Actually yes because I don’t think people understand what is being measured as clearly as a professional would.
Well, perhaps, but it is not clear that a - what is being measured does not change over time, and b- that the measurement instrument is time invariant.
I am sure a lot of research has gone into both of those matters, right? If it was so obvious, that would not be necessary So you can’t blame the lay people for not knowing what took so much work for the pros to get to their understanding of. The pros would need to do a better job communicating it if the lay understanding is not correct.
Or maybe the ability to understand is correlated with IQ and not all lay people will ever understand
Well, that is just it - I don’t think it is well understood in lay-land what that aspect of “smart” is, especially when it applies all the way from profoundly developmentally challenged to the brightest people.
This is not purely an issue in psych - it happens in other sciences too. I don’t think lay people really understand what temperature measures, especially out the the range of their human experience. Similarly for calories - we all toss it around in common conversation, but how well do we as lay people understand the science involved?
I took your introduction to be a contention that IQ is not “one of the most stable quantities we have measured in people over time.”
Test equivalence is not an area of particular expertise for me, but I understand a good bit of it. It actually depends on several issues. First, for some tests of intelligence, or some subtests of broader tests of intelligence, language and culture are not an issue. For instance, subtests of the WAIS include block design requires a person to replicate an image by manipulating red and white blocks. Digit Symbol and Object Assembly are also less dependant on culture and language, as long as people understand the directions. There are entire tests that are designed to minimize literacy requirements. Raven’s Progressive Matrices ask individuals to complete a sequence or pattern after being provided with information about the sequence of interest: Raven's Progressive Matrices - Wikipedia.
The problem is that, as we’ve been discussing, intelligence is a broad concept, so the more restricted the measure, the poorer it will perform in terms of prediction to other things, like academic or job performance, etc. Also, on the WAIS, there are verbal and performance IQ subscores, and the elements that are less language and culture dependent are predominantly on the performance side of the ledger.
The WAIS and other IQ measures do include tests of Vocabulary, Information, and Comprehension, and these as you might expect are very language and culture dependent. Just making up an example, but if you were asked on the Information section, “Who was Jonas Salk?”, I’m guessing that answering that question correctly would mean very different things if you were an American than if you were raised in Pakistan or China. Again, that’s just a guess, but I’m assuming that people of average intelligence in those or other cultures would be less likely to answer that correctly than someone raised in America.
Also, there are secular, or temporal, cultural differences. For instance, I was looking at a Picture Completion stimulus card from an old version of the WISC the other day. On that subtest, a person is shown a picture with something missing, and they have to say what is missing, such as a knob from a door. One of the items shows a telephone, and the missing element is the cord from the handset to the base of the phone. My kids have never seen a corded telephone, as far as I know, so answering that one correctly or incorrectly would mean something very different than for a child of the era when that particular image was made.
It isn’t correct to say that they must be biased, only that they may be. For instance, is it culturally biased to ask an American who Winston Churchill was? Perhaps. And it isn’t that any particular item is biased, per se, but that the interpretation of what it means to answer correctly or not is biased. The measures are generally constructed so that very few people get every one right. It is the norming of the measure where cultural bias is particularly involved.
Okay, fine, but again it was my statement regarding the stability of IQ that you quoted and responded to.
Here in this thread in post 40 is where I shared that information. I know it’s easy to miss stuff when you’re reading a thread, but on the other hand it’s a bit frustrating to have to repeat things.
Sorry, I’d rather be circumspect on that point, mostly out of an abundance of overcaution.
I’d contend that any clinical situation is a clinical situation, even when being requested by the courts. That’s a bit prickly, sure, and of course there are differences, but we do have to adhere first and foremost to our standards and ethics. The validity and interpretation of an IQ score will have a different impact in a forensic setting than elsewhere, but we should be as clear about the meaning and limitations of any given test when talking to a jury or to a classroom teacher.
not_alice, I don’t want a test of their political opinions, they can tell me those or I can look up their record. I want to measure their intelligence and wisdom scores as the D & D players would say. I’d be reasonably happy with that and then listen to what they say. I’m pretty sure I want some kind of IQ test, and something more thorough than the quickie internet, click here tests.
As for my pretty good scores, my college roommate also took the LSAT. Not quite cold, but he did study for only about two or three days. He got the 99.9 percentile.
I’m not asking about professional or instrument based measurement. I’m asking about the layperson’s concept of “smart”. In fact, I chose it because it is not a word used in professional jargon.
“Smart” connotes something, right? I mean, it must, because it exists as a word, and people generally use it in such a way that it appears to have common meaning. I contend that most people would probably suggest, independent of anything but their own experience and observations, that a smart kid will probably be a smart adult, or that someone who was smart a year ago will probably still be smart today.
Your position appears to be otherwise, but I suspect you would be in the minority of a sample of people asked if someone smart today will be smart tomorrow, next month and next year.
I am not nor never was a d&d’er, nor did I really ever know any. So I don’t have a clue as to what you are getting at, sorry.
I had a roommate after college who decided to go to law school. He was an alumni of the same school as me, I was in math/engineering, he in social sciences. He took the test, and I remember him complaining after how difficult it was. I don’t recall him prepping for it because that he took the test at all was a surprise to me and other roommate.
I looked at some prep material after that and I recall thinking the questions were sort of similar to the logic exercises a first year computer science student might get.
He nailed the test too and has gone on to a satisfying career. My opinion is most of the people in GD have the thinking skills needed to nail that test already.
Because in the anecdote I entered the thread with, I told of a guy who took tw different tests at separate times (i.e. not simultaneously) and the results were not identical. That their interpretation was different was a matter for the court to decide how to proceed.
I have no reason to doubt that if the guy tooks the same tests next month, next year, 5 years from now he would get the same results. Which is what I think you are saying, right?
But while each individual test may be invariant over time ("=stable"), culturally separate versions of the test, assuming they measure the same “thing”, do not seem to necessarily measure it to the same precision.
I am guessing if I take the test in English, and a Japanese version (In which I have some but hardly fluent facility) I will not get the same result. And if the test is in Swahili, which I know nothing of, it might be different again. Would I be wrong about that?
Nah. I don’t have a horse in that race. Only that I was thinking about “different versions at different times”, not “same version, different time”.
Since that hearing I mentioned extended over 3 days, I imagine there was some additional testimony about which test was appropriate for this guy too, independent of language. Whether he is capable of understanding the instructions at all was probably an issue.
Even so, what I heard about from the first day that part of the dispute at that time was that the Spanish test he took, (maybe just the instructions were in Spanish, I don’t know) was scored with a much smaller norm than the equicvalent test in the US, and so the confidence interval around the score was too large as to be useful for making a forensic determination. Well, for one side, anyway
Agreed.
In the case I am discussing, the issue s forensic - is the guy competent for trial in some legal sense. I am sure that is arbitrary too to some extent, but the case is what it is.
OK fair enough.
Also agreed.
Right! That was part of the dispute. And so was the varying precision of the respective norms.
Hmm I am starting to think that “stability” in this context is a professional term of art?
Sorry, didn’t read the whole thread when I jumped in. But I hear you loud and clear about frustrating and repeating - did you see my recent pit thread?
Totally understood. Didn’t hurt to ask, that’s a fine answer. To the extent you are sharing here, I am satisfied.
Agreed. It is a matter of great public interest of course.
“Universe” exists as a word and has a common meaning one would thing, so does “god” and “evolution”. BUt ask any two people and you won’t likely get the same answer.
IOW, not all words, even if common, are precise enough to communicte a single snippet of communication. Sometimes we have to go on context.
“Smart” might be one of those words that is not precise enough, so I am asking you to fill in the context to make it so. There probably isn’t any universal context though - we take it as it comes. that is why we look to the pros for telling us what it is they are measuring. I am enough of a scientist to understand that you can measure something and not (yet) be able to define what it is - but not everyone in the general public gets that I think.
But so what? You are already hedging by saying probably not once but twice, meaning you assign two different distributions (to different matters) to your view. We expect better from science, and frankly I find the claim doesn’t support the conclusion that a smart kid will grow up to be smart at all - it only reflects an opinion or prediction on the matter.
Not necessarily, but so what?
Still, let’s get back to IQ - what precisely does it measure? Are you saying best guess is it predicts the answer of what a group of people would vote as to someone’s intelligence? I hope not! OK to say “We don’t know what it is a measure of”.
I am not sneaking up on a debate here, I really wonder what it is you are measuring in your research when you do IQ assessments.
No, it’s not. Technically speaking, it’s a measure of IQ. Speaking more generally, it functions well enough as an index of intelligence to call it intelligence.
It’s a bit like a measure of anxiety. So you get a score on that measure. Is that “anxiety”? No, but (assuming it’s a valid and reliable measure) it wouldn’t be useful to say “I have no idea what it’s a measure of”. It’s useful enough to call it anxiety.
Why? Because I am sensitive to the context of which words are used? You raised the issue, and when I explain why I don’t necessarily agree, you accuse me of overthinking it instead of offering a more satisfactory explanation? Maybe you are underthinking it
OK< it measures IQ. But that begs the question, what is IQ other than what the test measures? We know what a thermometer measures other than “temperature” - and we can use that info to make predictive and useful generalizations about what we are measuring. Can we do any of that with “IQ”? Honest question. Seems like the OP is suggesting one such predictive use.
I would say the same thing - what is anxiety? We probably don’t know all that is to be known about it, but I bet research is ongoing in fNMR and using other approaches,
I would hypothesize the basis of “intelligence” is more complex than “anxiety”, and also that we can’t say what either is the way we can say what heat is.
Sure, a measure of something is useful, but it could be limited. Like if I call the weather “sweater weather” it is useful for some purposes but not others. I would have a hard time defining “sweater weather” precisely, and that fuzziness might drive me to understand and define how to define, classify and measure “weather” more precisely.
I understand the sciences of mental health are still really new, I am not holding them to the same standards of physics for example, but don’t scientists everywhere recognize and embrace the limits of knowledge in their fields?
I think the bigger question is how do you quantify IQ (whatever it’s measuring) and link it to whatever we are supposedly trying to get or not get, candidate wise. From what I understand, Bush (and really, this thread is all about GW) had an IQ (by standard testing) that was average for the population (IIRC it was something like 110, but I could be misremembering). That’s probably below the average on this board, but it’s probably above average for the population at large.
So…should we require potential candidates to have higher than average IQ? Why? What will this supposedly be buying us? There have been ‘smart’ presidents who have done really stupid things or been really bad presidents, while some ‘dumb’ presidents have done good things or been decent presidents.
I really hate repeating myself. I’ve already provided cites to several reviews on what IQ predicts. There are literally thousands of studies on IQ that help to determine what we can do with IQ. You have lots of questions, but you don’t seem to have even bothered to read the small number of studies I’ve cited for you.
What’s fNMR?
What do you mean by “really new”? Embracing the limits is different than agreeing with the assertion that we have no idea what we are measuring or what it does.
I would certainly not support this. Ignoring the fact that IQ is entirely unrelated to your ability to lead, and again entirely unrelated to your knowledge on the specific fields required to govern (like current events, politics, etc)… the president, by very definition, should rarely be the smartest person in the room.
The problem with bad leaders isn’t that they aren’t intelligent, it’s that they either surround themselves with the people necessary to make them the most intelligent person in the room or only listen to people who made them feel like the most intelligent person in the room.
If I had my choice between a brilliant leader who had to be the smartest person in the room, or a borderline retard who took advice from the people who were best educated about particular subjects, I would choose the latter every single time.
Completely agree. The problem with really smart people being leaders is that everyone around them knows they are really smart, and this can actually cause people to put blinders on. People tend to listen and be heavily influenced by ‘smart’ people, and they also tend to rely on them heavily, even when they are supposed to be the adviser…and this can lead to some spectacular problems and errors in judgment. Of course, if the really dumb person THINKS they are smart, and doesn’t want to listen to advice, then they are going to fuck up by the numbers as well. But simply selecting for ‘IQ’ or ‘intelligence’ in a candidate doesn’t buy us anything at all wrt how qualified or good a given candidate will actually be at being president. I’d say just the opposite, as most of the really smart folks I know would make horrible presidents. As a for instance, and though Hentor would probably vehemently disagree, I’d almost certainly pass any standardized IQ test given…and really, would ANYONE want me to be running for president??
I say we just stop dancing around the real crux here, and simply put forth a law that would require that no GW Bush’s (or anyone related to the Bush family, has eaten Bushes Beans, or is in any way associated with the Bush franchise, name or trade mark) ever be allowed to run for president again…
Where did this idea come from, that the OP was suggesting that IQ would be the sole criterion used?
Again, nobody is saying that Sheldon Cooper (from Big Bang Theory) would make a good president. On the other hand, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, if you were selecting someone to work for you, would you choose a smart person or a stupid person?
In any case, it’s beside the point. The point is that Nixon was very intelligent, and made a very poor president, due to other factors (related to personality and character). On the other hand, some presidents who might not have scored as high as Nixon (just speculating, but let’s say Truman and Eisenhower) on an IQ test were ok presidents, and at least were not corrupt and dishonest.
I think the idea of making specific personal requirements to run for the office of president (other than age and origin) is mis-guided. There just aren’t any reliable ways to measure the things that make a good president, and for different eras, different qualities might be more important.
Roddy
The OP is saying that the test would obviously bar someone who falls below some arbitrary standard from running, obviously.
Depends on ones definition of what ‘smart’ and ‘stupid’ are, and how they are other wise qualified. It would be a purely subjective measure that would change from case to case, so I don’t think that taking a test would really be a good indication on how I’d chose between the various candidates. Do YOU think you’d be able to choose, based solely on the supposed relative smart-ness/dumb-ness of a person? Let’s say that one candidate is a brilliant conservative and the other a not so brilliant liberal who’s platform completely conforms to your own world view. Who would YOU choose?
No shit…really? Wow, thanks for pointing that out. And…what’s that? Water is wet? Ah, again, thank you.
The point, of course, is that those advocating an IQ test for perspective candidates are setting some kind of bar…so, it WOULD be a ‘pass/fail’ in that if one falls below whatever out of the ass arbitrary bar you set, they have certainly failed. And I can practically guarantee you that any test that doesn’t bar over 95% of the population I can easily ‘pass’, though I’m sure your disbelief is epic at this point.
Fantasy is not my forte, to be sure. If you wish to leap off into fantasy and unrealistic comparisons, then carry on. You are doing such an, um, good job…wouldn’t want to hold you back when you are on a roll…
So you can’t blame the lay people for not knowing what took so much work for the pros to get to their understanding of. The pros would need to do a better job communicating it if the lay understanding is not correct.
