An interesting read. It never struck me as something that needed researching - the obvious bias baked into any and all tests which utilize language and probe at abstract ideas like feelings. It seems obvious to me that the idea of "sadness" is both inherently as well as culturally determined. For anyone who's dealt with individuals with varying amounts of alexithymia its glaringly obvious that some of the standard questions such as "feeling down, depressed, or hopeless" (PHQ9) would be interpreted differently, let alone questions in which context is crucially important such as "poor appetite or overeating" (PHQ9) or "being so restless that it is hard to sit still" (GAD7 - a test about anxiety) that are common on these kinds of questionnaires. Perhaps its because my interaction and discussions with clinicians tends to be folks who are focused more on the total mental wellness of someone than they are about the specific answers to a question and are using the context of the patient's other conditions and affect to assess, but this hardly seems groundbreaking... except that perhaps the literature on this itself is minimal. Perhaps this kind of clinical awareness has been handed down, rather than studied, and the corpus of literature needs to be enhanced so that more can learn and absorb it.
Science
Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
Stopped reading at "IQ"
I guess high IQ people by definition are good at being smart on the cishet white man doing things society values scale.
I'm curious whether there's a better way to quantify intelligence for studies like this (where you need to be able to quantify it to be able to spot correlations and patterns in the data...)
Like, all my life, I've only heard of IQ being a quantification of intelligence, and that the methods to estimate it are all flawed and based on racialist assumptions. Is there anyone in our modern scientific landscape that's coming up with a replacement for IQ? It's probably overdue...
I think intelligence is just something too complex to summarise in a single number. Any attempt to do so will always either have big flaws and biases, or be too broad to be meaningful.
I'd consider it equivalent to trying to put a number on how "skilled" someone is. Like, skilled at what? What skills are you going to test and how are you going to balance them?
Different types of intelligence are more abstract than different skills but I think it's as meaningless to try to express the whole thing with a single number.
And I'm saying this as someone who's recently diagnosed with an IQ of 138 (had to do an IQ test as a part of a job application), which is above average, so I'm not saying this because I'm salty about my own IQ score.
IQ measurements have been design to detect difficulties. It's not truly for comparing and especially not for going over 100.
I mean, the world is really messed up and most people keep themselves oblivious. I get selective amnesia just to protect myself. Maybe geniuses always break through that.
Really interesting article, thank you for posting.
Here's a free link for anyone who can't get through the paywall: