People who don't know their IQs: Would you ever get tested?

[Wendell_Wagner]

Habeed writes:

> I can link you the paper where they did the reaction time test if you are
> interested

Yes, go ahead and link to the paper. Then show me that most psychologists accept this conclusion.

Here’s what one webpage says:

Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos

> IQ tests administered by psychologists which are “true” IQ tests do have time
> limits, but speed of thought is not an indicator of intelligence. Intelligence is
> more of an ability to think among other things rather than how fast one
> processes information. The speed at which one processes information does not
> show their potential.

It isn’t true that all I.Q. tests measure things by time. Many such tests aren’t really timed at all.

[DSeid]

@Wendell_Wagner

Give me a citation for the claim that I.Q. correlates with the speed of your brain. In particular, show me that it’s not just a claim made in one scientific paper. Show me that it’s generally accepted by psychologists.

Here. (pdf and a big slow to load one.) It really began with Jensen.

This one states it simply and succintly. It is pretty well established.

It is concluded that the reaction time tests measure basic cognitive operations which are involved in many forms of intellectual behavior, and that individual differences in intelligence can be attributed, to a moderate extent, to variance in the speed or efficiency with which individuals can execute these operations.

Many articles come up.

The association between reaction times and psychometric intelligence test scores is a major plank of the information-processing approach to mental ability differences.

Which is not to say that there are no articles of an alternate POV. And it seems that more recent articles prefer to think of it in terms of “neural efficiency” measured less as reaction time than in relativelyreduced amount of brain activiation.

One more recent take.

Your IQ can be reliably predicted by simple reaction time tasks – perhaps even more reliably than with much more complex cognitive tasks. This surprising psychometric fact has led to the belief in human “processing speed.” In the same way that a computer with a faster microprocessor might carry out more computations, with potentially less demand on memory, the idea is that brains with better neuronal efficiency also manifest both higher IQ and proportionately faster reaction times even in simple tasks. … “temporal acuity” may be the reason that such simple reaction time tasks correspond with higher level cognition: the temporal resolution of neuronal processing, rather than its absolute speed, may be the factor that matters.

No offense but a yahoo answers is not a great go-to.

[Student_Driver]

I was given a lengthy one when I was a kid (school brought in an outside tester and pulled me and one other student from classes for several hours a day over the course of a week). Don’t recall what the number was, and the school didn’t seem to do anything with the results, either for me or my friend. Pointless, and it put us a week behind on assignments. I wouldn’t bother with it now; I’d rather be proud of actual accomplishments (or ashamed at a lack thereof).

[Zebra]

Over time, your “I.Q.” will change. So even if you know your score, from a test long ago, you don’t know your current score.

[sandra_nz]

Sure, it would be interesting to know what my ‘ability to complete IQ tests’ score is.

[Nava]

@Wendell_Wagner

Nava writes:

> One of my brothers would get mad whenever I “beat him” at anything; one
> day, he was ranting to our other brother and said “it’s not as if she’s a genius
> or something!” “yes she is, actually” “uh?” “dude, she’s in Mensa. Since she’s in
> Mensa, I reckon she’s a certified genius.”

Well, umm, it depends on how you define the term “genius.” You need to be in the top 2% of the population to get into Mensa, which means at least a score of 132 on most I.Q. tests. Most “definitions” of “genius” set the bar higher than that. Some say that you need to have an I.Q. of at least 140 and others say it would have to be at least 160. Setting it at 132 strikes me as putting it awfully low. Next time you’re in a movie theater or something where there’s 200 people there, think about the fact that probably four of you are geniuses by that definition.

Honey, I don’t give a shit - my point was that my idiot brother does. So long as it means I don’t need to walk on eggshells around his ego, I don’t care whether it involves being a genius or a whore.

Out of my 200 student school class, I reckon at least 20% would be Mensa-level, just based on the professions we ended up having. Out of my 80-student college class, at least 80%.

[Anaamika]

I had mine from when I was a child. It was slightly above average, which was all I ever really wanted, anyway. I wouldn’t get tested now because those tests are hard work! I have enough work in my life, what with going back to school and all.

But the fact is I am getting almost all straight As while working full-time. What I am saying is, isn’t life enough of a test?

[Wendell_Wagner]

Thanks for the links, DSeid.

Here’s one paper that claims to debunk the notion that I.Q. correlates with reaction time, since scores on I.Q. tests have risen since that time but reaction times have increased:

Researchers suggest Victorian-era people more intelligent than modern-day...

Also, the claimed correlations between reaction time and I.Q. aren’t actually very large. They are about .3. Clearly something else is going on. There are more papers than I thought making claims that reaction time has something to do with I.Q., but it’s not as generally accepted as claimed. That was my point.

[Wendell_Wagner]

Nava writes:

> Honey, I don’t give a shit - my point was that my idiot brother does.

And that was my point, that your brother is an idiot. (Well, O.K., that’s an exaggeration, just like calling anyone in Mensa a genius is too.)

[DSeid]

There is no claim made that reaction time is the sole contributing factor to IQ.

There’s very little question it has something to do with it. The question is what. Perhaps they both overlap in origin. There is a correlation. Causation? I don’t react fast enough to know.

That Victorian study is intereting and here is anotherlonger discussion on it. It is not actually being used as a debunking of reaction time as basis for IQ, but as a serious proposition that the part of IQ that is genetic is slower than it used to be, even as environmental contributors raise overall average IQ. (Mainly by raisiing up those who are lowered by environmental deprivations.)

What that suggests is that even as IQ scores rise with education and health, humanity’s capacity to get smarter is shrinking. In essence, the Flynn effect might be hiding an underlying decline, a “psychometric dark matter” not visible on pen-and-paper intelligence tests, Woodley said.

“An analogy to use would be lower-quality seeds, but higher-quality fertilizers,” he said, referring to this idea that a high-quality environment may be masking the decline in “smart” genes.

The obvious criticisms are also included in that post. Variations of procedure over the years, etc.

At best, he said, reaction times to complex stimuli might explain about 20 percent to 25 percent of the variation in IQs, and simple reaction times explain a lot less.

Nettelbeck also raised concerns about the various experiments analyzed in the new study and how comparable they might be.

“Not only would there be differences in the technologies for timing responses, which may or not influence the outcome measures; there would also be procedural differences in the numbers of trials from which means [averages] have been derived, instructions to participants, extent of prior practice, the nature of stimuli, the form of response keys, all of which can influence the length of response,” he said.

Reaction time can also be tricky to interpret, said James Flynn, for whom the Flynn effect is named.

Still interestiing stuff.

[not_what_you_d_expect]

I am curious and would take the test, even though I don’t necessarily believe that the score means much. Unless it’s really high, then it totally means I’m smart.

[pulykamell]

@Nava

Out of my 200 student school class, I reckon at least 20% would be Mensa-level, just based on the professions we ended up having. Out of my 80-student college class, at least 80%.

Yeah, when I was a kid, like your brother I thought Mensa was like “wow, genius level” stuff. Then I went to college and realized based on SAT scores and what the median score there was, more than 50% of the student body qualified for Mensa based on that alone. And, while reasonably bright, there certainly were not that anywhere near that many geniuses there. That pretty much shattered my illusion of what being in Mensa meant.

As for the IQ test, I’ve never taken a formal test and have no interest in ever taking it.

[snailboy]

@pulykamell

Yeah, when I was a kid, like your brother I thought Mensa was like “wow, genius level” stuff. Then I went to college and realized based on SAT scores and what the median score there was, more than 50% of the student body qualified for Mensa based on that alone. And, while reasonably bright, there certainly were not that anywhere near that many geniuses there. That pretty much shattered my illusion of what being in Mensa meant.

Where the hell do you people go to school? Making it into Mensa isn’t an extraordinary achievement, but well over 2% of the people I know go or have gone to college.

[pulykamell]

@snailboy

Where the hell do you people go to school? Making it into Mensa isn’t an extraordinary achievement, but well over 2% of the people I know go or have gone to college.

When I was in college, 1250 (out of 1600) on the SAT was the cutoff for Mensa. I went to Northwestern, and the average score was around 1300, IIRC. Note that I am not saying that’s not a good score or that students there weren’t bright. But there’s a whole gulf between hardworking and bright and “genius.” There were few to no people I met there that I think would qualify as “geniuses.” All the geniuses were at the University of Chicago.

[snailboy]

@pulykamell

When I was in college, 1250 (out of 1600) on the SAT was the cutoff for Mensa. I went to Northwestern, and the average score was around 1300, IIRC. Note that I am not saying that’s not a good score or that students there weren’t bright. But there’s a whole gulf between hardworking and bright and “genius.” There were few to no people I met there that I think would qualify as “geniuses.” All the geniuses were at the University of Chicago.

Agreed, but I just can’t imagine any college having the majority of its students’ intelligence in the top 2%. I would guess community colleges to mostly be in the top 25% and higher end universities the top 10% or so. The top 2% sounds like doctoral students in physics.

[saje]

I would like to do it, kinda. I don’t think it would break me if I turned out to be a moron, but it’d be nice to know if I’m higher on the scale. The ol’ ego & self esteem could use a boost now and then…

[pulykamell]

@snailboy

Agreed, but I just can’t imagine any college having the majority of its students’ intelligence in the top 2%. I would guess community colleges to mostly be in the top 25% and higher end universities the top 10% or so. The top 2% sounds like doctoral students in physics.

I agree that 1250 seemed to be a low cutoff for Mensa as essentially proxy for a 130+ IQ score. I’m not sure how well it correlates. I remember other schools at the time having higher (like 1400+) averages, with 1250 being at around the 25%ile, meaning 75% of the body were automatically qualified for Mensa membership.

[elbows]

I was tested a couple of times in school, grade and middle, I think. Everyone seemed pleased, don’t remember any numbers.

I’ve never thought about doing it, however, given the opportunity, I might find it hard to resist, probably not caring about the outcome. Given the opportunity to know the number, again curiosity would get the better of me, and I’d want to know. That said, within a couple of weeks I’d have forgotten the number, simply by virtue of it being of such trivial importance!

[gracer]

I was tested a few times when I was young. At the time, my awful primary school had been very successful at instilling in me the idea that I was thoroughly stupid. First came the test that admitted me to my secondary school. It wasn’t difficult, and rather fun. More fun than primary school, anyway. Another when the school took part in an EQ experiment, they tested IQs as well.

Trying to get the idea of being stupid out of your head takes a long time, in my experience. You only need one smidgeon of evidence to convince yourself you’re stupid, but you’ll battle a mountain of contrary evidence to cling to the idea. The numbers the IQ test gave me helped a little with that. The thought I could go back to those teachers and say: “I speak 7 languages and have an IQ of 140 and I AM good at maths so fuck you”… I don’t need to do it, *but I could. *

It’s just a stupid number, and I genuinely don’t think it means much. I test well, I know that. I teach some kids who are bloody brilliant but test terribly, it really doesn’t mean much. But it helped me know I am really not stupid, after years of feeling worthless. It wasn’t just my papa saying it, it was an objective number.

If it were the same situation, I would do it again. But now I don’t need it anymore!

[flodnak]

I might, for fun.

I took what I later learned was an IQ test when I was seven. (I just remember that I loved the red-and-white blocks and wanted to take them home to play with them some more.) My mother told me the result when I was an adult; let’s just say I’m pretty sure the number wouldn’t be as high today.

I can’t imagine what I would do with the results of a test today, but it might be fun to take a new test just to find out what the results would be.