Do you agree that IQ tests are a true way of testing a person intelligence?

[John Harmonic]

Have you taken an IQ test before. Do you think this is a true way of testing ones intelligence? Also do you think just because a person has done great academic feats in there life but haven't taken an IQ test that they should necessarily be assumed to have a high IQ level, like Albert Einstein.

Edited October 2, 2018 by John Harmonic

[StringJunky]

IQ tests were developed for  finding the limits of people with a serious cognitive deficiency to see what help they needed; it was not for measuring intelligent people. IQ tests in other scenarios just tells you who's good at IQ tests. 

[John Harmonic]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

IQ tests in other scenarios just tells you who's good at IQ tests. 

I agree with that part, I compare it to the gaming world, some people maybe good at one game but not at another. But I am thinking maybe they already thought about stuff like that so in a way they took all the major sub groups of games and made it into one big game, the IQ test. I mean if it is that popular and still in use then there must be some science to it.

18 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

IQ tests were developed for  finding the limits of people with a serious cognitive deficiency to see what help they needed; it was not for measuring intelligent people.

Woops i guess thats the science to it...

[StringJunky]

3 hours ago, John Harmonic said:

I agree with that part, I compare it to the gaming world, some people maybe good at one game but not at another. But I am thinking maybe they already thought about stuff like that so in a way they took all the major sub groups of games and made it into one big game, the IQ test. I mean if it is that popular and still in use then there must be some science to it.

Woops i guess thats the science to it...

Yes, the roots of these tests is sound, it's that they are often now misapplied to the wrong demographic.

[Gees]

John Harmonic;

 

16 hours ago, John Harmonic said:

Have you taken an IQ test before. 

Yes. Twice. Both times in school when I was young. No, I have no idea of my test results, I only know that the school had a dramatic reaction to my testing and seemed to think my test results were surprisingly high.

 

Quote

Do you think this is a true way of testing ones intelligence?

Well, that depends on what you mean by intelligence. If you mean smart, successful, ambitious, or happy, then an IQ test does not test squat.

Intelligence tests are always timed, so we are talking about a test for how fast you can assimilate the information, come up with various options, judge those options, then choose the best one and apply it. It is a speed test for your thinking ability; of course, practice would make you better at it. Computers can test very high in intelligence, because they are very fast, but they are not necessarily very smart. (chuckle)

I will not dispute String Junky, because his statements are valid, but my understanding of IQ tests is that they were originally designed to determine if a person was worth teaching or not. Back in the day when there were commoners and aristocrats, many people believed that commoners were not capable of being schooled, others disagreed. Eventually, testing was developed to determine a person's worth as to their ability to learn, which would be why general IQ tests are geared toward academics. We still use this type of testing today in the form of entrance exams in colleges, schools, and even the military. 

The medical field does test different cognitive skills to determine the extent of damage to a person's thinking ability from various causes, with the hope of repairing, diagnosing, or circumventing problems. But I don't think that was the original purpose.

 

Quote

Also do you think just because a person has done great academic feats in there life but haven't taken an IQ test that they should necessarily be assumed to have a high IQ level, like Albert Einstein.

Not sure if the above is true of not, so I will tell you how I decide general IQ in another person. When I was very young, I read the following and always remembered it:

"Complex minds think about ideas; Average minds think about events; Simpler minds think about people."

I have found the above to be true, and noted that not only do they think about these things, they also relate to these things and understand life through these things. So complex minds (higher IQ) are interested in ideas; they talk about them, think about them, and relate to them. The same is true for average minds (events) and simpler minds (people). You can talk to a person for a few minutes and often fit them into one of these categories by what interests them. Just remember that it is a sliding scale as people can be between categories and note that about 70% of the population fits pretty comfortably into average.

So is any category more valuable than another? No. They all have value except when the circumstance requires one category or another.

Gee

[John Harmonic]

36 minutes ago, Gees said:

"Complex minds think about ideas; Average minds think about events; Simpler minds think about people."

Not a scientific statement. Thank you for your reply and it is good to learn some stuff I didn't know about IQ test.

[Strange]

Quote

"Complex minds think about ideas; Average minds think about events; Simpler minds think about people."

What an insufferably smug comment.

This was recorded in an autobiography. The author went on to say, "The fact, of course, is that any of one’s friends who was incapable of a little intermingling of these condiments would soon be consigned to the home for dull dogs."

( Haud Immemor: Reminiscences of Legal and Social Life in Edinburgh and London 1850-1900 by Charles Stewart, William Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh and London.)

Quote

Have you taken an IQ test before.

I have done one that was published in a popular science magazine called Omni many years ago. And I have done a couple of online ones since (the latter prompted by discussions like this). The results varied enormously although all seemed implausibly high. I think they were designed (like Mensa) to stroke the egos of those taking them.

They all included questions which were tests of language and general knowledge rather than intelligence (and hence would obviously be age and culture specific). Also, for many of the "choose the correct pattern" type questions there seemed to be equally plausible reasons for any of the choices. 

Edited October 3, 2018 by Strange

[Ten oz]

One who is illiterate by default would do poorly on an IQ test yet illiteracy doesn't automatically mean limited intelligence. Literacy can be more about what one has be educated/trained in than about the mind's capacity. To understand the degree to which an IQ test accurately gauges intelligence we first would need a clear definition for intelligence. Is it ones ability to learn, the accumulation of what one knows, the speed at which one recalls, and does the way emotions (fear, stress, sorrow, and etc) impact decision making matter. A person could be an elite test taker yet have a social disorder which renders them unable to carry on conversation with another person. Would you consider such a disability an intellectual impairment? IQ tests don't measure ones ability to interact with or influence others yet those factors arguably have been bigger drivers in human evolution than intelligence alone. In my opinion IQ tests certainly do not encapsulate all the various factors a person needs to be successful in life and succeeding in life should be a moderate to high priority for any intelligent person. Being able able to read a room, project an idea, project an image, know how others see you, having a sense of humor, understanding the desires of others, and etc are all very useful skills I'd argue are important as a standard educational priority like literacy. 

*by successful life I just mean not being alone and destitute. 

Edited October 3, 2018 by Ten oz

[CharonY]

6 hours ago, Strange said:

They all included questions which were tests of language and general knowledge rather than intelligence

That is an important aspect. I know of someone who had probably average academic achievements and really lousy maths skills. While clearly not stupid overall intellectual capabilities were decent but not dramatic either way. However, the IQ tests administered were incredibly high in timed tests. As it turns out it seems to be down to very good reading ability. The person is an avid reader and is able to scan the questions very, very fast, answers easy questions almost immediately and is able to utilize far more time to crack the harder questions. In tests that were not timed and/or included more technical or mathematical question, the scores were roughly average, depending on composition. I.e. in this case two main skills were pushing scores, reading speed and comprehension.

[John Cuthber]

9 hours ago, Gees said:

but my understanding of IQ tests is that they were originally designed to determine if a person was worth teaching or not.

You have misunderstood.

"The French Ministry of Education asked psychologist Alfred Binet to devise a method that would determine which students did not learn effectively from regular classroom instruction so they could be given remedial work. "

From

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Binet

Assessing whether an IQ test measures intelligence presupposes that you can define intelligence.
It is, of course, possible to define "intelligence" as "the thing that makes you good at IQ tests"- in which case, yes, it certainly measures it.

Edited October 3, 2018 by John Cuthber

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It is, of course, possible to define "intelligence" as "the thing that makes you good at IQ tests"- in which case, yes, it certainly measures it.

Or one can define it as "people who like to talk about the same things that I do"

[John Cuthber]

10 hours ago, Strange said:

Or one can define it as "people who like to talk about the same things that I do"

Or as "wrong about the same things which I'm wrong about".

[Gees]

John Harmonic;

 

On ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 5:56 AM, John Harmonic said:

Not a scientific statement. Thank you for your reply and it is good to learn some stuff I didn't know about IQ test.

The above response refers to: "Complex minds think about ideas; Average minds think about events; Simpler minds think about people."

Not so sure I agree with you. Political Science is a branch of Science and does a lot of analyzing with regard to people. The above statement would have a great deal of value in Political Science, and maybe putting it into a context can help you to see the value in it.

Whether secular or religious, in order to lead a large group of people, you need three things: First you need an idea or concept that will hold the interest of the "complex" minds. You also need events, which can be holidays, parades, town meetings, rituals and sacraments, Sunday church, church socials, etc. to hold the interest of the "average" minds. And you need a persona, which can be a king or queen, a "God", Jesus, or Buddha, a General or philosopher, or even the founder of the original concept, to hold the interest of the "simpler" minds. Without these three things, you can not hold the attention of a large group of people long enough to lead them. So in that sense, I think analysis of the different types of thinking/interest is valuable to Political Science.

Gee

 

Strange;

 

On ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 6:25 AM, Strange said:

What an insufferably smug comment.

This was recorded in an autobiography. The author went on to say, "The fact, of course, is that any of one’s friends who was incapable of a little intermingling of these condiments would soon be consigned to the home for dull dogs."

Smug? I don't see what is smug about it. Are you referring to the fact that higher IQ is associated with "complexity"? Lower IQ with "simplicity"? I think it is all a matter of perspective and have no idea of why the original author of that statement used those specific terms. 

Are you suggesting that categorizing different types of thinking and interest is a form of elitism? It could be used that way, but it can also be used to bridge understanding between differences. You can't build a bridge if you don't know where the hell you are going, so understanding the different ways people relate to their reality helps a lot.

 

Quote

 

I have done one that was published in a popular science magazine called Omni many years ago. And I have done a couple of online ones since (the latter prompted by discussions like this). The results varied enormously although all seemed implausibly high. I think they were designed (like Mensa) to stroke the egos of those taking them.

 

I checked out Mensa once on another person's advice. You have to pay to take the test, then you have to pay membership dues, but you don't have to go to meetings. The representative that I talked to told me that there are a lot of "closet members". These are people who pay their dues, carry their card, but don't really do anything with the membership -- and some of them are truck drivers, garbage collectors, and even Las Vegas strippers. I decided to not test for it because it had nothing to offer me. Also consider that joining Mensa (May Everyone Note the Superior Asses) might make people look at my butt. I don't like people looking at my butt. 

Gee

 

Ten oz;

 

On ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 6:54 AM, Ten oz said:

One who is illiterate by default would do poorly on an IQ test yet illiteracy doesn't automatically mean limited intelligence. Literacy can be more about what one has be educated/trained in than about the mind's capacity. To understand the degree to which an IQ test accurately gauges intelligence we first would need a clear definition for intelligence. Is it ones ability to learn, the accumulation of what one knows, the speed at which one recalls, and does the way emotions (fear, stress, sorrow, and etc) impact decision making matter. A person could be an elite test taker yet have a social disorder which renders them unable to carry on conversation with another person. Would you consider such a disability an intellectual impairment? IQ tests don't measure ones ability to interact with or influence others yet those factors arguably have been bigger drivers in human evolution than intelligence alone. In my opinion IQ tests certainly do not encapsulate all the various factors a person needs to be successful in life and succeeding in life should be a moderate to high priority for any intelligent person. Being able able to read a room, project an idea, project an image, know how others see you, having a sense of humor, understanding the desires of others, and etc are all very useful skills I'd argue are important as a standard educational priority like literacy. 

*by successful life I just mean not being alone and destitute. 

Good points all 1+

CharonY also noted that reading comprehension is an important part of IQ testing, and I think she is right. This brings up a point that I don't think was mentioned -- IQ tests are very prejudiced toward visual learners. We all learn through visual, audio, and kinesthetic, but often are stronger in one of these skills. Visual learners are more common, do better in schools, and do better on IQ tests -- unless the test is specifically designed for audio or kinesthetic learners.

Gee

 

John Cuthber;

 

22 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

You have misunderstood.

"The French Ministry of Education asked psychologist Alfred Binet to devise a method that would determine which students did not learn effectively from regular classroom instruction so they could be given remedial work. "

From

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Binet

Maybe I misunderstood, but I don't think so. 

Binet no doubt did an excellent job, but there would have been no "Ministry of Education" to ask him to do the job, until there were public or state schools. I was referring to the debates that decided whether or not to have public schools and to create a tax to fund them. At one time aristocrats, noblemen, and rich people all paid to educate their own children. There were also religious groups that taught children, but they had their own agenda, and no one would argue that their teaching was entirely secular. 

If I remember correctly, the debates included things like, "Why should we tutor a chimney sweep's daughter, when she will just grow up to become a rag picker, marry another chimney sweep, and raise six more children that we have to educate?" Deciding to legislate public schooling meant public funding, so there was a great deal of debate and whether or not commoners could learn was part of this, hence the first IQ testing. Not the quality that we have today, but the first testing.

I suspect that the Industrial Revolution had a lot to do with starting public or state schools -- at least in Europe. That would have been before Binet's time.

Gee

[CharonY]

On 10/3/2018 at 3:18 AM, Gees said:

"Complex minds think about ideas; Average minds think about events; Simpler minds think about people."

Funnily success in live works roughly backwards. Having connections and getting to the right folks is important to get things off the ground, whereas ideas are fairly cheap. As such it would indicate that complex minds get less done. Looking at current events, it may be actually true,

[John Cuthber]

20 minutes ago, Gees said:

Maybe I misunderstood, but I don't think so. 

Binet no doubt did an excellent job, but there would have been no "Ministry of Education" to ask him to do the job, until there were public or state schools. I was referring to the debates that decided whether or not to have public schools and to create a tax to fund them. At one time aristocrats, noblemen, and rich people all paid to educate their own children. There were also religious groups that taught children, but they had their own agenda, and no one would argue that their teaching was entirely secular. 

If I remember correctly, the debates included things like, "Why should we tutor a chimney sweep's daughter, when she will just grow up to become a rag picker, marry another chimney sweep, and raise six more children that we have to educate?" Deciding to legislate public schooling meant public funding, so there was a great deal of debate and whether or not commoners could learn was part of this, hence the first IQ testing. Not the quality that we have today, but the first testing.

I suspect that the Industrial Revolution had a lot to do with starting public or state schools -- at least in Europe. That would have been before Binet's time.

Gee

It seems you are  what Binet may have described as an ineducable idiot.
Binet invented the IQ scale.

He did so because he was paid to, byt the French government.

On 10/3/2018 at 10:18 AM, Gees said:

but my understanding of IQ tests is that they were originally designed to determine if a person was worth teaching or not.

can't be right because- as you say 

 

24 minutes ago, Gees said:

That would have been before Binet's time.

Before his time he hadn't invented IQ testing. (Obviously)

Here's the time line for you

27 minutes ago, Gees said:

"Why should we tutor a chimney sweep's daughter, when she will just grow up to become a rag picker, marry another chimney sweep, and raise six more children that we have to educate?"

 

28 minutes ago, Gees said:

the Industrial Revolution had a lot to do with starting public or state schools

 

On 10/3/2018 at 8:17 PM, John Cuthber said:

"The French Ministry of Education asked psychologist Alfred Binet to devise a method that would determine which students did not learn effectively from regular classroom instruction so they could be given remedial work. "

And, a bit later

Binet invented IQ.

 

So, by the time IQ was invented, the argument had already been finished.

So this doesn't make sense

On 10/3/2018 at 10:18 AM, Gees said:

but my understanding of IQ tests is that they were originally designed to determine if a person was worth teaching or not.

Just claiming you think you are right doesn't alter history.

[Gees]

CharonY;

 

41 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Funnily success in live works roughly backwards. Having connections and getting to the right folks is important to get things off the ground, whereas ideas are fairly cheap. As such it would indicate that complex minds get less done. Looking at current events, it may be actually true,

I agree. Just look at our Supreme Court nominee. Integrity (an idea) appears to be very cheap.

Gee

 

John Cuthber;

 

23 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It seems you are  what Binet may have described as an ineducable idiot.
Binet invented the IQ scale.

Just so we are clear on this, are you stating that intelligence did not exist? Or that it could not be measured? Before Binet.

Gee

[John Cuthber]

18 hours ago, Gees said:

 

John Cuthber;

 

Just so we are clear on this, are you stating that intelligence did not exist? Or that it could not be measured? Before Binet.

Gee

No, but that's a nice try a a strawman.

I am stating that IQ didn't exist before someone defined the quotient (mental age / chronological age) as the intelligence quotient- abbreviated to IQ.

And Binet did that- because he was paid to.

Had you forgotten what you were talking about when you said this?

On 10/3/2018 at 10:18 AM, Gees said:

but my understanding of IQ tests is that they were originally designed to determine if a person was worth teaching or not.

You  (like the thread) specifically referred to IQ testing.

[Gees]

John Cuthber;

 

On ‎10‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 12:30 PM, John Cuthber said:

No, but that's a nice try a a strawman.

The strawman argument is yours. I suspect that you have no idea of what intelligence actually is, or what quotient actually means. Or why IQ tests are always timed and what the significance of that is, so you decided to make an irrelevant argument.

 

Quote

I am stating that IQ didn't exist before someone defined the quotient (mental age / chronological age) as the intelligence quotient- abbreviated to IQ.

That is like saying that muffins did not bake at 400 degrees before we defined degrees and had ovens with thermostats. Of course they did. As a young woman, my grandmother taught me to check the thermostat on my oven by baking muffins. I still use this method; if the oven is slow, the muffins will be flat and not rise properly; if the oven is fast, the muffins will peak into little elf-looking caps.

Just as a different methodology can tell you what is 400 degrees, other methodologies can tell you IQ. It is about measuring intelligence, so your argument is just a matter of semantics.

 

Quote

And Binet did that- because he was paid to.

Well, it is nice that he codified measuring intelligence, but it would have been nicer if he had not used confirmation bias when doing so, as it caused him to "fumble the ball". According to you, he was charged with identifying children who "did not learn effectively from regular classroom instruction". Well he identified the lower IQ kids as needing help, but he missed the others, which is why I called it confirmation bias and why I brought up the idea of commoners and aristocrats. We are always happy to help people that we perceive as below us, simpler, dumber, less able, but we do not want to help people that we perceive as above us. 

When I worked with the school, many years ago, I was surprised to learn that most of the students, about 70%, fell into the average classification, 12% to 15% fell into the below average level, requiring some remedial help, and 12% to 15% fell into the above average categories. Of course, no help was offered to the above average kids because they are so smart they don't need help. Right?

So we spend millions of dollars to help below average kids, some of whom can not learn, but we ignore above average kids, and scratch our heads and wonder why there is a disproportionate number of above average kids in our "drop outs" statistics. They need help too.

Why do you think a Las Vegas showgirl would spend her hard-earned money to keep her membership in Mensa? You think it's ego? No. If she had a large ego, she would go to the meetings and flaunt it, as her ego would demand. She would not be a "closet" member. She keeps her membership because she needs validation. She probably learned in grade school that she was a misfit, and no matter how hard she tried, she could not fit in. She could pretend, but had no real interest in what her girlfriends valued or cared about. If she had been given help, or maybe a mentor, we might have ended up with a doctor, but instead, we have a brilliant pretty girl working the strip.

 

Quote

 

Had you forgotten what you were talking about when you said this?

You  (like the thread) specifically referred to IQ testing.

 

Maybe you should look up the word "originally", as that is what I said, that originally testing for intelligence was to see who was capable of being educated. Benit was not the original tester. Do you think Aristotle did not test people to see who would or would not become his students? Or Descartes? The idea is laughable.

What is learned from IQ testing is based on the false premise that higher is better. The last question in the OP was also based on a false premise. Because I am a philosopher, not a scientist, a false premise is going to grab my attention, which is what prompted this line of argument.

Gee

 

[StringJunky]

4 hours ago, Gees said:

John Cuthber;

The strawman argument is yours. I suspect that you have no idea of what intelligence actually is...

I don't either, and nor do you. The subject of intelligence is touched upon periodically with definitions always turning out fuzzy and vague.

Edited October 9, 2018 by StringJunky

[John Cuthber]

18 hours ago, Gees said:

John Cuthber;

 

The strawman argument is yours. I suspect that you have no idea of what intelligence actually is, or what quotient actually means. Or why IQ tests are always timed and what the significance of that is, so you decided to make an irrelevant argument.

 

That is like saying that muffins did not bake at 400 degrees before we defined degrees and had ovens with thermostats. Of course they did. As a young woman, my grandmother taught me to check the thermostat on my oven by baking muffins. I still use this method; if the oven is slow, the muffins will be flat and not rise properly; if the oven is fast, the muffins will peak into little elf-looking caps.

Just as a different methodology can tell you what is 400 degrees, other methodologies can tell you IQ. It is about measuring intelligence, so your argument is just a matter of semantics.

 

Well, it is nice that he codified measuring intelligence, but it would have been nicer if he had not used confirmation bias when doing so, as it caused him to "fumble the ball". According to you, he was charged with identifying children who "did not learn effectively from regular classroom instruction". Well he identified the lower IQ kids as needing help, but he missed the others, which is why I called it confirmation bias and why I brought up the idea of commoners and aristocrats. We are always happy to help people that we perceive as below us, simpler, dumber, less able, but we do not want to help people that we perceive as above us. 

When I worked with the school, many years ago, I was surprised to learn that most of the students, about 70%, fell into the average classification, 12% to 15% fell into the below average level, requiring some remedial help, and 12% to 15% fell into the above average categories. Of course, no help was offered to the above average kids because they are so smart they don't need help. Right?

So we spend millions of dollars to help below average kids, some of whom can not learn, but we ignore above average kids, and scratch our heads and wonder why there is a disproportionate number of above average kids in our "drop outs" statistics. They need help too.

Why do you think a Las Vegas showgirl would spend her hard-earned money to keep her membership in Mensa? You think it's ego? No. If she had a large ego, she would go to the meetings and flaunt it, as her ego would demand. She would not be a "closet" member. She keeps her membership because she needs validation. She probably learned in grade school that she was a misfit, and no matter how hard she tried, she could not fit in. She could pretend, but had no real interest in what her girlfriends valued or cared about. If she had been given help, or maybe a mentor, we might have ended up with a doctor, but instead, we have a brilliant pretty girl working the strip.

 

Maybe you should look up the word "originally", as that is what I said, that originally testing for intelligence was to see who was capable of being educated. Benit was not the original tester. Do you think Aristotle did not test people to see who would or would not become his students? Or Descartes? The idea is laughable.

What is learned from IQ testing is based on the false premise that higher is better. The last question in the OP was also based on a false premise. Because I am a philosopher, not a scientist, a false premise is going to grab my attention, which is what prompted this line of argument.

Gee

 

OK, the TLDR version is that you clearly have no idea what an IQ is and you should look it up.

Yes I do know what a quotient is- it's a ratio.
And an IQ is the ratio I mentioned before

18 hours ago, Gees said:

(mental age / chronological age)

By convention it's expressed as a percentage.
So someone whose physical and mental ages agree has an IQ of 100 (%)

To find that ratio, you need to assess mental age.
That's a matter (in principle) of asking lots of questions and finding what age gets the same number of right answers as the person whose IQ you seek to measure.

So, if on average 8 year olds get 67 of the questions right, then someone who gets 67 of the questions right can be said to have a mental age of 8- regardless of their physical age.

 

Obviously, the longer you give people, the more questions they are likely to get right- so you need to standardise the length of time given to answer the questions.

So, until someone did lots of tests on lots of children, nobody could tell you anything about IQ.

It seems you don't understand that IQ is a technical term rather than just some pair of letters that mean "some measure of intelligence".

So, it's like saying  that, prior to Mr Celsius inventing his temperature scale (upside down IIRC- but who cares) you couldn't say that you baked cakes at 180C.
That doesn't mean you can't bake cakes- it means you can't put a number on the temperature.

As for rebutting all the drivel about Vegas show girls, your failure to understand confirmation bias "Well he identified the lower IQ kids as needing help, but he missed the others, which is why I called it confirmation bias ",and so on... well I will come back to that.

"Of course, no help was offered to the above average kids because they are so smart they don't need help. Right?"
Well, I don't know about your school, but I got additional help specifically because I was an above average kid, so it's not "Right", but wrong.

"but we do not want to help people that we perceive as above us"
Speak for yourself...

"scratch our heads and wonder why there is a disproportionate number of above average kids in our "drop outs" statistics."
You might scratch your head. Personally, I think I have a pretty good idea. You can start with boredom. That's not a new idea.

I already asked if you had forgotten what you were talking about; you seem to have done it again.

"what I said, that originally testing for intelligence was to see who was capable of being educated."
No what you said was 

On 10/3/2018 at 10:18 AM, Gees said:

my understanding of IQ tests is that they were originally designed to determine if a person was worth teaching or not.

You persistently fail to recognise that not all intelligence testing is IQ testing.

 

18 hours ago, Gees said:

Maybe you should look up the word "originally"

OK

"from or in the beginning; at first."

As in Binet defined QI from the beginning as the ratio (or quotient) of mental age divided by the chronological age (multiplied by 100 to get rid of the decimal point).
Prior to that beginning, the term IQ was not used.

18 hours ago, Gees said:

Benit was not the original tester. 

Nobody said he was the first intelligence tester. However he was the first IQ tester- and IQ is what this thread and your statement were about.
 

"Because I am a philosopher, not a scientist, a false premise is going to grab my attention,"

How come you were not grabbed by the false premise that all intelligence testing is IQ testing?

Well, I said I'd get back to summarising your whole post.

18 hours ago, Gees said:

you decided to make an irrelevant argument.

and you did it repeatedly.

Go and learn some of the history of measurement of intelligence.
You might start with this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man

Edited October 9, 2018 by John Cuthber

[Gees]

StringJunky;

 

22 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I don't either, and nor do you. The subject of intelligence is touched upon periodically with definitions always turning out fuzzy and vague.

You surprised me with this. How could you possibly know what I do or do not know? You are usually more reasonable and could have simply asked what I think I know. (Have a bad day?) Maybe I look like one of those insufferable know-it-alls? I assure you that I do not know it all, and whole encyclopedias of knowledge could be written about things that I don't know -- actually I think they did that already. (chuckle)

But when it comes to consciousness,, I know a lot more than most, and intelligence is a small part of the study of consciousness. I see two problems with understanding intelligence, the first is that IF we do not know what it is, we mix it with other things -- like being smart, successful, educated, memory issues, motivations like ambition, etc. Every scientist knows that mixing things together that are related, but not the same thing, is a very good way to ensure that you never find out what it actually is. So first remove all of the extras and consider what intelligence actually is -- it is awareness. Period. This in my opinion removes most of the "fuzzy and vague".

The second problem is that we think of intelligence as being more valued on an ascending scale, like if I had a 300 IQ, I could take over the world. This is nonsense. A 300 IQ, if possible, would more likely get me a permanent residence in a padded cell, or maybe a cartoon called, Pinky and the Brain.

Regarding the first problem, once it is realized that intelligence is awareness, one must consider how awareness works. Awareness works through focus, so it is impossible to be aware of everything. We must have a perspective and can only be aware of things that we can focus on from that perspective, so consider that IQ testing is really a way to measure our focus. For some reason, and I don't know why, people who can access, or be aware of, information faster, also have a more abstract mind. Does this mean they know more? Not necessarily. Think of it the way you would binoculars, when you adjust the focus to something farther away, you lose the focus on things that are closer -- you can not focus on everything.

This brings us to the second problem of an ascending scale regarding intelligence. The higher anyone gets on the IQ scale, the more abstract the thinking and the less able they are to relate to other people, fit in, and/or get things accomplished. As CharonY noted, the people in the average category are the ones more likely to be considered smart, successful, and productive, as they have a more balanced focus and awareness. The people in the simpler category are better people persons, better manipulators, maybe better salesmen, but can have problems with ideas. The people in the complex category are idea people and their ideas are often not popular, as they are often original, new and not well accepted, so they do not serve the persons well like in the cases of Socrates, Jesus, Galileo, Freud, Jung, etc. (all people who were ridiculed or persecuted because of their ideas)

So if you have a child that is too bright, protect them, give them good schools, maybe mentors, and very good manners, and try to help them find a way to fit in.

Normally I avoid topics like this as people have no idea of what intelligence is, but they love to argue about it. Whatever maggot in my brain caused me to respond in this thread, I don't know, but I would like to finish it up.

Gee

[John Cuthber]

15 hours ago, Gees said:

You surprised me with this. How could you possibly know what I do or do not know?

Well, if you post stuff that is factually wrong, there are two possible reasons for it, Either you don't know, or you do know, but you are lying.

I think Stringjunky gave you the benefit of the doubt.
Also, by asking that question "How could you possibly know what I do or do not know?" you have made it clear that you don't understand how this sort of thing works.

15 hours ago, Gees said:

I know a lot more than most, and intelligence is a small part of the study of consciousness.

Then why do you make such obvious errors?
 

 

15 hours ago, Gees said:

The second problem is that we think of intelligence as being more valued on an ascending scale, like if I had a 300 IQ, I could take over the world.

Who said anything like that here?

15 hours ago, Gees said:

For some reason, and I don't know why, people who can access, or be aware of, information faster, also have a more abstract mind.

Got any evidence, or is that just (real) confirmation bias?

Edited October 10, 2018 by John Cuthber

[John Cuthber]

13 hours ago, Gees said:

So first remove all of the extras and consider what intelligence actually is -- it is awareness. Period. This in my opinion removes most of the "fuzzy and vague".

Awareness of what?

Is a deaf blind person less intelligent?

[et pet]

On 10/10/2018 at 3:36 PM, John Cuthber said:

Awareness of what?

Is a deaf blind person less intelligent?

   Well, the Deaf and Dumb people are ofttimes heard to argue that, but the Deaf and Blind either act like they don't hear it, or simply refuse to see any validity in the Deaf and Dumb people's argument even if they do.  

   Seriously, though. I got to agree with you, John Cuthber, Awareness of what?

   I have met some supposedly Supremely Intelligent people that honestly acted so stupid and unaware of so much that I am not sure that they could figure out how to pour water out of a Boot even if the instructions were printed on the bottom of the Heel.

    An associate-slash- friend of mine, a Theoretical Physicist that I met through work, freaked out when one of my son's Lady friends showed him how to boil water in a paper cup over a camp fire.

    He still asks me on occasion - how'd she do it, she put wax or something on the cup, right?

   So, yeah, I am fairly certain that I.Q. tests measure just 2 things : diddly and squat.

   

Edited October 28, 2018 by et pet