IQ is everything?

  • Thread starter roya-s
  • Start date
Evo
Mentor
22,880
2,377
So what is it then? Many requirements or a single score below 59? The score alone is sufficient, as you should know since you read the requirements... (Its not necessary, but its sufficient. There is a difference.)

I think you are just arguing for the hell of it because your "rebuttal" does not address my claim, in fact it substantiates it. :wink:
Yeah, I was just nit-picking because of how low a person's IQ would have to be in order to be the sole criteria. In most cases, more than one factor is considered.
 
Simon Bridge
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
17,828
1,640
@ModusPwnd:
Lets just review the claims...
They [IQ tests] are not meaningless.
OK, I'll agree with that one - insofar as there is nothing without meaning ... including meaninglessness. It's very zen but also trivial.

Saying so is dismissive of many the professionals in social sciences, psychology, education and therapy.
That is true also ... just as you should dismiss any pseudoscience practitioner.
A "professional" is just someone who makes money from something ... one can make money from all kinds of rubbish - means nothing.

A low IQ score alone will qualify you for social security disability.
You are arguing that IQ alone qualifies you for social security (in the US I'm guessing).
That says more about the US social security system than it does about IQ tests... lets think about this:

So US social security is available to, say, multi-millionaires if they have a low IQ?

With all the other support millionaires seem to be getting, that sounds a little excessive to me: where are the protests? Where are the picket lines? Or maybe you need to have a low IQ and also pass some sort of means test? [*]

But even if it is true - are you really arguing that something is scientifically valid because the US government uses it?

Of course, someone's use of logical fallacies to support a statement does not make that statement incorrect.
Perhaps the way forward is to consider "to what extent" and "in what way" IQ tests could be considered valid.

Generally they tend to be culture-specific (which is social-science speak for "racist").
However surveys, in general, and if carefully constructed and administered, can help you find stuff out about people. An IQ test could be treated as such a survey - but then, is it still an IQ test? Certainly the final IQ score does not mean anything by itself.

i.e. which IQ test do you have to underperform in to get social security - or will they accept any test?

What's missing from the debate is citation to back up claims... here's some:
Accessible overviews:
http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=371
http://observer.theguardian.com/focus/story/0,,668879,00.html

Academic references:
Pseudoscience and Mental Ability: The Origins and Fallacies of the IQ Controversy.
Race, Gender and IQ: the social consequence of a pseudo‐scientific discourse

But you will prefer:
Psychometrics, intelligence, and public perception
... which goes into detail about what a psychometric test needs to do in order to avoid problems - these things are seldom met in tests labelled "IQ tests". However, it is exactly the kind of thing you need to help support your claims. Together, the above papers should clarify why some people still support/defend IQ tests and why there is such a strong dissing for the whole field.

And a guide to arguing -
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies
... tends to save time.

--------------------------------

[*] Or maybe the social security support takes the form of admission to congress? Nah - elections are not IQ tests. At least - not for the candidate.
 
Last edited:
6,171
1,275
They are not meaningless.
OK, I'll agree with that one - insofar as there is nothing without meaning ... including meaninglessness. It's very zen but also trivial.
I.Q. tests are not meaningless for a much more concrete, non-trivial, reason. The higher the score, the more aptitude for solving the kinds of problems set forth on I.Q. tests is indicated. Whether that aptitude is the result of something innate, or the result of learning, is an ongoing debate, but the indicated aptitude doesn't seem to be controversial. It's tautological: a good score on an I.Q. test indicates an aptitude for I.Q. tests. It follows that the aptitude would carry over into any work resembling an I.Q. test.

If I were hiring engineers, or accountants, or programmers, or even machinists and auto mechanics, I would consider an above average score on an I.Q. test as something very much in a candidate's favor.
 
221
53
Hell, I did a test and I got 3/15. I just don't know why I couldn't solve the problems.
 
Evo
Mentor
22,880
2,377
Hell, I did a test and I got 3/15. I just don't know why I couldn't solve the problems.
Online tests and self administered tests don't count, when we say IQ tests, we are only referring to actual IQ tests administered by a specially trained psychologist.
 
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,198
12
I don't remember when it happened, but according to my dad, I got a psychologically done IQ test done once and I got a 173 IQ. At least I think that's what it was. Either that or 137.

So yeah, since I have a high one, IQs are therefore all-important and you should use them for everything. I'm totally not biased at all.
 
I have been trying to improve my problem solving skills and I have some experience to share. When I read an IMO type of question, there are three stages for me.

1. I freeze after reading the problem. It takes a while to understand the problem (not always but most of the time). I believe that cognitive ability (measure of which is IQ) plays a major role here. It is just a matter of time. If you stare at it for a while, it will sink in. Certain heuristics given in Polya's book help in getting a grip on the mathematical situation given in the problem.

2. If I managed to cross the first phase, then the second phase is to figure out what can be done to solve the problem. A proof is basically a chain of implications. A=>B=>C=D, A, B, C, and D being mathematical statements. It can be more complicated like (A&B)=>(C OR E) => D. The tricky thing about really hard problems is that while statement A would be given, they say nothing about statements B, C and E. We will need to show that D is true. So based on experience, B, C, and E have to be "figured out". More obscure these intermediate statements, harder the problem. If these intermediate steps are more in number, then the problem gets exponentially harder.

These intermediate steps are the ones Paul Zeitz refers to as the "crux moves".

Here too, better cognitive skills will help. I feel that it is not as crucial here as in #1 because once I cross the stage mentioned in #1, then it is a matter of working hard to figure out potential candidates for statements B, C and E. For me, being creative and coming up with more number of potential crux moves is easier than the first stage which often happens to be a big problem. Nevertheless, this stage of problem solving is not trivial at all. This is perhaps 70 on a scale where step #1 is 100.

Metacognition is what is needed in this stage. You can read Alan Schoenfeld's "Mathematical Problem Solving" for more details. Having good control of "direction of thinking" is extremely important for this stage and the final stage of problem solving.

3. This step is the final step in solving the problem. I feel that this stage is almost as hard as #1. I do manage to come up with humongous number of potential crux moves. But IMO problems are very difficult because seeing the crux move is very very hard. Most of the times, after seeing the crux move, proving them might be hard too but is a problem of lesser magnitude.

I have solved some problems from the IMO (only 1s and 4s). Lack of intelligence can be made up by practicing a lot of problems. That way, getting through stage #1 will become easier if there is good familiarity with the mathematical situation that is given in the problem. Also, practice helps in gaining good control in using tools (like recognizing the auxiliary construction in geometry, or looking for something that is a constant or a mono-variant etc). Stage #3 is subject to the creativity that I have in the area on which the problem is given.

Quite honestly, I believe that intense practicing "in the right direction" can get you through IMO even with moderate IQ. But I needed a tonne of practice to solve a meager number of IMO problems.

I may not have added much here to what others have said but thought I will share my experience. Basically IMO requires intense training and also guidance from someone who knows. IQ is needed to a good extent but given that many of the medalists start out from nowhere, it must be possible to get to IMO bronze medal level with intense training. One thing to keep in mind is that good meta-cognitive skills are needed on top of good intelligence. Changing direction of thought based on the fact that current approach is not working is very critical. I used to simply keep trying one approach and not back off inspite of knowing that it is not working. I can now (after a lot of practice) try a lot of directions in order to solve a problem.
 
Evo
Mentor
22,880
2,377
That's nice. Nothing to do with IQ tests.

Thread closed.
 

Related Threads for: IQ is everything?

  • Last Post
3
Replies
70
Views
4K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
76
Views
8K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
59
Views
10K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
111
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
4K
Top