Not sure how to respond to that other than to say – they do measure something very like innate intelligence. Again, I don’t know what your argument here is. Can you state why you think IQ tests don’t measure some aspect of ‘g’ (general factor -the concept used that part
Urban Ranger - there’s not just one aspect to cognitive ability. If a person described as an “idiot savant” had a remarkable, but very narrow range ability (e.g. recalling what day of the week it is for any date given), that person would still have a poor score on an IQ test.
Well you can get better UP TO A POINT - and the effects don’t seem to last. I’m not maintaining that environmental factors play no role in IQ. They do - UP TO A POINT.
Now - since it’s so “plain and simple” you’ll have no problem finding a cite for the assertion.
I fail to see how IQ tests measure innate intelligence. You can’t. An illiterate person won’t be able to take the verbal part. Pattern matching, geometry, etc. all involved learned skills. One aspect of intelligence is how fast a person can learn, and IQ tests can never test it. What about artistic talents? Are they part of intelligence?
I have never seen any scientific basis for IQ tests measuring intelligence. I don’t think anybody should take them for more than just grins.
Right, the point is intelligence is a very fuzzy concept. How do you compare an idiot savant who is a genius conductor with your average university graduate? Who is more intelligent? Why?
How can we decide if IQ tests measure a “misterious g factor”.
Why don’t you tell us? Do they? What the hell is the g factor? Something only measurable by IQ tests. Great! :smack:
Nowadays, you can find a cite for anything on the internet
I think the burden of proof lies on those who make extraordinary claims.
i.e: IQ tests measure errr… “intelligence”, and we know they work because…? Oh, yeah right, we all can tell a smart guy when we see one. :dubious:
First, there are parts to a standardized IQ test that measure cognitive speed. There are parts that measure memory. There are “culture free” IQ tests that do not require the person to know any specific language. Pattern recognition tests the ability to see analogies, patterns and differences in each. If you want to believe that IQ tests measure nothing related to innate intelligence or that innate “intelligence” doesn’t exist - well fine here. Make it a political issue if you want or, as ChaosGod did, intertwine the racial issue. If you don’t want to call it “intelligence,” that’s fine. But IQ tests measure something, and that ‘something’ has a strong correlation with academic ability and employment in the professions. That ‘something’ doesn’t change much over the course of someone’s after 10 and is highly correlated in monozyogotic twins whether they are raised together or apart.
you cannot hope to determine the intelligence of an adult. they have had too many experiences that could help them pass any test (or not enough experiences which would hurt them). now, test a young child and you will get a better measure… however, you will have the daunting task of adjusting for children who are mentally further along or behind in development.
in other words, it’s impossible to determine intelligence, but tests can show whether your peers got certain question right and how you fared comparatively. then assign numbers, which compare you to society. if the test is done brilliantly, then it should place you fairly well in society. obviously testing would be different in the U.S. than in Egypt.
Have you read into this? The guy is not arrogant at all. He doesn’t give a rat’s ass; he stumbled upon the test and started doing it for fun, not because he set out to win the title.
He seems to think the whole thing is odd. He’s not arrogant. Maybe the contest sponsors are arrogant for thinking they can determine who’s tops in brains, but you’ve jumped to a very unfair conclusion if you’re pointing fingers at this guy.
Here, let me quote from the exact same article that has been linked here:
"… But being declared the world’s smartest person is, well …
‘Pretty funny,’ said Andrew Nierman, 29, of Ann Arbor, who has just been named the winner of the International High IQ Society’s first ‘World’s Smartest Person’ competition.
‘I think there’s a little bit of difference between being the world’s smartest person and winning this contest,’ said Nierman, a Ph.D. candidate in computer science at U-M. ‘The smartest person in the world probably wouldn’t bother entering this contest. I just thought it would be fun.’ "
I hate to seem like a contrarian here but it is just the opposite on both counts. As a person grows older they are less subject to the effects of their environment and MORE subject to their “unique environment.”
A child’s IQ is very unstable until they reach the age of 10 or so. In fact, the parents IQs are better predictors of what a child’s IQ will be at 15 than that child’s own IQ at 6.
Actually, you’re the one who first laid out the claim that one gets better and better by practicing standardized IQ tests. Not me. Again, one can get better TO A POINT. Just like an enriched environment will raise IQ TO A POINT.
It’s pretty settled that intelligence is AT LEAST 40% - 50% innate. Some suggest as high as 80%. The ‘something’ that IQ tests measure also seems to be heritable, as I’ve mentioned above.
You’re right about finding anything you want on the internet to support one position or another. This would especially be the case for such a politically charged issue like ‘intelligence.’ In any event - here is an article from a New Scientist article at a UCLA site.
… And I meant to add that the statement that ‘IQ tests measure the ability to take IQ tests” means nothing. Of course they do. Playing football measures the ability to play football. The real question is what skills are needed to do well on IQ tests or football.
If the parents score high in their IQ tests, it’s natural that they pass this “ability” to their kids just through environment. (at least statiscally)
You may say they did tests on identical twins separated at birth and maybe they got some correlation. Maybe so. But identical twins may live in the same area, or similar social environments, or may receive similar parental support just based on their looks. Good looking kids may get more support than ugly ones.
All sorts of “noise” gets in these statistics, and I’m skeptical about reasearchers finding exactly what they are looking for.
And finally, I mention this: What about mo-ti-va-tion !
Trying to measure some supposed “innate intelligence” and ignoring the influence of motivation is like trying to measure ripples in a tsunami, or measuring the brightness of a planet passing in front of the sun.
Based on the instructions alone, I think this test is a crock. First, it’s not timed. Second, what do you make of this?
**
This isn’t measuring general inteligence, it’s measuring the ability to apply tools and procedures to solve a problem. This is primarily learned behavior.
I also note that the geniuses who offer this test (apparently as a way of joining their society of highly intelligent people) seem to have made a grammatical error. Shouldn’t it be “The use of . . . is permitted?” I know this is nitpicky but under the circumstances they ought to be extra careful if they expect anyone to take this seriously.
Finally, I see no evidence that this particular test has been actively studied to determine its accuracy and consistency or even that it has been properly normalized. In other words, absent evidence to the contrary, this is just a bunch of hard questions put together as a marketing tool.
There’s not just “some” correlation. There is a high correlation among identical twins of about .95 when raised together. To show how similar that is – that’s the same correlation as a SINGLE PERSON would get when taking two different IQ tests separated by a couple of weeks.
ChaosGod, first you just made that up. Second, if environment plays the significant role that you suggest it does, why isn’t this correlation found in adopted and biological children raised together. These children, and later adults, have no more similarity to each other than any other unrelated persons. IQ scores are correlated with the degree of genetic kinship. Mononzygotic twins who were originally thought to be fraternal, that is they were not raised as idential twins, still show the high correlation described above.
Ok, now ‘good looks’ are the cause of IQ. This drifts so far from anything I’ve heard before it would seem that you might want to provide a cite on that one.
True – if someone isn’t interested in doing well on a test they will probably not do well on the test. A person could do poorly on a test because they did not try. This observation however, doesn’t go to the validity of the test itself. Just like a lack of interest in math says nothing about my ability to do mathematics or the science of mathematics itself.
Hmm. On second thought, that might more properly be “The eating of apples, pears, and grapes is enjoyable”, so maybe not. Apologies for doubting you, Truth Seeker.
I got 120 too. It’s very annoying that it doesn’t tell you how this score is achieved, which ones were right etc.
Also, it’s a laughably biased test, heavily weighted in favour of mathematicians. Not a single question pertaining to creative thinking, English expression etc.
I think the only purpose such a test could possible serve would be to provide work for the people who sell and administer these tests and to provide talking points for those unintelligent enough to think they prove anything except an aptitude for these kinds of tests.
gotta go. Back in a few