IQ Tests: A Viable Standard of Intelligence?

[Hess]

Are IQ tests a valid way to measure the intelligence of a person? Many seem to think so, but others criticize them as having a bias against creative minded people who prefer the liberal arts.

Discuss.

[StonyArabia]

You can't measure an abstract element like intelligence in so called test. As well it depends on the level of education of the person taking the test, and how well they respond to the test and the anxiety level which all factor in. So in the end in my honest humble opinion it's bullcrap.

[Phil75231]

IQ tends to concentrate on verbal and mathematical aspects of intelligence. Some spatial and pattern recognition to be sure, but mostly verbal and mathematical.

[Geminus]

As intelligence itself is a rather abstract term these IQ-tests are quite good in measuring the capability of people in different areas. So there surely is a correlation of a high IQ with higher intelligence.

[safinator]

IQ is a measure of potential and nothing more.

[Osprey]

IQ test is basically a test to confirm that people living in a nation are able to understand its laws, abstract posters and in general comply with the Constitution.
It focuses on the ability to correlate several things and think logically rather than abstractedly.
People with a practice in calculations and mathematics gain an unfair advantage in these tests.
It totally neglects the verbal part. That is the intelligence possessed by bards, jesters and ministrels.

[Hess]

People with a practice in calculations and mathematics gain an unfair advantage in these tests.

That is an opinion I tend to share. Not only that, but people who are not so good at math but gifted in abstract reasoning come out as either average or below average.

[Adrian]

Those who have voted NO, certainly have had bad results in IQ test :laugh:

[Loddfafner]

It has validity but is not a perfectly reliable indicator. No test can be but some have higher validity than others.

[Hess]

Those who have voted NO, certainly have had bad results in IQ test :laugh:

Well, I'm leaning more towards "no" myself. That said, I took it twice and got 125 the first time and 129 the second time.

[Svipdag]

I have an IQ of 180. In 32 years of teaching, I have written about 1600 tests. I have learned to devise a test which measures what I want it to.
IMNSHO, IQ tests measure only test-taking ability, that is, skill in second- guessing the author of the test.

I should expect persons with high IQ's to manifest this intelligence in other ways than merely by taking intelligence tests. This has NOT been my experience. There is a pretentious elitist organisation of self-styled intellectuals which requires a minimum IQ if 150 to join. I have known several members of this "august" organisation , none of whom impress me as intellectual heavyweights.

In my conversations with them I found them to be incapable of recognising a
non sequitur or of understanding the implications of abstract concepts.One of them lives on an annuity wisely set up by her parents who recognised that she was [and is] incapable of managing her own affairs. Of what use, then, is her ostensibly high intelligence ?

And, what of me ? My IQ is 180, yet I am certainly no Albert Einstein. I have known persons whose IQ scores are significantly lower than mine whom I regard as my intellectual equals, and a few whose IQ's would have to be off the scale entirely, if mine is 180.

"Many a man who couldn't tell ye the way to the corner drug store at the age of thirty-five will receive a more respectful audience when age has further impaired his mind." - Finley Peter Dunne

[Supreme American]

You can't measure an abstract element like intelligence in so called test. As well it depends on the level of education of the person taking the test, and how well they respond to the test and the anxiety level which all factor in. So in the end in my honest humble opinion it's bullcrap.

Where do you get this from? It completely flies in the face of science.

[Supreme American]

Well, I'm leaning more towards "no" myself. That said, I took it twice and got 125 the first time and 129 the second time.

Those are pretty consistent numbers for a crap test.

[safinator]

The only reliable IQ tests are the professional ones. Internet ones are pure crap since they put me on genius level, lol.

[Hess]

Those are pretty consistent numbers for a crap test.

Do I not sound smart enough from my posts to have an IQ of 125 or 129? :cry2

I took the cogAT in High school (125) and the Stanford Binet 5 (129) in College.

[Supreme American]

I have an IQ of 180. In 32 years of teaching, I have written about 1600 tests. I have learned to devise a test which measures what I want it to.
IMNSHO, IQ tests measure only test-taking ability, that is, skill in second- guessing the author of the test.

Do you know of an online IQ test that is reasonably accurate?

[Supreme American]

Do I not sound smart enough from my posts to have an IQ of 125 or 129? :cry2

I took the cogAT in High school (125) and the Stanford Binet 5 (129) in College.

I am not aware of taking ANY IQ test in school. We took things we didn't have really explained to us, perhaps that was it?

[safinator]

Do you know of an online IQ test that is reasonably accurate?
Check this thread of mine.
It was projected from a PHD in Psychometrics.


JCTI (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29877&highlight=jcti)

[Hess]

I am not aware of taking ANY IQ test in school. We took things we didn't have really explained to us, perhaps that was it?

It wasn't mandatory, I chose to do it in 12th Grade. I actually had to pay for it as well.

[Supreme American]

Check this thread of mine.
It was projected from a PHD in Psychometrics.


JCTI (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29877&highlight=jcti)

I showed 108 but I get bored and impatient with endless patterned questions like those.

I was thinking about fiddling with this one http://giqtest.com/index.html

[safinator]

I showed 108 but I get bored and impatient with endless patterned questions like those.

I was thinking about fiddling with this one http://giqtest.com/index.html
Seems good.

[Hess]

Check this thread of mine.
It was projected from a PHD in Psychometrics.


JCTI (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29877&highlight=jcti)

that was actually mildly amusing. I got a 121

[safinator]

that was actually mildly amusing. I got a 121
Interesting. The JCTI measures Inductive reasoning so there's an advantage to right brained people.

[Summer]

no, I have a friend who did an IQ test and his score was average, but he's great in physics and mathematics, he always wins all the olympics tests and is practically a genius.

[safinator]

no, I have a friend who did an IQ test and his score was average, but he's great in physics and mathematics, he always wins all the olympics tests and is practically a genius.
Actually for achieving something in life Hard Working is by far more important.

[Hess]

Interesting. The JCTI measures Inductive reasoning so there's an advantage to right brained people.

I was surprised as well. I thought I would end up in the 90's range :p


Actually for achieving something in life Hard Working is by far more important.

absolutely.

You can have all the raw potential you want, but in the end it's perseverance and an unbending will that makes you truly successful.

[Svipdag]

I don't think that there is any such thing as an online IQ test that is reasonably accurate. But, then, I seriously doubt that even the professional ones are an accurate indication of intelligence.

"Ve get too soon oldt und too late schmardt." - Amish proverb

[Feral]

Those who have voted NO, certainly have had bad results in IQ test :laugh:

120 by MENSA. And I still think it's not viable. How can you even measure a life of potential from a single and simple test?. It is accurate in some cases and some very few aspects to identify gifted people with the purpose of giving them a proper life to develop their particular conditions. But I don't consider it viable for everyone, and even less when it's being overgeneralizated.

[Cato]

No, as there are other factors of mental prowess that a statistical and technical test can't really deal with (intuition for example).

[2Cool]

No. I believe there are multiple forms of intelligence (linguistic, musical, mathematical etc.).

I person might have a poor IQ due never having been to school but that doesn't mean he/she isn't smart. Similarly you'll have people with high IQs, but who also have no common sense.Basically it's the difference between street smarts vs book smarts.

Having a IQ is not a free ticket to being successful. I wouldn't be surprised if the people who give a lot of value to them have low self-estime.

[poodletroglodyte]

Yes.

It's about pro IQ tests like Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale:

from wikipedia:
Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability. A high reliability implies that while test-takers can have varying scores on differing occasions when taking the same test and can vary in scores on different IQ tests taken at the same age, the scores generally agree. A test-taker's score on any one IQ test is surrounded by an error band that shows, to a specified degree of confidence, what the test-taker's true score is likely to be. For modern tests, the standard error of measurement is about 3 points, or in other words, the odds are about 2 out of 3 that a person's true IQ is in range from 3 points above to 3 points below the test IQ. Another description is that there is a 95% chance that the true IQ is in range from 4-5 points above to 4-5 points below the test IQ, depending on the test in question. Clinical psychologists generally regard them as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes.

[Kazimiera]

I would rate myself as rather average and sometimes even below even though I have a superior IQ. I do think that IQ tests are not reliable because they focus too much on one kind of intelligence, mostly mathematics and logic.

The theory of multiple intelligence proposes that there are different "forms" of intelligence, rather than just one great overall "intelligence". According to Howard Gardener there several kinds of intelligence:
- logical-mathematical
- linguistic
- spacial
- musical
- interpersonal
- intrapersonal
- bodily-kinesthetic
- naturalistic

I feel that more attention should be given to recognizing and cultivating intelligence which falls outside the sphere of logic, maths and even languages.

IQ is not cut and dried. Intelligence drops with age. It can vary up to 15 points depending on which test is used. IQ can vary even by day and week.

Rather than putting a number to intelligence and dividing kids into classes of "clever, average and slow", more time and effort should be spent on assessing which kind of intelligence the individual possesses and on developing that.

[Stefan]

IQ tests serve the purpose of recognizing learning disorders, anything more than that deviates too much from the specific purpose for such assessments to be accurate.

Edit: That is not to say there doesn't exist a correlation, just that it isn't 1:1 or anywhere close.

[Kazimiera]

IQ tests serve the purpose of recognizing learning disorders, anything more than that deviates too much from the specific purpose for such assessments to be accurate.

Edit: That is not to say there doesn't exist a correlation, just that it isn't 1:1 or anywhere close.

IQ test may recognize that there is a learning disorder but is not used to diagnose it. Otherwise its to determine baseline intellectual functioning, even if rather subjectively.

[Supreme American]

IQ can vary even by day and week.

What??!

[Feral]

I just want to point out two examples of, what I've said before, that what matters isn't what you have, but what you do with it.
William J. Sidis, 250~300 IQ, and had an incredible academic history. But what he have done for humanity? Nothing in particular.
Francis Galton, 200 IQ (estimated. So isn't a fact). What he have done for humanity? He has contributed in a variety of fields, considerably.

The problem with IQ's overgeneralization (ie, standardize it) is that it is uncertain because of the uniqueness of each individual. Is something that one couln't even say that it describes one self. Sciencie (psychology, neurosciencie) had already develop to something else, where such generalizations given from IQ have become almost obsolete. :coffee:

[Hess]

I find it hilarious when "experts" try to use their "equations" to calculate the IQ's of people who were born way before the IQ test was even made (Plato, Mozart, etc.)

[Beethoven]

IQ by country
( not wealth or something)

1) Singapur
2) South Korea (some south koreans movies fun to watch but retardet tho)
3) Japan (friendly and intellegent people)
4) Italy 104
5) Mongolia
6) Austria
7) Germany
8) Italy 102
10) Sweden 101 (90% ppl is atheists/non religius)
11) Switzerland ( legalized euthanasia and good music)
12) Belgium
13) PEopel Republic of China
15) UK
17) Poland

21) Ukraine
26) Russia
27) USA
33) Israel
78) Democratic Republic of Congo

I like Japan and Singapur. But still i dont believe in IQ

etc

source book - IQ and the Wealth of Nations)
(Some countrys not on list probably)

i like Singapur and Japan but i dont think IQ does matter, sciencist Stephen Hawking said that he doesnt care about his IQ

[Han Cholo]

It's good in measuring the kind of intelligence that solves quizzes. It can't measure the creativity, innovation, philosophical and artistic thoughts. I can always perceive the differences in intelligence in music, but of course there is no reasonable way to measure this.

So yes. IQ does measure intelligence, albeit only certain sectors of it. The brain and mind are too complex to be fully understood and rated by a short equation and a set of questions.

People say internet tests are not reliable. I always score between 118 and 135. Never more and never less. Like previous users said, I know a few 100er friends that I consider my intellectual equals.

[Maddy]

I'm not really sure what I think about IQ tests....I think that I was administered one....while I was in university, a neuroscientist gave me a 3 hour grueling exam (which had a lot of elements of an IQ test...but she didn't give me a #...she just said that I'm "very bright"...so I'm not really sure what that means).....it was a test geared for adults...and she told me what my strengths and weaknesses are....

So...I think that perhaps labeling people with a number might not be very accurate...I suppose that I've always been scared to know what my # is though...because I feel like I'm being judged and categorized by other people's standards....and as others have said...there are so many forms of intelligence out there that IQ exams cannot measure...

I read a book that said all that ever was known and all that will ever be known in the future is already present in the ether....people that have very "high IQs" are just able to tap into the ether better than the average person...

[Aldaris]

Depends on how we define intelligence. All of us have some idea about what the term means, but our definitions are extremely vague and diverse. Personally, I define intelligence as an ability to solve formal, logical problems. Nothing more, nothing less. In this regard, IQ tests are a rather good measuring technique, but far from perfect. While I love solving IQ tests, to the point it is one of my most favorie hobbies, standard IQ tests are overly focused on pattern recognition and pattern recognition only, which is a very small subset of formal, logical problems. Complex mathematical problems are utterly superior - both in variety and ellegance. If anyone is interested and thinks that Mathematical olympiad problems are way too challenging (for non-mathematicians, they indeed are, even with my PhD in algebra, I can usually barely solve half of the international mathematical olympiad problems), I'd recommend higher levels of Mathematical kangaroo, some of the problems are just beautiful and not impossible to solve unless you're some kind of math prodigy.

[Aldaris]

I would rate myself as rather average and sometimes even below even though I have a superior IQ. I do think that IQ tests are not reliable because they focus too much on one kind of intelligence, mostly mathematics and logic.

The theory of multiple intelligence proposes that there are different "forms" of intelligence, rather than just one great overall "intelligence". According to Howard Gardener there several kinds of intelligence:
- logical-mathematical
- linguistic
- spacial
- musical
- interpersonal
- intrapersonal
- bodily-kinesthetic
- naturalistic

I feel that more attention should be given to recognizing and cultivating intelligence which falls outside the sphere of logic, maths and even languages.

IQ is not cut and dried. Intelligence drops with age. It can vary up to 15 points depending on which test is used. IQ can vary even by day and week.

Rather than putting a number to intelligence and dividing kids into classes of "clever, average and slow", more time and effort should be spent on assessing which kind of intelligence the individual possesses and on developing that.

If you define intelligence in such a way, well, you are free to do so, but it would render the term practically meaningless. Your definition sounds like a set of all skills and competences one has. I think that a much better approach is reserving the term intelligence for the competence in mathematical/logical tasks, as it has been shown that this particular sklil has a profound effect on one's accomplishments and life in general - sounds like a useful idea to have a word for such concept. Redefining the term by adding unrelated concepts makes no sense.

[Oghuz]

One can be trained to score high in IQ tests.

I was tested multiple times after 2nd degree and with training the score improved in numerical, reasoning, classification, logic and pattern recognition. In my subsequent career pattern recognition, numerical and logic helped most.

[Aldaris]

One can be trained to score high in IQ tests.

I was tested multiple times after 2nd degree and with training the score improved in numerical, reasoning, classification, logic and pattern recognition. In my subsequent career pattern recognition, numerical and logic helped most.

Indeed one can be, and the same goes not just for IQ tests, but for problem solving in general. And I'll gladly go toe-to-toe with the mainstream psychologists regarding this point. Consensus is, that the overwhelming component of intelligence is hereditary, but the methodology psychologists have been using over the years to reach that conclusion is extremely flawed, in my opinion as a scientist myself. I know it sounds anecdotal, but I personally know many people who went from slightly above average to geniuses with PhDs in mathematics or computer science, who would literally laugh at any standard IQ test problem, due to sheer amount of time spent solving formal, logical problems.

[Oghuz]

Indeed one can be, and the same goes not just for IQ tests, but for problem solving in general. And I'll gladly go toe-to-toe with the mainstream psychologists regarding this point. Consensus is, that the overwhelming component of intelligence is hereditary, but the methodology psychologists have been using over the years to reach that conclusion is extremely flawed, in my opinion as a scientist myself. I know it sounds anecdotal, but I personally know many people who went from slightly above average to geniuses with PhDs in mathematics or computer science, who would literally laugh at any standard IQ test problem, due to sheer amount of time spent solving formal, logical problems.

I guess training and environment matters as well. If you are a scientist like you are one, you are constantly doing the same thing again and again. Put yourself through one sub type of IQ test that your field of work coincides with and you will end up scoring far high than what you might have before becoming professional.

What is your area of research ?

[Aldaris]

I guess training and environment matters as well. If you are a scientist like you are one, you are constantly doing the same thing again and again. Put yourself through one sub type of IQ test that your field of work coincides with and you will end up scoring far high than what you might have before becoming professional.

What is your area of research ?

My area is algebra, namely algebraic structures related to quantum logic. To adress your point, as I have pointed out in one of my previous posts, almost all the standard IQ tests problems are based on pattern recognition only, regardless of subsections - there is only a superficial difference, whether you are tasked to find a pattern in a number sequence or in progressive matrices. Any type of problem solving enhances your general performance, as pattern recognition is close enough to what we do. Whether you are a topologist, an algorithm designer or an algebraist like me, the thought processes employed are essentially the same.

[Oghuz]

My area is algebra, namely algebraic structures related to quantum logic. To adress your point, as I have pointed out in one of my previous posts, almost all the standard IQ tests problems are based on pattern recognition only, regardless of subsections - there is only a superficial difference, whether you are tasked to find a pattern in a number sequence or in progressive matrices. Any type of problem solving enhances your general performance, as pattern recognition is close enough to what we do. Whether you are a topologist, an algorithm designer or an algebraist like me, the thought processes employed are essentially the same.

Nice, I am a theoretical organic chemist.

[Aldaris]

Nice, I am a theoretical organic chemist.

I hated chemistry man, sorry about that. :laugh:

[Oghuz]

I hated chemistry man, sorry about that. :laugh:

Chemistry is life. Make peace with it buddy.

[Aldaris]

Chemistry is life. Make peace with it buddy.

I'd say it the other way around - life is chemistry.

[Oghuz]

I'd say it the other way around - life is chemistry.

Fair enough but it is the type of science without which we would get no medicine, fuel, food, material etc.

[Aldaris]

Fair enough but it is the type of science without which we would get no medicine, fuel, food, material etc.

Indeed. I was being more literal - all the organisms, including humans, are ultimately nothing more than bags of chemicals. Creationist strawman is a correct notion in a way.

[Oghuz]

Indeed. I was being more literal - all the organisms, including humans, are ultimately nothing more than bags of chemicals. Creationist strawman is a correct notion in a way.

What is fascinating about chemistry is that it can play with your personality on how you perceive everything.

It made me understand that there is so much symmetry and order even in the basic most particles inside atom that nothing in this universe is random. It is like we are designed with constraints because our very basic constituent operates under constraints (quantized states of energy). With growing age, it made me believe that this whole system is designed by someone or something because such level order in extreme details can not get created randomly. An electron revolves in an orbital and overlaps with another orbital, exponential times and this thing happens in universe and it never fails despite the hundreds of variables that it needs to fulfill to make that overlap happen. We breathe, reproduce, move etc all because of these orbital overlaps and it succeeds each time. Basic most essence of life is standing on these constraints. Can we imagine with our technology that we can design such foolproof systems at that detailed level ....