As evidenced by the responses in that other thread I started up (and the link in it), the traditional IQ test as a measure of intelligence and creativity doesn’t have much support among most people here.
So if an IQ test can’t accurately determine a brain’s capacity, why are they still used? I don’t want to come to the conclusion that it’s a form of meaningless one-upmanship. 
I won’t quote my measured IQ here but I will submit that I am supposedly a friggin genius. With that in mind, I joined this site two days ago and I can’t begin to count the number of folks who have called me ignorant. I don’t think IQ test are worth while at all. I am living proof.
How is “REAL” intelligence defined? Is it the ability to learn new things? To solve problems? Memorize? Do math? Read and comprehend? Spell? Create? All of the above? Seems like there’s a lot of wiggle room here. Whatever IQ test are, they aren’t predictors of “success.”
Make that lasts sentences say “test(s)” (I can spell, I can type, I can spell, I can type!)
IQ tests were not designed to “accurately determine a brain’s capacity”. One might better ask why the test that Alfred Binet designed as a tool to identify learning diasbled and mentally retarded children was ever used to rank children of average and above-average intelligence, especially when Binet himself specifically objected to this practice. He never believed that the test that bears his name could measure intelligence, he never believed that intelligence was fixed or innate, and he did believe that intelligence could manifest itself in many different forms.
The types of experiences I have had with students taking IQ tests can be misleading to say the least. Some students who don’t score as highly do so later if they get further exposure to certain things in life, be they academic or by other means.
If more people crossed the “tracks”, a new world would open up to them and their IQ’s would change for the better.
This site on the history of the IQ test is a pretty interesting read. Sure enough, Binet designed them to measure between levels of mental retardation. However:
It basically looks like he waffled a few times on the subject, which I respect. Intelligence is a pretty nebulous thing, and his apparent reversals might well be just healthy scientific caution. Other interesting bits:
…which espeically piques my interest–the idea that the mental ceiling is a limit that’s seldom approached, much less hit, is definitely appealing. Anyone know cites offhand where those radical articles and speeches are at?
As to what “intelligence” actually is:
It didn’t mention where they scored on his own test, but just from that they seemed pretty sharp, all in all.
Mostly, I think an IQ test does a very good job of predicting how well someone will do on future IQ tests.
This link, rather.
As it was explained to me by a professor (and I hope I do his explanation justice):
IQ tests, given to young children, can be used as a predictor of the child’s performance in early schooling (say, elementary level). How well the child does in middle school, OTOH, is best predicted by his/her performance in elementary school. Likewise, how well he/she does in high school is best predicted by his/her performance in middle school. And on and on, through college and graduate studies.
Throughout the schooling process, you pick up and develop various skills (“learning skills”), such as time-management, planning, organization, reading, listening, note-taking, memorization, etc. It’s how well you perform those skills, in combination with your attitude towards your responsibilities, that is the better indicator of your likelihood of professional (and personal) success.
I downloaded a couple of mock IQ tests from the Internet a few years back. I took the first test cold and got a fairly respectable score. I studied for the second test using a study guide and practice questions/answers. I managed to improve my score by 20 points. Now I’m a genius!
Two interesting books, which take pretty opposite sides, are THE BELL CURVE by R.J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray. and THE MISMEASURE OF MAN by Stephen J. Gould. I don’t have the ability to summarize both books here. A few points I remember:
– There’s a controversy over whether General Intelligence even exists
– There’s a controversy over the validity of IQ tests
– There’s a controversy over whether IQ tests measure inherent ability (or, as the OP called it, “a brain’s capacity.”)
– There’s controversy over what portion of ingtelligence is genetic.
– There’s controversy over race and IQ. (In this one area, both books agree Both say that IQ tests cannot be used to distinguish inherent racial differences in intelligence. A number of critics asserted that TBC took the opposite POV, but they had misunderstood the book.)
I have no expertise, so my view has no value. I won’t even share it. However, I do recommend reading both these books, which give an excellent presentation of two opposing POVs.
You’d need to define 'real intelligence" I think. I don’t know what I think ‘real intelligence’ is. IQ tests can be a measure of potential.
I think IQ testing can be of use with young children who are at the extremes of the bell curve. I’ll grant that IQ testing probably does just test a certain type of intelligence but it is a type which does go hand in hand with a type of personality and a style of learning which is different. I’d define extreme of intelligence as beginning at about 160 identified on an individual IQ test administered by someone who knew what they were doing.
IQ tests can also be used to identify learning disabilities and the WISC III is also used (on shonky grounds IMO) to diagnose Asperger’s syndrome.
The experts have been trying to show that IQ measures intelligence for years, and they have all failed – the two things are simply unrelated.
In one study, a person’s weight was shown to be a better measure of intelligence than IQ.
IQ test results need to get filed with Rorschach ink blot test results.
In a large circular file.
A dear friend of mine was invited to the local MENSA group because of his high scoring on IQ tests.
I asked him if he honestly thought that these people were that much smarter than the norm.
His reply was genious in itself…
“IQ tests measure how well people do in IQ tests.
MENSA is just full of people who score well in those same tests, nothing more.”
A dear friend of mine was invited to the local MENSA group because of his high scoring on IQ tests.
I asked him if he honestly thought that these people were that much smarter than the norm.
His reply was genious in itself…
“IQ tests measure how well people do in IQ tests.
MENSA is just full of people who score well in those same tests, nothing more.”
Glad to know that you support your namesake, sj.
Do you have a cite for this study? It’s difficult for me to understand. It would seem to require that the researchers had a numerical measure of each person’s “intelligence,” as something other than IQ. I didn’t know that such a measure existed.
According to THE BELL CURVE, various studies show a considerable degree of correllation between IQ and various measures of success IIRC. Considerable, but far from perfect, correllation.
One could question whether correllation implies causation. (I.e., perhaps successful people give their children better training for IQ tests. Conceivably success might cause high IQs, rather than vice versa. IIRC some of the studies tried to account for that sort of external factor, and claimed to show that higher IQ people tend to be more successful because of their IQ.
Unfortunately I don’t remember many details fo these studies.
I’ve often wondered what, exactly, IQ tests measure. For my entire scholastic life, my test scores have been far out on the high end of the curve. (Presumably marking me as a genius.) However, I’ve met a large number of people, and seen a hell of a lot of them here, who have me beat by a mile when it comes to sheer brains. I think the label “genius” is being passed out like Halloween candy, and the real thing is far more rare.
I attribute my high test scores to two things - I am reasonably intelligent, and I perform very well under pressure. The combination of those attributes mean that I have a high aptitude for test taking. I think it’s fun to try and break the scale. Offer me a test, and I snap to attention and whip out a #2 pencil. I like that type of test - that’s all it means.
For that matter, I have another so-called “genius” friend, who often cannot find her butt with both hands. And Mr. Seawitch, who loathes tests, scores low but is a damn smart man. I’ve been able to use the testing system to my advantage (read: college scholarship), but I think it’s purest horse hockey.
Mozart was a genius. Da Vinci was a genius. I’m a test-lovin’ freak. Not the same thing at all.
Here’s another anecdote: despite my supposedly high IQ, I did not catch the significance of the name sjgouldrocks until now!
D’oh!
I agree that Goulds book THE MISMEASURE OF MAN is great and relevant to this topic.
The concept of “intelligence” is very ambiguous. Its probably just a made-up construct that has a meager basis in reality. If anything it is simply the general limitations of the brain to function as determined by genetics and the environment during development.
Of the three main psychological theories of intelligence, none of them can be supported with research. But traditional IQ tests are deceptive and should not be administered to anyone except for perhaps a good laugh. Plus, I am sure it has been said that success on intelligence tests is dependant upon cultural literacy and linguistic ability.