What is the true measure of IQ and its significance in today's society?

[jammieg]

I'm curious as to what others think of IQ tests. To me it's simply a rough gauge of one's aptitude for making sense of nonsens. I'm not sure of the real history of it, but I have a foggy memory that it became very practical during the world wars for sorting out people who were apt at solving problems- the reason being that if they had leaders who were good at solving problems this would save lives. I also feel they are imperfect and biased, and most importantly don't predict desire or morals or future happiness.
If most anyone were given enough time they could get a perfect score on an IQ test, and if an IQ test is a relative measure of how fast one makes sense of nonsense, then what does this say to you about IQ tests?
I've posted an anonymous poll to give us an idea of the average IQ of physics forums philosophy participants, I'll bet it's pretty high.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

I'll bet most people won't be truthfull.

Intelligence (as me and MENTAT know) is a dynamic thing. To be honest, the only thing an IQ test tests is your score on an IQ test!

No, there's a lot of involvment in making a test, it has shown it's been a very good indicator if intelligence of your brain. So, let's not shun it because it's many decades in the making...

 

[drag]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I'll bet most people won't be truthfull.

I hope that's not the case. Besides, there's no
point to cheating here.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Drag - sure there is. To decieve oneself. People lie to themselves all the time! Furthermore, I'd bet many people will just guess at what their IQ might be, without being tested!

 

[jammieg]

The pole is mostly for fun but there are many intelligent people in the physics forum so it wouldn't surprise me to find many scores or guesstimates above 140. Is imagination a factor in intelligence? Does an artist have a certain intelligence that IQ tests don't touch? Are the creators of South Park or Jackass or The Matrix successful and so intelligent in some way that is not measured?

 

[Mentat]

I see no point in lying about your I.Q. If you are ashamed of your score, just don't respond to the poll.

As far as your question about whether creativity is covered in an I.Q. test, I'd have to say that it depends on the I.Q. test. You see, I take I.Q. tests all of the time, for fun (please, no *Nerd Alerts*), and so I know that there are some that are better at covering more aspects of the mind than others.

My favorite I.Q. test was one that was in a book about I.Q., wherein, after you took it, they would tell you which questions dealt with which part of the mind (branches of Intelligence and Creativity, such as "dealing with abstracts", "mathematical aptitude", "mechanical aptitude", etc...).

 

[Iacchus32]

I.Q. Test and Racism

I'm not sure it's a test of intelligence in as much as cultural adaptability and pliability ... and even that's debatable, as explained below ...

For example I heard of a recent IQ test conducted between Asians, Caucasions and Blacks. I'm not sure if it was conducted in the United States or not, but I believe that it was.

Anyway, the Asians scored the highest, the Caucasions scored in the middle and the Blacks scored the lowest, and this was supposed to be it, the supreme example of who was more intelligent. Whereas the guy who conducted the study apologized, saying, "I'm sorry, but these are what the results imply" ...

And yet, if you take into account that the Asians emigrated here, and are here because they want to be here, and "truly" want to be accepted into the culture, then they will strive that much more to become accepted. No learning block here ...

On the other hand, if you take your typical white American, who pretty much feels a part of the "ruling class," his main concern is to maintain the status quo, while cruising along and reaping the rewards. So why does he need to strive so much to get ahead? Sounds kind of lazy now doesn't it?

Then there's the African Americans, who were brought to this country in chains and shackles, kicking and yelling and screaming, saying we don't want to be a part of this, not as slaves anyway. And even when they're freed, they still bring along the excess baggage of oppression. Why would they want to become like their oppressors? A definite learning block here ...

This at least to me, suggests intelligence is pretty much equally distributed (in the above categories), and that the IQ factor is more conditional upon one's economic and cultural background.

 

[Alexander]

I think, intelligence is an ability to learn and to solve logical puzzles.

 

[jammieg]

They are interesting I agree Mentat, but I must sound the NERD ALERT!
I once heard or read that IQ remained much the same throughout life.
If this were true there would be no point to giving toddlers toys or for anyone to engage in any form of mental stimulation- it makes no sense. In my own experience I've scored less than average at a very young age and then about 40 points over that as a teenager, because it was my desire to be smart and not fail for a third time a grade. To me the statement of a fixed intelligence is ridiculous.
I once read about a study in which students participated in a chess class for the semester and had their IQ taken before and after the class, the results were an average of 5 points gained.
I wonder if the next generation of chess game will have an even greater effect...I suspect some computer games such as real time strategy can be in some ways more challenging than chess. I quit playing chess for 2 years and played Starcraft instead, then one day stopped by the chess club for a few rounds- I almost won the match with the chess instuctor Ernest and he was convinced I had been secretely playing during this time away, what I had learned from Starcraft is strategy whereas before I was mostly a tactical chess player, but the fascinating thing is that learning the two games overlapped and improving on one improved the other.
I agree with Alexander in that the primary form of intelligence may be the use logic to solve problems.
If IQ tests had only been designed by people who were dark skinned, then would dark skins score highier?
What about rich? Or highly educated? Or janitors? No doubt bias is there.
If given enough time a person of average intelligence could get every question correct on an IQ test, and if an IQ test is a rough gauge of how fast one makes sense of nonsense, then given enough time they could have come up with calculus or string theory.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by jammieg
They are interesting I agree Mentat, but I must sound the NERD ALERT!
I once heard or read that IQ remained much the same throughout life.
If this were true there would be no point to giving toddlers toys or for anyone to engage in any form of mental stimulation- it makes no sense. In my own experience I've scored less than average at a very young age and then about 40 points over that as a teenager, because it was my desire to be smart and not fail for a third time a grade. To me the statement of a fixed intelligence is ridiculous.

I completely agree, although I warn one against going to the other extreme (and assuming that "Nurture" is entirely responsible for one's I.Q.).

I know from personal experience that I.Q. changes. I scored 137 in the fourth grade, and am now at 150 (and I'm 15 years old now).

 

[Alexander]

Wow! You must be genius then. My IQ is around 80 or so (I guess).

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Alexander
Wow! You must be genius then. My IQ is around
80 or so (I guess).

Yeah right...

May I suggest, please, that for the interests
of simple manners of the intellegent (I hope)
individuals we have here the specific scores
will not be mentioned here.

Unless of course some of you feel they
just got'ta bang on their own chests a bit...

Live long and prosper.

 

[newton1]

Originally posted by Mentat
I completely agree, although I warn one against going to the other extreme (and assuming that "Nurture" is entirely responsible for one's I.Q.).

I know from personal experience that I.Q. changes. I scored 137 in the fourth grade, and am now at 150 (and I'm 15 years old now).

your score is higher than a university student...
genius!

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Drag - It's not like anyone should believe the IQ people post here.

Alex - BTW, an IQ of 80 is the high peak of someone who is considered mentally retarded or deficient.

BTW - My IQ is 217. Who believes me?

 

[Considering]

Oh ya?

Mines 249.8. So there!

;)

 

[Alexander]

Well, finally instead of guessing and wondering I decided to actually take the test and found to my amusement that it is not as bad as I thought it would be (~80) - got 151. (I did not make it in 13 minutes, it took whole 15).

I do not believe in such high score to represent my intellect (especially accounting for english being my second language, so sometimes I had to use dictionary), so there must be something wrong with this test.

Some questions indeed seem to be too easy, so probably this test is a little bit bent toward customer (seem to be "commercialized" to please a potential $10 donator).

I wonder what score can one get by:

1) instantly pressing "true" to any question,
2) instantly pressing "no" to any question,
3) instantly answering at random (with 50/50 probab.)
4) answering at random but for long long time (say, 1 hour).

(The score for the last one would correspond to "complete dumbness", I presume).

Anyone with time for this fun?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Wow! You must be genius then. My IQ is around 80 or so (I guess).

Not a genius, merely "capable". But thank you anyway.

 

[Mentat]

Ok, lying about your I.Q. is about as useless (and degrading) as lying about your age, or your athletic ability, or your looks (on an internet forum). I just don't get it.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Alex - unless you took a REAL IQ test, I wouldn't say that's your IQ, if I were you.

there are IQ tests on the internet that claim that the scores one gets there are statistically similar to the scores the same people got on a REAL IQ test. Thus the stest claims that, within some error, it should indeed reflect your IQ to some degree of error, usually 5 points.

But it still isn't official. I've taken them online as well, but just because the site looks official, has some paying options, and claims a 5 point margin accruacy doesn't mean it's really that accurate.

The only way to get your IQ score, is to be scored on an IQ test.

Those can be taken at many schools, at monthly mensa inductions, and at many psycholigical offices.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Alex - unless you took a REAL IQ test, I wouldn't say that's your IQ, if I were you.

there are IQ tests on the internet that claim that the scores one gets there are statistically similar to the scores the same people got on a REAL IQ test. Thus the stest claims that, within some error, it should indeed reflect your IQ to some degree of error, usually 5 points.

But it still isn't official. I've taken them online as well, but just because the site looks official, has some paying options, and claims a 5 point margin accruacy doesn't mean it's really that accurate.

The only way to get your IQ score, is to be scored on an IQ test.

Those can be taken at many schools, at monthly mensa inductions, and at many psycholigical offices.

Whose to say that the MENSA website (for example) isn't qualified to give you an accurate (to within a 5-point margin of error) score? Whose to say that the (acclaimed) psychologists who right the books, that I have taken some of my tests on, aren't capable of giving a good enough I.Q. score?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Mentat
Whose to say that the MENSA website (for example) isn't qualified to give you an accurate (to within a 5-point margin of error) score?

I don't know. Why are you asking?

Originally posted by Mentat
Whose to say that the (acclaimed) psychologists who right the books, that I have taken some of my tests on, aren't capable of giving a good enough I.Q. score?

I don't know. Why are you asking?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I don't know. Why are you asking?



I don't know. Why are you asking?

Your record's broken, man.

I'm asking because you made the assumption that conventional I.Q. tests (in books, and on the net) are not as useful as professional ones. I'm asking you to verify the reason for this assumption.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Alex - unless you took a REAL IQ test, I wouldn't say that's your IQ, if I were you.

Yes, agree. This particular IQ test (see the link in the beginning of this thread) assigns exagurated score. I would say, with the factor 1.5 or so. So my 151 points on this test shall correspond to about 80-100 points of my actual english IQ (were it in russian, it would be a little easier and would probably give a little more 100-120 or so).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Yes, agree. This particular IQ test (see the link in the beginning of this thread) assigns exagurated score. I would say, with the factor 1.5 or so. So my 151 points on this test shall correspond to about 80-100 points of my actual english IQ (were it in russian, it would be a little easier and would probably give a little more 100-120 or so).

LOL

 

[Alexander]

It is all about your money ($10 in this particular case).

High intellect is very affordable at that site, as you can see.

 

[Meninger]

IQ is specifically a measure of academic potential and it should not be generalized beyond this realm. What I mean by academic potential is that of aptitude in getting good grades in school or doing well on a standardized test measuring academic abilities such as the SAT. I know plenty of geniuses that supposedly have scored a higher score on the weshler than people such as Feynman and they are not half the genius as he was.

Wesher measures very accurately on academic potential with a few exceptions. ONLINE TESTS (all of them) DOES NOT COME EVEN CLOSE IN MEASURING ACCURATELY AS WESHLER. Let me explain. Weshler measures a broad range of academic abilities and thus it takes very long to complete and there are good reasons for having it this way. Weshler assumes that a strong genetic iq will correlate strongly with academic potential in a wide range of academic abilty; spatial, verbal, knowledge in areas, conceptual, analytic, logical, sensitivity. Online IQ test measure a very narrow range and simply cannot measure a wide range. I gurantee you that if you met an individual with an weshler score of 150 you would have met a definite genius worthy to be admired. This individual would most likely have scored around a 1550 on the SAT (almost certainly), will have had an easy academic life, and you would be able to sense his analytic sensitivity from having a 3 minute conversation with him. He would be in all sense...a natural. Most people from Harvard don't even have an IQ of 150. It is easy to underestimate a true IQ of 150 because all of these internet tests measure so inaccurately and thus an IQ of 150 is easy to find. Kazcinsky had an IQ between 160 and 170 and he was definitely a genius. I don't trust online IQ tests one bit. They are inaccurate no matter how much time you have to spend on them, how difficult the questions are, or whatever.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Meninger
IQ is specifically a measure of academic potential and it should not be generalized beyond this realm. What I mean by academic potential is that of aptitude in getting good grades in school or doing well on a standardized test measuring academic abilities such as the SAT. I know plenty of geniuses that supposedly have scored a higher score on the weshler than people such as Feynman and they are not half the genius as he was.

Wesher measures very accurately on academic potential with a few exceptions. ONLINE TESTS (all of them) DOES NOT COME EVEN CLOSE IN MEASURING ACCURATELY AS WESHLER. Let me explain. Weshler measures a broad range of academic abilities and thus it takes very long to complete and there are good reasons for having it this way. Weshler assumes that a strong genetic iq will correlate strongly with academic potential in a wide range of academic abilty; spatial, verbal, knowledge in areas, conceptual, analytic, logical, sensitivity. Online IQ test measure a very narrow range and simply cannot measure a wide range. I gurantee you that if you met an individual with an weshler score of 150 you would have met a definite genius worthy to be admired. This individual would most likely have scored around a 1550 on the SAT (almost certainly), will have had an easy academic life, and you would be able to sense his analytic sensitivity from having a 3 minute conversation with him. He would be in all sense...a natural. Most people from Harvard don't even have an IQ of 150. It is easy to underestimate a true IQ of 150 because all of these internet tests measure so inaccurately and thus an IQ of 150 is easy to find. Kazcinsky had an IQ between 160 and 170 and he was definitely a genius. I don't trust online IQ tests one bit. They are inaccurate no matter how much time you have to spend on them, how difficult the questions are, or whatever.

Well, it's nice to have your opinion on that, but is there some reason?

 

[jammieg]

Thanks Meninger, it is rather unlikely the philosophy forum would be jam packed with genius, perhaps -10 points for egos.
What is analytical sensitivity? I haven't heard that before. Isn't it amazing how someone of such a high IQ as Kazinsky could be so wrong, I mean his solution to corporate greed.

 

[Meninger]

There were a lot of events in Kazinscky's life that prompted him to adopt his philosophy, so I don't think that it was entirely a rational philosophy.

Analytical sensitivity is what separates people who can look at a difficult scientific problem and solve it in a hour and those who can solve it in 3 minutes. Basically it has to do with information processing speed and also one's sensitivity to logical incongruencies and subtle information.

For example to measure analytical sensitivity Weshler has a couple of subtests. One test goes like this: the test giver has you look at a picture which has several very subtle incongruencies (depending on whether you were able to figure out the easy one's) in it; for example something might be missing in the picture. You job is to pick it out. However, the interesting part of the Weshler is that the test giver times how fast you had taken to figure it out, for each question. Another reason why the Weshler is so accurate and why it also serves as a measure of analytical sensitivity.

 

[jammieg]

Interesting, so you are saying a person who scored relatively high on analytical sensitivity and had the desire to be a scientist would have a good idea of how far they could go with this career, or how easy they might have it academically. This is the primary practical use of Weschler tests to gauge strengths and weaknesses for guidance in academic pursuits; so although one could say life is like an academy, it isn't very practical but often leads to ego inflation which is actually a hinderance. I agree.

 

[Meninger]

Most sciences such as genetics that require one to be able to analyze phenotypes, physical data, and graphs require one to be very sensitive.

Having a high scientific aptitude and having a high IQ, I believe, are separate realms although the two can overlap. In other words, one can be a very talented scientist, yet have a superior to moderate IQ such as 120. Which one is more "gifted?" A boy having a very good scientific aptitude or a very good IQ? Definitely the scientist.

However, something I noticed is that a good scientist almost always has a very good memory. In other words, they are very knowledgeable. Partly because they have to be; a good scientist always has a large range of conceptual schemas (e.g being able to demonstrate/relate an deep idea with a superficial model.

 

[Dx]

whats up mr IQ!

The last time i took one was several years ago but my score was 109, i think, it was low. Go figure this, i knew people that was less intellengent than me getting higher scores so go figure that one out. Anyways...I think there fun and if anyone has a good one they want to share so I can retake it to beat my old score shoot me the HTTP this way, please.

Thanks!

Dx

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Dx
The last time i took one was several years ago but my score was 109, i think, it was low. Go figure this, i knew people that was less intellengent than me getting higher scores so go figure that one out. Anyways...I think there fun and if anyone has a good one they want to share so I can retake it to beat my old score shoot me the HTTP this way, please.

Thanks!

Dx

No, you didn't. One who is less intelligent than you could not POSSIBLY get a lower score on an IQ test, as long as the testing was identical.

You've posed a completely IMPOSSIBLE proposition.

 

[Mulder]

^There isn't a 100% direct or irrefutable link between IQ-tests and intelligence. That's only about the 500th time I've told someone.

'Intelligence' is a pretty flexible thing itself though. What do you define as intelligence?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Mulder
^There isn't a 100% direct or irrefutable link between IQ-tests and intelligence. That's only about the 500th time I've told someone.

'Intelligence' is a pretty flexible thing itself though. What do you define as intelligence?

I choose to say that for any terms expressed here, an IQ test result is the measure of ones intelligence.

Because intelligence is something most people don't even have a definintion on, I choose to speak to layman's assuming the IQ test not only shows ones intelligence but defines the word intelligence.

So as far as you "telling people that" it's useless.

IQ is a direct and irrefutable linm between intelligence.

It's the only way a population can speak on the same terms about intelligence, otherwise you're screwed.

Mulder - Chances are you won't have to tell me much, on this or other subjects, that I don't already know.

 

[Mulder]

^Which IQ-test is the right one then?

You cannot see anyway in which someone who gets lower than you on an IQ-test can be more intelligent than you?

What's the difference between intelligence and knowledge? An IQ-test?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Mulder
^Which IQ-test is the right one then?

You cannot see anyway in which someone who gets lower than you on an IQ-test can be more intelligent than you?

What's the difference between intelligence and knowledge? An IQ-test?

No, it's logically impossible. Unless the test is rigged.

You missed my point that, because intelligence is a dynamic definition most people are not very well versed in, I choose to go with something that can be considered universal, simply that:

Intelligence - An ability that is measured by an IQ test.

It's that simple. For those who are educated in modern concepts of intelligence, I can use other definitions, but for here that's how it goes for me.

Which IQ test is right? There is an official release of IQ test templates. The producer of these scrutinizes other tests to see the correlation. If the correlation is significant enough, namely less than 5% different over a given size X of testers, it's considered to be another accurate IQ test.


That's that.

 

[Mulder]

^OK, measure it by the result of an IQ-test - but then 'intelligence' becomes a pretty meaningless factor of someone's intellectual ability. But then what is someone's 'intellectual ability' measured on? Comes back to knowledge being the only factor that counts for anything.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Mulder
^OK, measure it by the result of an IQ-test - but then 'intelligence' becomes a pretty meaningless factor of someone's intellectual ability. But then what is someone's 'intellectual ability' measured on? Comes back to knowledge being the only factor that counts for anything.

Intellectualism is just ones ability to "think outside the box", for one to "propose new ideas" or just for one to think of things outside of what they're going to wear today.

It's not worth defining properly because it is a useless term. Intellectualism is why we have philosophy daggling around when science already knocked it out.

It's nothing without knowledge. Knowledge is definined as information. If one is knowledgeable on history, one has a large amount (in comparison to others) of information in their brain on this subject.

Knowledge thus can easily be tested. Just provide a lengthy well rounded exam on the area you wish to test knowledge on.

Those two terms aren't argued too much. They're much simpler than intelligence, that's why I use a layman's term here.

 

[Meninger]

Where does our concept of intelligence come from? For what do we value the phenomenon of intelligence. Simply because of people such as einstein, mozart, Newton etc... This is "intelligence" or the root of "intelligence." And in this sense IQ scores do not always correlate with "intelligence" and neither is it that the genetic traits that correspond with a high IQ is the dinstinguishing gift behind those who are phenomenologically talented in the areas of science. Of course, a person with a high IQ score is intelligent, but I could care less the only bragging right being that one has scored high on a IQ test.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

That's why outside of my peers educated in neuroscience I simply define intelligence level as the score one gets on an IQ test.

It's to dynamic and specifically materialistic for most to understand.

In fact, the conclusion to intelligence in neuroscience is that it doesn't really exist as much as one wants to believe it does.

We are only electrochemical. And we can certainly claim that thinking goes on in the brain. So that specifies a lot of where to look.

Beyond that we find that to say we're intelligent is to say chemicals and electricity completely incapsulate whatever we call intelligence.

 

[jammieg]

I have this suspicion that many of the great minds of history had understanding of a few things far beyond the practical side of understanding a small word like "complex", they extending this understanding into uncharted territories of knowledge to come up with Calculus-curved line concept, or legendary and unique music, or the application of time and efficiency to the universe. I know it's overly simplictic, but just what if it was Einstein's obsession with practical applications of time to his life that lead him to an understanding of time and that applied to the universe lead to SR and GR... What if understanding a thing didn't have a limit except for how practical it could be applied to one's life and that practicality determined how far one might take that particular concept...Sorry I've got a cold and a fever and the only cure is MoRE CowBelL!

Oh ya... If I remember this correctly Einstein's brain had a very few neuron's that were exceptionally grown, or interconnected. Maybe it was those neurons that housed the concepts and usuage of time.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Mmm. Einstien's brain proved to have nothing out of the ordinary.

 

[jammieg]

Initial findings were a typical brain, however:

"...A portion of the brain that governs mathematical ability and spatial reasoning--two key ingredients to the sort of thinking Einstein did best--was significantly larger than average and may also have had more interconnections among its cells, which could have allowed them to work together more effectively."-
Time report June 28th 1999, by MICHAEL D. LEMONICK

http://www.time.com/time/classroom/
psych/unit3_article3.html

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by jammieg
Initial findings were a typical brain, however:

"...A portion of the brain that governs mathematical ability and spatial reasoning--two key ingredients to the sort of thinking Einstein did best--was significantly larger than average and may also have had more interconnections among its cells, which could have allowed them to work together more effectively."-
Time report June 28th 1999, by MICHAEL D. LEMONICK

http://www.time.com/time/classroom/
psych/unit3_article3.html

I see. Well it certainly makes sense. I would not have expected his brain to me normally. As we've seen neural connections really defined the "power" of a given part of the brain.

 

[jammieg]

Ya it does makes sense, but the real question that remains is was he born like this or nurture? Or a bit of both? It gets complicated, but if they find an the real answer to that question it could be a greater discovery than SR.
For instance, give toys to mice and their neurons will grow, but in Einstein's case we don't know if he was born with an abnormal brain like an idiotsavant who learned to cope extraordinarily well, or developed it.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Jammie - To propose that anything that could have happened to Einstein in his youth could make his brain so significantly change size/shape is really quite a claim.

It was surely genetics and pre-birth ideals.

 

[jammieg]

Is it? I'm not so sure it is that wild,
I mean there are lots of reports of increased synaptic complexity and growth due to even a simple thing like viewing more art increasing nerve growth in the eye. And the rats! There must be volumes of data on rat's brains growing when given more toys, but it's next to impossible to be sure if he was born this way or developed this or both. If it could be proven that he solely developed brain complexity and growth, environment would be central to intelligence.
My guess is it was a bit of both, but more environment and an abnormality or two that should have debilitized him, but he adapted well, maybe it was even an abnormality that pushed him toward brain growth in a specific area...

 

[LogicalAtheist]

I think one would find that there are regular people with no specifically intelligent appearance with larger brain sections.

The fact remains not enough brains are studied to know of there truly is a correlation.

It could have been coincidence that his brain parts were larger. There isn't enough data...

 

[RageSk8]

I failed my iq test

To put in my two cents:

If you have a high IQ, you are smart. If you don't have a high IQ (nor an extremely low IQ), you may be smart, you may not be.

IQ's scores give less and less comparative, usefull information the higher they get.

Who cares really? As statistical tools used for general group comparisons, IQ tests are irrelevant when investigating the potential of a specific individual.