#but finding a reliable and quantifiable way to judge the quality of a work seems practically impossible | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

olhetti · 6 years

Text

IQ TESTS: Their Fucked Up History and Why They Shouldn’t be Used to Determine Intelligence

SO, nearly everyone you know has probably heard of an IQ test, whether it’s been via ‘official’ tests, or more likely, online quizzes. They all aim to quantify an individual’s intelligence, though it is much harder to actually do so than one may think. This is because, like almost all things about human beings, intelligence is more complicated than people believe it to be.

Though the idea of IQ, or intelligence quotient, was coined in 1912 by psychologist William Stern, it wasn’t the first instance in which a test had been created to determine someone’s wits. The first IQ test was actually made in France, by Albert Binet, in 1904, a way to measure children’s level of preparedness for school. However, while this was a measure of intelligence, it wasn’t quite what they defined as IQ at the time. Only when Lewis Terman, an American psychologist, created the Stanford-Benet Intelligence Scales based on Binet’s work, that IQ was popularly defined as the tests result, mental age, divided by the age of the test taker. This is where common reference of an IQ below 70 being particularly moronic originated, as below 70 was the lowest classification you could give. This test was notably created only with a basis upon white American citizens. This would not be a problem, were this trend not present in tests applied to people from different cultures.

During the time period in which these tests were created, there was a general consensus that some races were inferior in an inherent manner, though it was only certain in theory. As this was also a period of great scientific expansion, people leapt at the idea of having this theory corroborated by hard data, and thus the IQ test was set to fill this gap. This way of measuring IQ was directly tied in with the idea that people of color such as Native Americans, Indians, and African Americans were less evolved than those who were pale skinned, and thus data would naturally prove this as fact. One of these early pseudoscientific publications claimed that reaction time was fastest in people of fair skin, thus proving that reaction time increased with evolution, furthermore, another ‘study’ in, coincidentally, 1912, claimed that “the mental qualities of the Negro…shows a woeful lack of power of sustained activity and constructive conduct.” (Bruner, Frank G. (1912), It was only a matter of time until more official IQ tests were to come into the equation.

By the 1920’s, IQ tests were gaining popularity, especially in the US, and these tests were quite common, they took a lot of time to complete. Thus they adapted as a written test for the army, with positions given to those of higher IQ. These tests were also implemented in US studies of immigrants, even though some of the participants taking the test may not have known English, making it fairly impossible to get a decent score. The strict Immigration Act of 1924 was put into effect using mainly this study, citing a need to ensure that the IQ of the nation would not be dragged downward. As an result, Ann Frank’s father was likely denied entrance to the US because of these restrictions.

Even though this shit may seem like parts of the past, questions and inconsistencies in culture still are relevant for evaluating whether IQ tests are really accurate, or even measuring intelligence, especially in a world where people still place enormous importance on ‘intelligence’ tests, and often judge people based upon their scores. This is why research by Richard Lynn, a psychologist who’s a known supporter, is still important to pay attention to and discredit. While Lynn is generally not respected by members of his field, his research, at first glance, may seem credible, especially for people who want to believe his theories, and only glance once without considering the reliability of his work. Lynn is the author of several racially slanted IQ studies; his works have been discredited several times by examination of his data, which has been found to be poorly collected and evaluated. His studies often claim that people of darker skin have lower intelligence, making their purpose in propaganda very clear. On top of this, his statements have the tendency to evaluate the worth of people based on the studies which he conducted.

For one, those original ‘intelligence’ tests were not meant to measure intelligence, but to measure the abilities of French children in order to catch any which were falling behind. The original Binet test was created because of concerns that children would fall behind in the elementary education that had recently became compulsory in France. Much of this was due to the rates of illiteracy, especially in older children. In fact, the whole idea that you can definitely measure intelligence is shaky at best. The idea of intelligence is very nebulous. For example, can you say that this sample question of a modern Binet test, “Why do we have houses?”, is something that measures ‘intelligence’? Or, general knowledge/’common sense’? Also, while there are technically 14 answers (S. M. Mohsin 2002) to this question, there is no doubt that there are other ‘incorrect’ answers that would make sense, especially in cultures that are further removed from Western civilization. It gets even more complicated when you add in the idea of multiple intelligences, such as spatial reasoning vs verbal intelligence. While it is true that there are definite differences between people’s intelligence (or intelligences), it’s akin to comparing emotional pains in that each is both intimately scaled, and impossible to accurately compare.

The common concept of IQ is inherently flawed. If you took a test only to be disappointed, remember what it is claiming to find is likely not accurate, nor even the correct subject matter, and that trying to compare intelligence is like trying to compare who has gone through the worst in life; it’s an inherently prideful and pointless endeavor, as often no true conclusion can be reached.

Anyway that’s it.

Some stuff referenced...

"The primitive races in America", Psychological Bulletin, 9: 380–390, http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1926-02217-001

Mohsin, Mahsher Abidi Syed Mohammad. Elementary psychology. pg. 210. Asia Pub. House, 1967.

Anne Frank Was a Refugee https://www.snopes.com/anne-frank-refugee/

#racism #intelligence?#intelligence #types of intelligence #Anne Frank Mention

15 notes · View notes

legalroll · 6 years

Text

The Top 10 Skills All Winning Expert Witnesses Have

The task of finding the right expert witness for your case can be daunting. It is not as simple as finding someone who is qualified in the specific field of interest relevant to your case, but also whether that individual has the skills to effectively communicate their knowledge to the jury.Whether an expert is retained to testify or just act in a consultancy capacity, they should be prepared to share their knowledge and opinions with the attorney and litigant as well. Below are some key communication skills to keep in mind when searching for your expert.

1) The Right Combination of Qualifications and Techniques

Exclusion of an expert’s testimony via a Daubert challenge or voir dire questioning can pose a serious threat to the overall success of a case. In light of this risk, the importance of an expert’s qualifications and techniques is certainly worth reiterating. During a Daubert hearing, a judge will consider the enumerated factors outlined in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) to conclude whether the expert possesses the requisite level of expertise and whether the testimony is both relevant and reliable. Generally, it is not the outcome, but rather, the methodology used by the expert in reaching his opinion. Thus, it is important to retain an expert that not only possesses the requisite knowledge to state his opinion, but also has a tried and true methodology on which he can rely.

Likewise, the purpose of the voir dire process – which typically occurs during the first few questions of direct examination – is to establish that the witness has a qualified expert in the pertinent field. Although a mere recitation of the expert’s curriculum vitae may sound impressive, it does not guarantee that the expert is qualified to testify about the specific subject matter at hand. An expert can be qualified through knowledge, skill, practical experience, training, education, or a combination of these factors. Experts that have a well-rounded background with particularized examples of their accomplishments, such as sub-specialties, publications, or teaching experiences, can help establish their credibility and skill at the outset of the testimony.

2) The Ability to Collaborate with Others

Like any working relationship, frequent communication between an attorney and expert increases the odds of success. By collaboratively outlining, strategizing, and preparing in advance, the case becomes that much stronger. Finding an expert that is also willing and able to work with all parts of the litigation team ‒ which can include the attorneys, clients, support staff, as well as other retained experts ‒ makes all the difference. An expert plays the role of a tutor throughout case preparation, especially when the expert possesses knowledge in an area the attorney is unfamiliar with. Therefore, an expert who is available to teach and communicate with the litigation team is a true asset.

3) Time Management and Organizational Skills

Understandably, the time commitments for a case can range dramatically, which is why every expert should be aware of their obligations (ideally, through a comprehensively drafted retainer agreement) so they can ensure their adherence to an agreed-upon work schedule. Depending upon the particular field of expertise, an expert’s preparation can be quite time-consuming, as their preparatory work may include reviewing voluminous discovery materials, conducting experiments, and analyzing past data. An expert should be able to commit to a general timeframe and meet any deadlines per their agreements with counsel. An expert that is efficient and organized can better streamline the litigation process.

4) The Ability to Write Persuasively

Pursuant Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (and most state jurisdictions, which have similar rules), expert witnesses are required to write a report detailing their forthcoming testimony as well as any facts and data on which their opinion is based. In consideration of these written report requirements, an expert should be able to articulate their opinions in written form in such a persuasive and evidence-based manner. The expert should treat his written statements just as carefully as he would his oral testimony, as opposing counsel can later use these reports against the expert during a Daubert hearing or cross examination.

5) The Ability to Educate Effectively

An expert may possess all the knowledge in the world on his particularized area of practice, but that does not guarantee he can effectively teach. Thus, it is important to always keep in mind the ultimate purpose of an expert, which is to clarify issues of professional or technical knowledge beyond the ken of a typical juror. There are a variety of ways an expert can aid the jury in their understanding of the facts at issue, which of course, varies case to case. However, there are certain teaching cornerstones that should be characteristic of all experts, such as the ability to break down the information piece by piece in layperson’s terms.

6) Effective Communication Skills

Similar to an expert’s teaching abilities, they should also be able to effectively communicate their points in an easily palatable manner. Like any skilled orator, experts should speak in a way that is both informative and engaging. A rout regurgitation of facts, an overuse of scientific terminology, or a monotone delivery all run the risk of boring the jury to the point they become disengaged. While some subjects may be more stimulating than others, an expert should be able to present their knowledge in an interesting way, such as through the use of relatable analogies or anecdotes.

7) Cross Examination Prowess

While attorneys and experts typically practice their direct examination to perfection, preparing for an expert’s cross examination is not as straightforward as it seems. The extent to which an expert can prepare for cross examination is typically dependent upon their ability to recognize perceived weaknesses or gaps in their opinions. An expert that is upfront with themselves about the strengths and weaknesses of their testimony can better predict opposing counsel’s questioning. Above all, an expert needs to be able to think on their feet, maintain composure, and articulate their responses in a calm, effective manner when combated on cross examination.

8) Demeanor and Non-verbal Cues

Sometimes, crafting the perfect testimony is only half the battle when it comes to engaging an expert with a jury. An expert’s demeanor, posture, phrasing, tone, and other verbal and non-verbal cues are qualities that a jury takes into account when determining the credibility of a witness. Without which, the entire testimony can be disregarded.

9) Tech Savvy and Demonstrative-Aid-Friendly

Whether it is a basic PowerPoint presentation or holographic virtual reality, the use of technology in the courtroom has seen a massive increase in recent years. With more and more attorneys recognizing the importance of stimulating the visual, auditory, and tactile senses of a jury, demonstrative aids can illustrate an expert’s testimony in ways that words cannot. An expert comfortable in handling graphics and other technology can enhance their testimony and effectively engage the jury

10) Likeability and Trustworthiness

Lastly, there are certain personality characteristics that are not as easily quantifiable or articulable. While likeability and trustworthiness are subjective, they are excellent predictors of whether a jury will believe your expert. Typically, in conjunction with the other skills listed above, it is important to evaluate your expert on a common sense, humanistic level. An expert’s personality may seem like a factor low on the checklist, but can actually be the deciding factor at trial. Therefore, it is important to find an expert that is personable, affable, and carries an innate trustworthiness when speaking.

The post The Top 10 Skills All Winning Expert Witnesses Have appeared first on The Expert Institute.

The Top 10 Skills All Winning Expert Witnesses Have published first on https://medium.com/@SanAntonioAttorney

0 notes