Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jason Maguire's avatar

A relevant post on cultural bias on IQ tests: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/cultural-bias-on-iq-tests/

Expand full comment
Tony V's avatar

In summary, the sensitivity of a test measures the true accuracy of identification of having and not having IQ. The more equidistant between each ordinal ranking and the longer the elongation of the maxima and minima of a slope, the more evenly measured or discriminative ability the test is. A shape of the curve can be shifted up, left, down or right relative to the other groups rankings, indicating a lower floor and ceiling or higher floor and ceiling threshold with respect to when those correct responses are attained. A penalty weighting factor or schema can be applied with respect to each group to correct for the heteroskedastic property of the curve. An integral can measure the cumulative probability distribution. Equalizing results is only necessary with respect to the whole test if the cumulative bias among all test items result in a final distribution of great skew by assigning penalty transformer functions to some items or general weighting schemes with respect to all items. A gangster might have high specificity accuracy but an educated person might not, a women’s diet lexicon might be more advanced with more exposure earlier than a man’s. such shifts in the curve and the parametization of those latent variables with respect to the shape of the functions must be considered individually (I.e. exposure to items, consideration of concept space, insinuated meaning, differential preferences to the skewedness/shifts/centricity/kurtosis.

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts