psychometrician) continues to publish his works tying IQ to race on a number of journals, is broadcasted on a variety of publications, and his works (despite not holding up to much scientific scrutiny) continue to be cited in studies into IQ.
Richard Lynn and J Philippe Rushton, are two prominent professors of psychology who are very outspoken about IQ being connected primarily to race. They are in charge of the pioneer fund, a eugenics institute. Rushton has argued in favour of phrenology.
The American Psychological Association was still publishing pro-eugenics articles as recently as 2005.
That's the difference. Genetics has discarded its eugenicists, psychometrics has kept them.
what elements remains in psychometry that causes harm where IQ tests are still used?
The main changes on how IQ is measured have been to account for the Flynn effect. There has been no attempt to correct the fundamental flaw in how IQ tests work, ie their conception of intelligence revolves around the pet theories of some 1920's eugenicists.
It doesn't, see attached screenshot of tests carried out on the cohort.
deleted by creator
The use of ASVAB score as a stand-in for IQ is contentious amongst researchers.
1 2 3 4 5
What's more, higher scores on WAIS and ASVAB are even less correlated with eachother than lower scores.
deleted by creator
Still sifting through the data myself to have a look, but this study seems to suggest it doesn't (at least with educational outcomes).
deleted by creator
It does show that g is a poor predictor for educational outcomes.
And this study shows that g doesn't correlate well with wealth.
And this one suggests socioeconomic background has a similar impact on educational outcomes to cognitive ability.
So, what "life outcomes" is IQ supposed to be so much better at predicting that we can safely ignore its racist baggage?
deleted by creator
There are fields of biology that were largely discarded due to its racist foundations, (does eugenics ring any bells to you?).
IQ is a predictor of outcome only once you have discarded every other variable, I don't see why such a weak predictor is being so stringently defended by you.
Also when I talk about racist baggage, I don't mean that some racists use IQ as an excuse for racism. I mean IQ testing was popularised by eugenicists looking for excuses to do eugenics.
deleted by creator
Did I ever argue for the tossing out of psychometrics?
IQ in its current state has not been extracted from its racist origins. If the sole basis of modern genetics was fascists and their hangers-on trying to find a new way to root out removed your arguement may have a point, but it has moved on from the eugenicists of old. Whereas the basis of IQ testing is largely unchanged from its origins and the consequences of that remain largely unexamined by the people that argue in its favour.
deleted by creator
The theories of Arthur Jensen, a (now deceased) proponent of eugenics via IQ testing have been used argue against the establishment of welfare programs and affirmative action.
Charles Murray, the surviving author of The Bell Curve is still rattling around pushing for segregated education in order to form a "cognitive elite".
Former prime minister of the UK Boris Johnson is a proud proponent of IQ based eugenics.
As were the people that informed his policies.
During the COVID-19 lockdown, they took advantage of cancelled exams to redistribute grading so that people in poorer areas where given lower marks in an attempt to cut the working class from further education.
You can't claim this stuff is in the past when it's still being used by neoliberals to inform policy.
deleted by creator
The framework behind IQ has not changed since its racist beginnings, until those can be addressed any not racist benefits are merely a byproduct of an attempt to maintain a tool used legitimise racialised hierarchies.
Genetics on the other hand has discarded the racist theories that spawned it.
deleted by creator
See again, my example of the 2020 grading controversy, where students were marked below their expected grades based on an algorithm that used average demographic SAT scores. 36% of GCSE students were graded significantly lower than they should've been. You wanna guess the racial make-up of schools hit harshest by this?
Well for starters eugenics has been rejected in the mainstream consensus of geneticists. Their crackpot theories are rejected and their racism is unsupported by their academic peers. James Watson publicly expressing his bigoted views on race and IQ resulted in a barrage of complaints by his peers in the field of genetics.
On the other hand in psychometrics:
Charles Murray, (to name but one prominent eugenicist psychometrician) continues to publish his works tying IQ to race on a number of journals, is broadcasted on a variety of publications, and his works (despite not holding up to much scientific scrutiny) continue to be cited in studies into IQ.
Richard Lynn and J Philippe Rushton, are two prominent professors of psychology who are very outspoken about IQ being connected primarily to race. They are in charge of the pioneer fund, a eugenics institute. Rushton has argued in favour of phrenology.
The American Psychological Association was still publishing pro-eugenics articles as recently as 2005.
That's the difference. Genetics has discarded its eugenicists, psychometrics has kept them.
The main changes on how IQ is measured have been to account for the Flynn effect. There has been no attempt to correct the fundamental flaw in how IQ tests work, ie their conception of intelligence revolves around the pet theories of some 1920's eugenicists.