How valid/useful is IQ as a measure of personal intelligence?

[BrainGlutton]

IQ – intelligence quotient – has been the standard measure psychologists use to measure individual intelligence since Alfred Binet created the Stanford-Binet test in 1904 (for the purpose of identifying students who might need extra help). It is certain that IQ is a measurement of some stable feature about an individual, in that if you take different IQ tests at different times, you will probably get roughly the same score every time. Nevertheless, some people dispute the validity of IQ, or claim too much importance is attributed to it. From the Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq:

Many scientists disagree with the practice of psychometrics in general. In The Mismeasure of Man, Professor Stephen Jay Gould strongly disputes the basis of psychometrics as a form of scientific racism, objecting that it is:

…the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity, its location within the brain, its quantification as one number for each individual, and the use of these numbers to rank people in a single series of worthiness, invariably to find that oppressed and disadvantaged groups–races, classes, or sexes–are innately inferior and deserve their status. (pp. 24-25).

Later editions of the book include a refutation of The Bell Curve.

While public discourse on IQ testing is generally inflammatory, IQ tests are used ubiquitously in research and education. In general, there is a disparity between the public perception of IQ testing and the opinion of intelligence researchers.

Some proponents of IQ have pointed to a number of studies showing a fairly close correlation between IQ and various life outcomes, particularly income. Research in Scotland (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1260000/1260794.stm) has shown that a 15-point lower IQ meant people had a fifth less chance of seeing their 76th birthday, while those with a 30-point disadvantage were 37% less likely than those with a higher IQ to live that long. Research by Charles Murray on siblings (http://www.eugenics.net/papers/murray.html) has shown that there is a strong correlation between IQ and earned income. The controversial study IQ and the Wealth of Nations claims to show that the wealth of a nation correlates closely to its IQ score.

There is even dispute over whether the factor IQ tests are supposed to be measuring, g or general intelligence, exists at all. Howard Gardner has proposed a theory of “multiple intelligences”: verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, auditory-musical, interpersonal communication, and intrapersonal communication. These are separate axes, and an individual might be gifted in one and deficient in another. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_Intelligences:

As one would expect from a theory that redefines the definition of intelligence, one of the major criticisms of the theory is that it is ad hoc. The criticism is that Gardner is not expanding the definition of the word “intelligence”; rather, he denies the existence of intelligence, as is traditionally understood, and instead uses the word intellgence whenever other people have traditionally used the word “interest.” In this view, it is intellectually dishonest to relabel all of a person’s talents as “intelligences”. This tactic has been criticised by Robert J. Sternerb (1983, 1991), Eysenck, 1994, and Scarr, 1985. Defenders of the M.I. theory would argue that intelligence has never been rigorously defined, thus inviting new efforts to define it.

Gardner has not settled on a single definition of intelligence. He originally defined intelligence as the ability to solve problems that have value in at least one culture, or as something that a student is interested in. However, he added a disclaimer that he has no fixed definition, and his classification is more of an artisitic judgement than fact:

Ultimately, it would certainly be desirable to have an algorithm for the selection of an intelligence, such that any trained researcher could determine whether a candidate intelligence met the appropriate criteria. At present, however, it must be admitted that the selection (or rejection) of a candidate intelligence is reminiscent more of an artistic judgment than of a scientific assessment. (Gardner, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, 1985)
One of the criticisms against M.I. theory is aimed at the underlying ideology. Gardner writes “I balk at the unwarranted assumption that certain human abilities can be arbitrarily singled out as intelligence while others cannot” (Peterson, 1997, p. D2) Critics hold that given this statement, any interest or ability is now redefined as “intelligence”; and adherents of M.I. theory can and do declare that all human beings are equally intelligent. Several logical problems are pointed out:

Gardner doesn’t prove that all people are intelligent. Rather, he states this as his assumption, and redefines the word “intelligence” such that all people are equally intelligent by virtue of his definition.

Once someone adopts Gardner’s position, the entire idea of studying intelligence is meaningless. Any ability is intelligence, thereby reducing the meaning of the word “intelligence” to “interest”. In accord with this prediction, Gardner has repeatedly changed his theory; students who show an interest in nature are now deemed to have “Natural intelligence”, and students interested in spirituality or religion are now deemed to have “Spiritual intelligence”.

The existence of students with any kind of handicaps proves that even in Gardner’s scheme, many people cannot be equally intelligent. Sternberg and Frensch write “it seems strange to describe someone who is tone deaf or physically uncoordinated as unintelligent.” In Gardner’s system, people not interested in nature have zero natural intelligence, people who are deaf have zero musical intelligence, etc.

See also http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed410226.html. For an opposing view, an article in Scientific American arguing for the validity and value of g, see http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html.

John A. Meyer and Peter Salovey have also proposed a factor of “emotional intelligence,” meaning the ability and skill to perceive, assess, and positively influence one’s own and other people’s emotions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence:

Daniel Goleman popularized the term in 1995 in his best-selling book of the same title: Emotional Intelligence. Goleman’s popularized definition of emotional intelligence has largely displaced the more cautious and technical definition of Mayer and Salovey in the public imagination. Putting together research in neurophysiology, psychology and cognitive science, Goleman made the following observations:

A part of the human brain called the reptilian brain (because it has similar functions to those of reptiles) does most of the processing of human emotional responses. These responses mostly occur automatically, as in the case of the familiar flight-or-attack response triggered by threatening situations. Humans have evolved in such a way that a “neural-hijacking” takes place that provides a quick answer to life’s critical situations.

In humans, the reptilian brain has links with the neocortex, which can accordingly exert some control over the largely automatic responses of the reptilian brain.

The amount of control has a genetic component; yet one can learn to control emotions to a certain degree. Most people do learn this at some point. Further, it is possible to hone the skill, achieving greater abilities to manage emotions.

In Goleman’s opinion, there does not exist a strong correlation between the Intelligence quotient (IQ) and success in life, although popular opinion largely correlates success with this measurement. According to Goleman, success correlates mainly with emotional intelligence. It should however be noted that adult income, completion of high school, attainment of higher education, avoidance of dependance on welfare, avoidance of criminal conviction, and several other factors normally considered aspects of a “successful” life correlate very strongly with IQ, and there is little or no evidence to suggest similar correlations with EI. Goleman does not define “success” in any way that may be objectively tested, so his claim that EI correlates with success may still be true, although unprovable.

(I’m a member of Mensa – an organization open only to people who score in the top 2% of an IQ test or equivalent standardized test – so I’ve got some emotional investment in the idea that IQ actually means something. But I’m open to alternative views.)

So what do all you extremely gifted, cerebral, GD-postin’ Dopers think about this?

[XT]

There was a thread in IMHO recently asking dopers what their intellectual credentials were. It was interesting to compare and contrast.

I’m NOT a member of Mensa, though my IQ scores were high enough that I could have been had I been interested (at least I think they are). I would have been at the bottom of the pack though with a 142.

I don’t really think IQ measures intelligence so much as it measures applications of learning and reading. A well read individual with some mathematical problem solving skills I think will do well on an IQ exam. But intelligence has such a wide range of meanings that I don’t think any one test can really measure it meaningful. Intelligent how? Good in school? Artistic? Athletic (yes, it takes a form of intelligence to do many sports at an intuitive level)? Musician? Problem solver? Business? etc etc etc.

I’ll give you a for instance anecdote: My father in law. Here is a man who barely graduated from high school, is not well read by any means, is not scholarly, and doesn’t LOOK very intelligent. He was a police officer in DC for 20 years but never progressed beyond sergeant. He did construction on the side to make ends meet (he is of the knuckle dragging variety as far as women working goes…once told me women working was a ‘fad’ in an effort to dissuade me from having my wife, his daughter, continue to work).

All that said, the man is a genius as far as construction and empirical understanding of spatial areas goes. He renovated my house, adding a second story, enlarging the house out the front, putting on a huge deck and adding a basement, while radically altering the interior spaces and re-doing the kitchen…without any plans at all. He had it all in his head. It was probably the most incredible mental feat I’ve ever personally witnessed. I went to college and have a dual degree in electrical engineering and computer science, but my first major was aerospace engineering with a minor in mechanical…and I was totally floored. The precision he showed was stunning…with no plans at all he knew EXACTLY what went where, and what he needed to make it work.

Yet, who would consider ‘intelligence’ to be as narrowly defined as I’ve just described? I’ve know a lot of intellectual people…but many of them were failures in life, holding down menial type jobs or doing lesser work than they were capable of. One of the best network infrastructure engineers I ever met was a high school dropout with appalling grades (he got an 800 COMBINED SAT, and his GPA was something like 1.7)…yet the man was an absolute genius with routing protocols, IP addressing and subnetting, and the ability to actually visualize and troubleshoot complex routing problems in his head. Amazing.

Long story short…I don’t think there is any one measure of intelligence. And I certainly don’t think IQ is a good measurement of anything other than the ability to take a test well, and being well read. Just MHO.

-XT

[Tigers2B1]

@xtisme

…And I certainly don’t think IQ is a good measurement of anything other than the ability to take a test well, and being well read. Just MHO.

-XT

Than how would one explain the contents of this report from the American Psychological Association?

http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/iku.html

**II INTELLIGENCE TESTS AND THEIR CORRELATES

Tests as Predictors

School Performance.** Intelligence tests were originally devised by Alfred Binet to measure children’s ability to succeed in school. They do in fact predict school performance fairly well: the correlation between IQ scores and grades is about .50. They also predict scores on school achievement tests, designed to measure knowledge of the curriculum. Note, however, that correlations of this magnitude account for only about 25% of the overall variance. Successful school learning depends on many personal characteristics other than intelligence, such as persistence, interest in school, and willingness to study. The encouragement for academic achievement that is received from peers, family and teachers may also be important, together with more general cultural factors (see Section 5).

The relationship between test scores and school performance seems to be ubiquitous. Wherever it has been studied, children with high scores on tests of intelligence tend to learn more of what is taught in school than their lower-scoring peers. There may be styles of teaching and methods of instruction that will decrease or increase this correlation, but none that consistently eliminates it has yet been found (Cronbach and Snow, 1977)….

Years of Education. Some children stay in school longer than others; many go on to college and perhaps beyond. Two variables that can be measured as early as elementary school correlate with the total amount of education individuals will obtain: test scores and social class background. Correlations between IQ scores and total years of education are about .55, implying that differences in psychometric intelligence account for about 30% of the outcome variance. The correlations of years of education with social class background (as indexed by the occupation/ education of a child’s parents) are also positive, but somewhat lower….

Social Status and Income. How well do IQ scores (which can be obtained before individuals enter the labor force) predict such outcome measures as the social status or income of adults? This question is complex, in part because another variable also predicts such outcomes: namely, the socioeconomic status (SES) of one’s parents. Unsurprisingly, children of privileged families are more likely to attain high social status than those whose parents are poor and less educated. These two predictors (IQ and parental SES) are by no means independent of one another; the correlation between them is around .33 (White, 1982).

One way to look at these relationships is to begin with SES. According to Jencks (1979), measures of parental SES predict about one-third of the variance in young adults’ social status and about one-fifth of the variance in their income. About half of this predictive effectiveness depends on the fact that the SES of parents also predicts children’s intelligence test scores, which have their own predictive value for social outcomes; the other half comes about in other ways…

Job Performance. Scores on intelligence tests predict various measures of job performance: supervisor ratings, work samples, etc. Such correlations, which typically lie between r=.30 and r=.50, are partly restricted by the limited reliability of those measures themselves. They become higher when ris statistically corrected for this unreliability: in one survey of relevant studies (Hunter, 1983), the mean of the corrected correlations was .54. This implies that, across a wide range of occupations, intelligence test performance accounts for some 29% of the variance in job performance….

Social Outcomes. Psychometric intelligence is negatively correlated with certain socially undesirable outcomes.….

[XT]

Every one of those was qualified (i.e. there are myriad other factors that went in, “such as persistence, interest in school, and willingness to study.”, etc etc)…so again, I don’t think you can categorically state that there is a direct correlation between IQ SCORES and ‘intelligence’, because intelligence is too vague a term, and encompasses too many variables.

I don’t think there is any one method that will test and measure ‘intelligence’ in any meaningful way for everyone…so I don’t think a score on such a test is really meaningful. If you are a well read person in the US who is culturally integrated with ‘white’ society and you have decent problem solving skills as far as math goes you will do well on the test.

Certainly, this takes a measure of ‘intelligence’ (well, learning anyway)…just to know how to read and right and DO math takes such a measure. However, how does this show how ‘intelligent’ an illiterate is, or someone who isn’t well read…or who isn’t culturally integrated with the mainstream culture? Or someone who has learning disabilities in all areas…except one in which they are genius level? The answer is, of course, that it doesn’t…what it shows is LEARNING, not INTELLIGENCE. Certainly those two things sometimes go hand in hand, and a measure of learning would show roughly something about the ‘intelligence’ of the individual.

-XT

[XT]

That’s read and WRITE btw. :smack: Looked at empirically just based on my writing and spelling ability I’d probably be judged something just above ‘moron’ level. But that would be discounting my near genius ability to play games and command my virtual (presently Roman) armies like the greatest generals of the past.

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

@xtisme

That’s read and WRITE btw. :smack: Looked at empirically just based on my writing and spelling ability I’d probably be judged something just above ‘moron’ level. But that would be discounting my near genius ability to play games and command my virtual (presently Roman) armies like the greatest generals of the past.

-XT

Some day they’ll have to devise a new instrument to measure “Geek Quotient.” Most of us on this board will score in the fourth standard deviation to the right of the median.

[Rashak_Mani]

IQ is just a way of evaluating, classifying and labeling people. When you show a diploma people know you studied for example Physics… when they see your grades they classify you somehow. “A” student or “regular” intelligence.

Like all sorts of subjective issues… measuring isn’t very good. IQ should be a guideline at best…

[DSeid]

Before one can discuss whether or not standardized IQ tests are a valid measure of intelligence one must define what it is that one is trying to measure. What is intelligence? (Tautologies, such as it’s the ability to do well on an IQ test, need not apply.)

I propose that it is the abilty to solve novel problems in pursuit of salient goals.

There would therefore be individuals who were intelligent in some domains but not others, some species that are intelligent in some domains but not others. Some societies that function with great intelligence even if their individual members are less than gifted, vs other groups of gifted individuals acting alone that fail to solve the same sorts of problems.

The IQ test measures those skills in some particular domains which may be particularly salient to achievement in certain venues in Western society of today. That is all you can say.

(btw, I do not know my IQ, suspect it aint gifted, and do not care. I’ve done just fine with using what I got.)

[BrainGlutton]

@DSeid

Before one can discuss whether or not standardized IQ tests are a valid measure of intelligence one must define what it is that one is trying to measure. What is intelligence? (Tautologies, such as it’s the ability to do well on an IQ test, need not apply.)

I propose that it is the abilty to solve novel problems in pursuit of salient goals.

There would therefore be individuals who were intelligent in some domains but not others, some species that are intelligent in some domains but not others. Some societies that function with great intelligence even if their individual members are less than gifted, vs other groups of gifted individuals acting alone that fail to solve the same sorts of problems.

Is practical utility the only relevant measure? There is no immediate practical use for Plato’s philosophy, but a lot of people regard at something profound and important that could only have been produced by a person of extraordinary intelligence.

(Anecdote: One of Plato’s students once asked him what use this philosophy was. Plato called one of his ushers and said, “Give him a drachma, that he may feel he has gained something from my teachings, and expel him.”)

[DSeid]

“Practical utility” was not included in my offering. Although much of what is salient to an individual may be of practical utility it occassionally is not.

Was Plato attempting to solve novel problems in pursuit of goals salient to him? Yes. The salient goal? Understanding society and the universe. The problems? What makes a good leader, a good society? What is the nature of reality?

Of course it brings up the practical issue … Plato’s intelligence was less in solving the problem’s than in formulating the questions … in realizing that the problems existed at all.

But in this particular problem domain few had accomplished that much before. In a practical sense intelligence requires knowing that a problem exists and what exactly the problem really is.

[ambushed]

@BrainGlutton

For an opposing view, an article in Scientific American arguing for the validity and value of g, see http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html

Scientific American has the right of it, and Gould is almost entirely mistaken (his views were too strongly influenced by his Marxist beliefs in my opinion). IQ is real and single-dimensioned, since nearly identical values of g can be derived from just about any test, no matter what type and however culturally biased or unbiased.

[eponymous]

@ambushed

Scientific American has the right of it, and Gould is almost entirely mistaken (his views were too strongly influenced by his Marxist beliefs in my opinion). IQ is real and single-dimensioned, since nearly identical values of g can be derived from just about any test, no matter what type and however culturally biased or unbiased.

Well, I would dispute the above. I can’t quite grasp how a value for g can be derived that isn’t biased in some fashion. Or are you telling me than a New Guinean highlander, with no formal education and a knowledge base limited to his/her immediate surroundings, can be given an exam that would accurately derive a value for g; and that this value can then be compared to someone who has had formal schooling and has been raised in a modern, secular, indistrialized nation?

Overcoming the language and cultural barriers would be difficult, but not insurmountable. However, a crucial element would be in determining the type of test that this New Guinean highlander would take. And more importantly, who gets to make that decision? Because it could be quite likely that what constitutes an adequate test could be different if it were a New Guinean highlander making the decision versus someone from outside the culture. What may consitute an important element of intelligence by New Guinean culture could be seem as inconsequential to an outsider (and vice versa).

Mind you, I’m not saying that it is impossible to do a cross-cultural comparison of IQ; however, the onus is on those who wish to convince the rest of us that intelligence is actually real and single-dimensional (one needs to factor out all those elements that can bias or distort one findings). I’ll grant that there is such a thing as intelligence. However, I don’t accept that it’s been demostrated convincely that it is single-dimensional.

[ambushed]

@eponymous

Or are you telling me than a New Guinean highlander, with no formal education and a knowledge base limited to his/her immediate surroundings, can be given an exam that would accurately derive a value for g; and that this value can then be compared to someone who has had formal schooling and has been raised in a modern, secular, indistrialized nation?

I’m not telling you that, Scientific American is. That’s just what the SciAm authors are testifying to. Culturally unbiased tests are really not very difficult to develop: line drawings of circles and squares are understandable by any human.

If you read the SciAm articles carefully, you will find that a wide variety of completely different tests will produce the same g value. That being the case, it’s just about impossible to contend that g is not a single, one-dimensional value for general IQ.

[Aeschines]

Note the title. Because that’s about what “g” is worth: a handful of piss.

The trouble is the disconnect between the word “intelligence,” which is loaded with extremely positive connotations, and the abstract “g,” which measures something, we know not quite what.

It is a philosophical error, plain and simple, to hook “g” to “i” without going through “h”–which stands for “hold your horses until we know what the fuck we’re talking about.”

The fact that IQ tests can be designed to get the same scores with the same people is a necessary but not sufficient condition for their having meaning, and for what they are said to measure, “g,” itself having meaning.

Let me flesh this out with some examples. I’ve lived in Japan for 8 years total. Japanese and Chinese people score significantly higher on IQ tests, leading to the racially charged conclusion that Asians are smartest, Europeans still pretty smart, and those Africans–well they’re just stupid. (Sadly, even apparently respectable scientists on the Yahoo ev-psy forum hold this view, pointing out that tests given to children in such and such an African country indicated they had an average IQ in the 70s–a statistic that should invalidate the whole test under the “red face” criterium.)

But Japanese people, owing to their childhood hothousing, are monster test takers. They regularly get high scores on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) and GMAT (Graduate Management Aptitude Test, which has a huge chunk of English on it), despite the fact that the Japanese are hopelessly inept at foreign languages–among the worst in the world. So, you have people getting these high scores who can’t speak or listen worth a damn. It leads me to conclude that “test-taking” is an important skill or skill set needed to do well on these tests, and that this skill also gives them their boost on IQ tests. By the same token, Africans experience no test-taking hothousing and therefore do less well.

But going back to Japan, I aver that their “g” superiority is due to cultural factors: the massive brain training known as “learning kanji”; the test hothousing mentioned above; and the overall literacy and advancement of the culture. On the other hand, I have NEVER gotten the impression, at all, that Japanese people are fundamentally smarter than the average American (white, black, or any other color). Rather, and due to the very same cultural reasons, I believe, it is a culture bordering on the cognitively defective:

*Extremely poor ability to learn languages. Despite years of training in public (starting in JH and ending in college) and private schools, very few people show prowess. Worse yet, most people don’t even bother taking an intellectual approach to a language, such as by actually reading.

*Poor reasoning ability. I’ve yet to meet a Japanese person who could really argue. The idea seems to be that you can invent any logical principles you like, on the fly, and hey–there’s the answer: I’m right and you’re wrong! I think this comes from having no tradition of philosophy, as the West has had (Confucianism is not reason-based philosophy). I can’t emphasize this enough: Japanese people are not good thinkers.

*Narrowmindedness and parochialism. If you’ve lived here, you know.

(On the side of virtues, Japanese people are extremely disciplined, have superb visual and spatial reasoning skills [art, design, etc.], excellent creativity, social cohesiveness, and many other qualities that make the country a success. I certainly wouldn’t call them stupid, either. But, although I’ve met many Japanese people who were talented, many that were cool, I’ve met only a few I would consider truly turned-on intellectually.)

So, IQ tests say that a particular, easy-to-identify and extremely homogeneous ethnic group, the Japanese, is on average more “intelligent” than the rest of the planet. I’ve lived with that group and just haven’t seen it. That’s one reason I doubt that g means much.

Also, the tests themselves. IMO, they are not good tests of high verbal ability, which, to me, is an important component of intelligence. One problem with measuring verbal ability is that it requires interpretation: You have to hear someone speak or read what Person has written and judge it. (Even the SAT’s method of seeing what vocab words a person knows, etc., can only be described as a pretty piss-poor method.)

So, based on the above, I think “g” has only one use: to measure whether a person has a certain minimum reasoning and test-taking ability. That’s perhaps not a worthless metric, but in terms of its relationship to what we ambiguously call “intelligence,” it’s 100% steaming horseshit.

[Tigers2B1]

First, let me qualify my post with this — I’m simply a lowly student and certainly no expert in this area (or any area, for that matter). I do hope that a real expert might join this discussion since it is my feeling that this issue (IQ) is one that is moved more by political ideology than facts. With that – I continue —

@xtisme

Every one of those was qualified (i.e. there are myriad other factors that went in, “such as persistence, interest in school, and willingness to study.”, etc etc)…

No, every one of these accomplishments, performance in school, level of eventual education, had a correlation to prior IQ scores — with the percent variance given. Note, no one is saying that IQ results offer a perfect view of a person’s capacity to learn and problem solve, but IQ results do offer a good one.

…so again, I don’t think you can categorically state that there is a direct correlation between IQ SCORES and ‘intelligence’, because intelligence is too vague a term, and encompasses too many variables.

In a public statement, signed by 52 “internationally known scholars,” all “professors – all experts in intelligence and allied fields” they provide this definition of intelligence and provide their collective opinion concerning the measurement of that trait by intelligence tests –

Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings – “catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do.
Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well…

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html&e=7627

Certainly, this takes a measure of ‘intelligence’ (well, learning anyway)…just to know how to read and right and DO math takes such a measure. However, how does this show how ‘intelligent’ an illiterate is, or someone who isn’t well read…or who isn’t culturally integrated with the mainstream culture?

As I understand, there are IQ tests that do not require reading and don’t assume specific knowledge, or much knowledge regarding a specific culture. As I understand, these are called ‘culture reduced’ tests and an example might be the Raven’s Matrix IQ test.

Or someone who has learning disabilities in all areas…except one in which they are genius level?

IQ tests measure different catergories of mental abilities. For example, one may do much better at reasoning with and turning objects in space (spatial relations) than they might be at recognizing patterns among geometric shapes.

…what it shows is LEARNING, not INTELLIGENCE. Certainly those two things sometimes go hand in hand, and a measure of learning would show roughly something about the ‘intelligence’ of the individual.

No, what it shows is both. No one, at least no one that I’m aware of, pretends that it’s all one or all the other. It is widely acknowledged that both environment (nurture) and (heritability) nature are involved in IQ results. With general environment playing less and less of a role as one grows older.

IF – as you indicate – IQ tests measure nothing but the ability to take IQ tests – why is it that IQ results have been held by the US Supreme Court as a valid method to determine whether a convicted murderer qualifies as a candidate for capital punishment. Surely, if these tests – test nothing – how could this Court position have been taken considering the adversarial system it was accepted under.

In addition, more than half of our states have programs for gifted students. I know that some of those states use IQ results as part of the determination of which students qualify for these gifted programs and which do not. Again, if these tests measure nothing – I have to wonder by what justification these tests are used.

Last – I doubt very seriously that you will be able to support your claim that IQ tests measure nothing but the ability to take the test. I don’t think this is an area of significant controversy among psychometricians. The camps aren’t split along those lines. I think the controversy is how well do IQ tests measure mental ability, not whether the tests measure nothing verse something – mental ability.

Again, I understand that this is a hot button issue. But I also have to wonder, if tests only measure the ability to take the tests, why comparisons of IQ results among identical twins, fraternal twins, non-twin siblings, and unrelateds, are highly correlated with degree of genetic relatedness? This suggests that whatever skill is being measured is one that, in part, endowed by nature.

[msmith537]

I think that IQ tests are a valid way to measure certain mental attributes - remembering a sequence of numbers or letters, identifying patterns or spacial relationship. These are all quantifyable skills and abilities. They are not necessarily a predictor of academic or professional success but they certain can indicate if a person has the potential.

It’s kind of like being tall and strong and fast might make someone particulary suited to playing basketball. That does not mean they have the desire or ability to play.

[eponymous]

@ambushed

I’m not telling you that, Scientific American is. That’s just what the SciAm authors are testifying to. Culturally unbiased tests are really not very difficult to develop: line drawings of circles and squares are understandable by any human.

I apologize if my comments implied that you were making the claim.

If you read the SciAm articles carefully, you will find that a wide variety of completely different tests will produce the same g value. That being the case, it’s just about impossible to contend that g is not a single, one-dimensional value for general IQ.

I’ll read through the article - I’ll admit the possibility that I am wrong and am willing to be convinced. However, the authors (and others) will have to provide a pretty solid definition for intelligence, as well as a convincing argument that g cannot be but a single, one-dimensional value.

[Tigers2B1]

It’s my understanding that g is a construct used to describe the phenomenon witnessed when a person makes similar scores on differently constructed, but complex tests of mental ability. Like the construct ‘energy’ that is used to describe events in physics — while a physicist may have never seen an ‘energy,’ the idea / construct has value and describes the witnessed phenomenon. So, for example, if a person scores a 140 in a spatial relations subgroup in one test, that person is very unlikely to score an 80 in the numerical reasoning subgroup – even though spatial relations and numerical reasoning may have no other relationship outside of the complexity of the problems. The construct g describes this. It describes the ability to ‘figure out’ complex problems. The same phenomenon was observed inter-test – in that the same person is very unlikely to score a 140 on the Raven Matrix IQ test and score an 80 on another test, if that test uses mentally complex problems - like complex pattern problems. The harder the solution is to find for the average test taker, the more likely the solution calls on reasoning abilities that can translate to other mental abilities and to other tests of mental ability. Again, if there is an expert out there, please feel free to chime in and especially – please feel free to correct me if I’ve misrepresented this construct. Also, anyone else that might have something to constructive to add – pro or con. (i.e. I’m really not interested in emotional and/or political rants) This is simply my understanding of what the construct g is, based on my very limited understanding.

In Bias in Mental Testing, p. 250, Arthur Jensen summarizes the construct this way:

By examining the surface characteristics of a great variety of tests in connection with their g loadings, we may arrive at some descriptive generalizations about the common surface features that characterize tests that have relatively high g loadings as compared with tests that have relatively low g loadings. Today we have much more test material to examine for this purpose than was available to Spearman more than half a century ago. This permits broader generalizations about g than Spearnan could safety draw. Spearman characterized the most g-loaded tests essentially as those requiring the subject to grasp relationships—“the eduction of relations and correlates.” That is all perfectly correct. But now we can go further. The g factor is manifested in tests to the degree that they involve mental manipulation of the input elements (“fundaments” in Spearman’s terminology), choice, decision, invention in contrast to reproduction, reproduction in contrast to selection, meaningful memory in contrast to rote memory, long-term memory in contrast to short-term memory, and distinguishing relevant information from irrelevant information in solving complex problems. Although neither the forward nor backward digit-span test of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale, for example, has much g loading. the slightly greater mental manipulation required by backward than by forward recall of the digits more than doubles the g variance in backward as compared with forward digit span (Jensen & Figueroa, 1975). We have seen many examples in which a slight increase in task complexity is accompanied by an increase in the g loading of the task. This is true even for the most mundane and seemingly nonintellectual tasks. Virtually any task involving mental activity that is complex enough to be recognized at the commonsense level as involving some kind of conscious mental effort is substantially g loaded. It is the task’s complexity rather than its content that is most related to g.

[BrainGlutton]

Here’s an interesting bit from Hooking Up (Farar, Straus and Giroux, 2000), a collection of essays and articles by Tom Wolfe – from “Sorry, but Your Soul Just Died,” about modern neuropsychology, pp. 95-96:

Even more radioactive is the matter of intelligence, as measured by IQ tests. Privately – not many care to speak out – the vast majority of neuroscientists believe the genetic component of an individual’s intelligence is remarkably high. Your intelligence can be improved upon, by skilled and devoted mentors, or it can be held back by a poor upbringing – i.e., the negative can be well developed or poorly developed – but your genes are what really make the difference. The recent ruckus over Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein’s The Bell Curve is probably just the beginning of the bitterness this subject is going to create.

Not long ago, according to two neuroscientists I interviewed, a firm called Neurometrics sought out investors and tried to market an amazing but simple invention known as the IQ Cap. The idea was to provide a way of testing intelligence that would be free of “cultural bias,” one that would not force anyone to deal with concepts that might be familiar to people from one culture but not to people from another. The IQ Cap recorded only brain waves; and a computer, not a potentially biased human test-giver, analyzed the results. It was based on the work of neuroscientists such as E. Roy John, who is now one of the major pioneers of electroencephalographic brain imaging; Duilio Giannitrapani, author of The Electrophysiology of Intellectual Functions; and David Robinson, author of The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and Personality Assessment: Toward a Biologically Based Theory of Intelligence and Cognition and many other monographs famous among neuroscientists. I spoke to one researcher who had devised an IQ Cap himself by replicating an experiment described by Giannitrapani in The Electrophysiology of Intellectual Functions. It was not a complicated process. You attached sixteen electrodes to the scalp of the person you wanted to test. You had to muss up his hair a little, but you didn’t have to cut it, much less shave it. Then you had him stare at a marker on a blank wall. This particular researcher used a rasberry-red thumbtack. Then you pushed a toggle switch. In sixteen seconds the Cap’s computer box gave you an accurate prediction (within one-half of a standard deviation) of what the subject would score on all eleven subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale or, in the case of children, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – all from sixteen seconds’ worth of brain waves. There was nothing culturally biased about the test whatsoever. What could be cultural about staring at a thumbtack on the wall? The savings in time and money wsere breathtaking. The conventional IQ test took two hours to complete; and the overhead, in terms of paying test-givers, test-scorers, test-preparers, and the rent, was $100 an hour at the very least. The IQ Cap required about fifteen minutes and sixteen seconds – it took about fifteen minutes to put the electrodes on the scalp – and about a tenth of a penny’s worth of electricity. Neurometrics’s investors were rubbing their hands and licking their chops. They were about to make a killing.

In fact – nobody wanted their damnable IQ Cap!

It wasn’t simply that no one believed you could derive IQ scored from brain waves – it was that nobody wanted to believe it could be done. Nobody wanted to believe that human brainpower is . . . that hardwired. Nobody wanted to learn in a flash that . . . the genetic fix is in. Nobody wanted to learn he was . . . a hardwired genetic mediocrity . . . and that the best he could hope for in this Trough of Mortal Error was to live out the mediocre life of a stress-free dim bulb. Barry Sterman of UCLA, chief scientist for a firm called Cognitive Neurometrics, who has devised his own brain-wave technology for market research and focus groups, regards brain-wave IQ testing as possible – but in the current atmosphere you “wouldn’t have a Chinaman’s chance of getting a grant” to develop it.

I did a web search on “Neurometrics” and found something called the “Neurometrics Institute” – http://www.neurometrics.com/ – but it does not appear to be a commercial enterprise and its site says nothing about neurometric IQ testing. See also Neurobehavioral Consulting – Brainmapping 2004, http://www.brainmappingadd.com/Brainmapp.htm, and the Psychological Sciences Institute – Functional Brain Assessment, http://www.psycscienceinst.com/functional_brain_assessment.htm.

[ambushed]

@Aeschines

Note the title. Because that’s about what “g” is worth: a handful of piss.

Well, maybe your IQ is worth that, but you can’t speak for others. Your rhetorical tour de force is entirely lacking scientific -or- philosophical reason.

@Aeschines

The trouble is the disconnect between the word “intelligence,” which is loaded with extremely positive connotations, and the abstract “g,” which measures something, we know not quite what.

You may have a problem with that, but scientists don’t.

Here is the huge flaw in your thinking:

@Aeschines

The fact that IQ tests can be designed to get the same scores with the same people is a necessary but not sufficient condition for their having meaning, and for what they are said to measure, “g,” itself having meaning.

Wrong. The scientific data shows instead that a vast number of unrelated, unicultural and/or multicultural of tests that were NOT designed to be able to yield the same single, unidimensional value for g do so nevertheless! This is either an incredibly improbable coincidence, or it is compelling scientific proof that g is the true measure of the real IQ of the testee.

Your thinking is improperly reasoned. I recommend re-reading the Scientific American piece again.