Le QI: juste un indicateur de la qualité de notre éducation ?

Importantly, though, studies have shown that these IQ scores are more useful for reflecting the quality of education a child has received rather than their innate intellectual potential.

Why genetic IQ differences between 'races' are unlikely
[...]
To end up with systematic genetic differences in intelligence between large, ancient populations, the selective forces driving those differences would need to have been enormous. What’s more, those forces would have to have acted across entire continents, with wildly different environments, and have been persistent over tens of thousands of years of tremendous cultural change. Such a scenario is not just speculative – I would argue it is inherently and deeply implausible.

The bottom line is this. While genetic variation may help to explain why one person is more intelligent than another, there are unlikely to be stable and systematic genetic differences that make one population more intelligent than the next.

So if we are concerned about people’s intelligence, we would do better to focus on the environmental and cultural factors that we know are involved and which can be changed. There is no shortage of them: maternal and infant healthcare, early life nutrition, exposure to neurodevelopmental toxins such as lead, and access to and quality of education all make a real difference. IQ scores are a measure of a person’s intellectual ability, not the limit of their intellectual potential. Focusing on things we can change should ensure that everyone can reach their potential.

fift a écrit:D'où l'intérêt de ne pas s'arrêter au seul "score" de QIT, mais de s'intéresser à l'ensemble des indices et des subtests.