december, you have now referenced this book 2x. Interesting footnote: The authors released the “statistics” they relied upon at the same time they released the book. This was in contrast to most researchers who usually release their #'s well before their findings, often a year before their final document. This is so other statisticians can come to the same concusions as they did, therefore giving credence to their research. A proven scientific method.
Turns out most others came to very different conclusions than did Herrnstein and Murray. Unfortunately these other findings were released well after the initial shock value of The Bell Curve. The shock value which, by the way, led to (intended???) high volume book sales.
got an actual cite for that? This isn’t IMHO and it would be nice to see some of these opinions backed up by cites.
And even if IQ tests simply measure the kind of intelligence which is good at IQ tests, what’s the problem with that? Just because everybody doesn’t happen to have that kind of intelligence, doesn’t invalidate the intelligence of those who do.
Since this statement just doesn’t make any sense, I have to assume you’re referring to This study, which found that babies that had higher birth weights tended to have higher intelligence, but only during childhood.
I think that was my point, kind of. The design of any kind
of test inevitably involves value judgements, which are all someone’s “IMHO”. Someone somewhere has decided that in order to be intelligent you need to be able to answer this kind of question. No matter how object you’re trying to be, you’re going to biased towards what you are good at and what makes you, IYHO, intelligent.
Absolutely, I have no problem with people with high IQs being very smart at a large number of things. Unfortunately they could also be total morons at a number of other things. IQ is too often produced as some kind of universal measurement of all areas of human intelligence, when it’s no more legitimate than the crossword in your local newspaper, a TV quiz or even a game of tic-tac-toe.
A high score just means you’re good at what they’re giving you. Nothing else.
This is a point that’s been debated for almost 100 years. Many experts agree with FG. Others do think that there’s a single intelligence that’s important for virtually all activities. It’s sometimes called “G”, which IIRC stands for “general intelligence.”
I find it interesting that even people who don’t buy the existence of G talk as if they did. That is, they’ll say that someone is “smart” or “an idiot,” even though they support the belief that these terms are meaningless.
Do you know anyone who actually does what you claim?
G is a quantifiable measurement that purports to identify the specific cross-identified intelligences. I can recognize that a person is “smart” (generally identified in informal conversation as “capable of solving problems, remembering facts, and articulating ideas”) without actually believing that I can assign a number that will identify how “smart” they are regarding mathematics, spatial relations, verbal skills, problem solving, relating abstract ideas to concrete examples, relating abstract ideas to each other, memory, and a host of other aspects of intelligence.
Recognizing that there are informally accepted definitions that cannot be accurately defined and measured scientifically is one quality of intelligence, for example.
YOur IQ is your Mental Age (the level you think on) divided by your real age and then multiplied by 100. It’s hard to imagine the incredible amount of studies and research that went into the various IQ tests.
Cite for this ‘odd but true’ fact? And you might wanna do some research on the heritability of intelligence as measured by IQ tests. It’s nature plus nurture, not just breeding from a Nobel prize winner.
I am not an expert on this topic, so if I say something innaccurate or retarded, please correct me. Just don’t flame me publicly, ok?
IMHO, IQ tests are helpful, and they are somewhat accurate. I say somewhat accurate because one can lose points on an IQ test based on knowledge, not capacity. Not knowing who Goethe is does not make your IQ smaller, does it? A lack of proficiency in, say, basic Calculus or Eiclidian Geometry does not make someone less able to learn them, IMHO, simply unexposed to them. I lost some points on my first IQ test because of a lack of how Logarithms work, and the arithmetic involved. I was also at a complete loss when Goethe was mentioned, and I had to ask for the spelling of the name. A section of the test is based on knowledge, which I assert is invalid.
Would it be more accurate to say that an IQ test asks HOW the mind in question works, as opposed to how well? I don’t really know, but I would be interested to find out.
I guess the thinking of the people who designed these tests is that someone who has a high IQ is more likely to understand logarithms than someone who doesn’t.
Still, that’s kind of indirect, isn’t it?
I’m a guy who has aquired the “skill” of scoring very high on IQ tests, but there’s not a day that goes by that someone next to me doesn’t out-think me on something. Some of these people haven’t had, I’ll bet, measureably high IQ’s (I work with all types of people).
So if your IQ score isn’t so high, don’t be intimidated. I once had a boss with a third-grade education who built an empire. His grandson, with an eighth-grade education, is the shrewdest businessman I’ve ever dealt with, among thousands.
1- Could you define “Mental Age” or “the level you think on”?
2- Based on your equation, a baby just born (real age =0), has infinite IQ. And a person with maximum age possible (say 150 years old), has the least IQ.
3- Your number of posts is indicated as 23. You either are new to SDMB or just switched your old name. In either case, I suggest you first go back about a year in SDMB Great Debates, digest what has already been discussed at length, then see if you really have anything meaningful to add (or at least present a stimulating sense of humor), before you post anything at all. It is not good for our eyes to scroll through reams and reams of BS.
I think they measure how good you will do in school, this is what they were designed for in the first place ( to find kids who needed more lessons ! ).
Obviously you could link some of this to what we culturally call ‘intelligent’ i.e. lawyers,doctors are said to be ‘intelligent’ and to be one you have to be good at school.
IQ tests of people with advanced education do show a link i.e. people with a ph.d have a higher iq score than those without.
The military use IQ tests to decide what to train people for.