IQ Tests

[IMI]

What do y'all think of IQ tests? I had never taken one until the other day.

[fafalone]

Professionally administered, normalized IQ tests are an accurate reflection of intellectual *capability*, online tests are crap and not even close to accurate.

[Kedas]

quite large percentage of people have dyslexia or are in an other way different.

But you can be sure that his/her score will be lower.

 

Einstein had dyslexia but only Einstein could do what he did. And I'm sure quite a few people could get higher scores on such a test than him.

 

So if they would judge Einsteins capabilities based on a written IQ-test then what ?

[YT2095]

general IQ`s variant anyway, someone that may exceed at logic maybe dreadfull at basic spatial awareness or analogy.

and so it can only ever be a generalisation. and never a true score anyway, even the ones conducted and overseen by so called experts.

[Dave]

I find the IQ stuff quite hard to be honest. I'll probably take one in the future though just to see how I do.

[fafalone]

Besides, Einstein had a very high IQ.

[Dudde]

IQ tests are exactly as stated above

 

although I am curious to see what my own score would be;)

[Kedas]

fafalone said in post #6 :

Besides, Einstein had a very high IQ.

 

Yes, they keep saying that everywhere but do you have data about which test he did at which age?

 

if you see an IQ list with famous people it is most of the time followed with:

"It is important to remember that the numbers given above are estimates."

 

So did he do something great and then they did put an high IQ on him?

I'm sure his score wasn't low though

 

P.S. Did you know that Einsteins brain weighted a lot less than the average male brain

(although the density of neurons was greater)

[JaKiri]

They're rubbish. If you search, I think you'll find my opinions on the subject.

[IMI]

Kedas said in post #8 :

 

Yes, they keep saying that everywhere but do you have data about which test he did at which age?

 

if you see an IQ list with famous people it is most of the time followed with:

"It is important to remember that the numbers given above are estimates."

 

So did he do something great and then they did put an high IQ on him?

I'm sure his score wasn't low though

 

P.S. Did you know that Einsteins brain weighted a lot less than the average male brain

(although the density of neurons was greater)

 

I have also read that Einstein's brain was missing a Longitudinal Fissure.

 

As for IQ tests, I went out last night and took a couple online tests and they seem to be in line with the monitored/administered test I took. Only difference, of course, was a lack of time limit.

 

I think that some aspects of IQ tests actually test intelligence. Other aspects though seem to be too tied to education.

 

For instance, one question I got wrong was one of those "unscramble the letters to form a word" question. Easy enough, right, but I had never heard of the word. I don't remember what the word was but it was nothing that 99.9% of English speaking people have ever heard of. It wasn't such that there is only one way to arrange the letters either, which would make it more a logic thing.

 

Some questions are such that people will do better the more they have been educated. This isn't really a measure of raw intelligence at that point. There are people much less intelligent than I am who are far more educated with the converse also being true.

 

I guess though that maybe these tests are the best we can do in determining one's intelligence without actually making them look for cheese in a maze. Ohhhhhh........cheeeeeeese

[fafalone]

IMI said in post #10 :

 

For instance, one question I got wrong was one of those "unscramble the letters to form a word" question. Easy enough, right, but I had never heard of the word. I don't remember what the word was but it was nothing that 99.9% of English speaking people have ever heard of. It wasn't such that there is only one way to arrange the letters either, which would make it more a logic thing.

 

 

Well then, 99.9% of test takers should get that wrong making the question void if the test scores are properly normalized.

[IMI]

fafalone said in post #11 :

 

Well then, 99.9% of test takers should get that wrong making the question void if the test scores are properly normalized.

 

Interesting point. I am ignorant as to whether they are normalized. Are IQ tests generally normalized?

[JaKiri]

IMI said in post #10 :

I guess though that maybe these tests are the best we can do in determining one's intelligence without actually making them look for cheese in a maze. Ohhhhhh........cheeeeeeese

 

All they test for is the ability to do the test.

 

Remember two things.

 

1. The test presumes that intellegence can be measured.

 

2. The person who devised the test wanted to use it in conjunction with a whole host of other tests.

 

1 is really really important. How do you know that you can measure intellegence, past the comparative 'he picks up this idea slightly quicker than him', let alone quantify it? What about people who just can't do something that isn't on the test? As an example, look at, say, a maths exam with no geometry on it. I know people who are perfectly good at all other forms of maths, but not at geometry. Similarly, the IQ test in its current form is not all enclosing. And so on and so forth in a similar vein for quite some TIME.

[JaKiri]

IMI said in post #12 :

 

Interesting point. I am ignorant as to whether they are normalized. Are IQ tests generally normalized?

 

Given that the IQ standard assumes that IQ is a normal distribution with mean 100 and SD of something I can't remember, they bloody well should be.

[IMI]

MrL_JaKiri said in post #13 :

 

All they test for is the ability to do the test.

 

Remember two things.

 

1. The test presumes that intellegence can be measured.

 

2. The person who devised the test wanted to use it in conjunction with a whole host of other tests.

 

1 is really really important. How do you know that you can measure intellegence, past the comparative 'he picks up this idea slightly quicker than him', let alone quantify it? What about people who just can't do something that isn't on the test? As an example, look at, say, a maths exam with no geometry on it. I know people who are perfectly good at all other forms of maths, but not at geometry. Similarly, the IQ test in its current form is not all enclosing. And so on and so forth in a similar vein for quite some TIME.

 

Very good points. There are definately different types of intelligence.

[Glider]

MrL_JaKiri said in post #14 :

 

Given that the IQ standard assumes that IQ is a normal distribution with mean 100 and SD of something I can't remember, they bloody well should be.

SD = 15 (or 16 in some texts).

[NavajoEverclear]

IQ tests are stupid. Well i guess thats not entirely true, but they aren't that great at least. What about a test? it would be a greater achievement to create a program which is most efficient for unlocking higher capacity. To a certain extent some people simple are smarter than others. You can obviously accept that some people have brains defective (or simply different) enough to be considered disabled, so you can infer that there would be people that are beyond really being disabled, but simply lacking whatever makes brilliance. But i think in most cases the line can be fine.

 

Not to mention whats the importance of an IQ test? I think an emotional IQ test, or a capacity/understanding of establishing relationships (between people) test aught to accompany secular knowledge (placed above actually but i know that balance in all areas is important to effeciency in any one part of life).

 

Of coarse i wouldn't persecute people for not being blessed with such types of IQ, or if i would i'd be a hypocrit because i am basically weakest in those areas i most value. Actually i'm all around weak come to think of it. How depressing. The thing is i know i have potential, and i don't know how free myself of certain fears and cowardices that i allow to supress my potential. And i believe that some of these weaknesses were instigated in me due to my enviroment---- i just wish things would change but that does no good because just because i want to doesn't mean it wont.

[Guest Subterfuge]

The strong cannot be brave. Only the weak can be brave; and yet again, in practice, only those who can be brave can be trusted, in time of doubt, to be strong.....It is the first law of practical courage. To be in the weakest camp is to be in the stongest school.

G.K. Chesterton

[JaKiri]

God does not play dice

Albert Einstein.

 

Yes, very nice quote, but how is it RELEVENT IN THE SLIGHTEST?

[Kedas]

MrL_JaKiri said in post #19 :

God does not play dice

Albert Einstein.

 

Yes, very nice quote, but how is it RELEVENT IN THE SLIGHTEST?

 

Do you mean the quote you just gave or one in a previous post ?

[Giles]

If you multiply shoe size by hat size you get a consistent index, but what real quantity are you measuring?

 

It is the same with IQ.

[JaKiri]

Kedas said in post #20 :

 

Do you mean the quote you just gave or one in a previous post ?

 

Both...?

[IMI]

Some postulate that EQ is more important than IQ with regards to success.

[JaKiri]

It depends what you mean by success, and depends what you mean by 'more important than'.

[Giles]

assuming we can agree a quantitative definition of EQ, IQ, importance and success then you may be right.