“IQ only measures the ability to take IQ tests” - What?

[clairobscur]

@Lamia

Scores are plotted on a standard bell-curve with the mean set to 100, and a standard deviation of 15 or 16 depending on the test. Roughly 50% of the population will score 100, with 1/4 above and 1/4 below.

I believe that wasn’t what you actually meant. Not 50% of people will score 100 (perhaps 50% will score between, say, 90 and 110, to give an arbitrary figure) . Rather, 50% will score less than 100 and 50% will score more than 100.

[clairobscur]

@Lamia

The use of IQ tests as a predictor of success for people in the above-average range is a bit more questionable. Someone with an IQ of 160 is going to be much more successful than a severely mentally retarded person with an IQ of 40, and will probably be considerably more successful than a perfectly average person with an IQ of 100. But will they be significantly better off than someone with a “mere” 130? .

This question remind me of a summed-up study I read once, about the relationship between IQ and well-being. According to this study, if I remember correctly, people with high IQ tended to be “happier” than people with a lower IQ, (I don’t remember at all what questions were asked to assess a level of self-perceived happiness) except at older ages, where they would become more negative, on the average. A side comment of the analysis offered as an explanation that older people with higher IQ were less likely to fool themselves about their diminishing capacities and their perspective for the future.

[Lamia]

@clairobscur

I believe that wasn’t what you actually meant. Not 50% of people will score 100 (perhaps 50% will score between, say, 90 and 110, to give an arbitrary figure) . Rather, 50% will score less than 100 and 50% will score more than 100.

Tigers2B1 already corrected this, but since you pointed it out as well I’ll say that what I meant to post was “50% of the population will score roughly 100” rather than “Roughly 50% of the population will score 100”. One of those mistakes that slipped into the revision process when I was changing my phrasing. (Believe it or not I do revise my posts, for all the good it does me!) So 25% of the population will score above the average range around 100, and 25% will score below that range.

[auliya]

@clairobscur

I believe that wasn’t what you actually meant. Not 50% of people will score 100 (perhaps 50% will score between, say, 90 and 110, to give an arbitrary figure) . Rather, 50% will score less than 100 and 50% will score more than 100.

This is true clairobscur. And 68% of the population will score between 1 standard deviation below and one standard deviation above the mean (IQ of 85 -115 on a 100 M 15 SD test) 2% will score at or above/below 2 SD from the mean. This means on an IQ test with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, an IQ of 130 is at the 98th percentile.

The Stanford Binet 4 has on overall ceiling score of 164, the scores above this on the SB LM were always estimates, using a particular formula. The Wechsler tests (WIPPSI,WISC,WAIS) have a ceiling of 160. You cannot score higher on these tests, so the validity of a lot of scores people thow around on this board is pretty questionable. I think people often get achievement test scores confused with IQ scores. The validity and reliability of group testing by a teacher relative to individual testing by a psychologist is another issue - individual testing is generally thought to be more reliable.

[t-keela]

I’m not trying to resurrect this thread or get into any argument about IQ scores either.
My life went to hell when we were in the middle of this thread. I just wanted to add a little info. call it an update.
I was going over the results of the state TAKS tests for last semester (Spring 2004) and was comparing them to my son’s scores. He scored in the top 1% of all students that were tested statewide and had the best score in the region. Perhaps the state too but I’ve not seen that report yet. There is an outlier in the distribution of scores. None were perfect.
Out of the 15 various categories he scored 100% in all but four. He missed one question in critical thinking (reading), one in quantitative reasoning and one in uses of measurement (math) and one in US History (social studies).
BTW he’s a freshman and will be starting on the senior debate team when school starts.

[Knorf]

Gee, I scored a 72 on my IQ test, and I’ve been blindingly successful ever since!

Actually, to my knowledge I never took a real IQ test. I’m glad I didn’t. When I was growing up, people took those things too damn seriously. I was glad to be out of the loop, so to speak. I knew kids who compared (or fabricated) IQ scores like some men compare (or fabricate) penis sizes.

I did however flunk a test (not a bonifide IQ test) to get into the Academically Talented program in my grade school. Whenever I told classmates about that in High School they were invariably flabbergasted.

But, hey, I did ok. I did very well on the SAT and the ACT, got a 5 on the the AP Calculus test, did really great on the GRE, and ultimately finished a doctorate. And now I’m a professor at a research university.

So, who cares whether some floozy in Sparks, NV, didn’t think I was academically talented,?

[Cardinal]

Any test is an evaluation of a skill. Any skill is developed through practice. What you end up with is a group of people who are smart (can learn very well) but are graded as lower IQ because they have never practiced the kinds of things that are on IQ tests. I have specific examples of this.