What is the Controversy Surrounding IQ Tests in the PF Community?

[Galatea]

Originally posted by RageSk8
This type of thinking is the real problem... Why should there be a test for gifted programs? I agree with Sensei - LIFE is the indicator of intelligence. Richard Feynman would have been denied access to todays gifted programs (at least the largest, G.A.T.E. which requires an IQ of 130).

Well, ideally gifted children (whichever gift that may be) would be born with a secret watermark so we wouldn't have to test them. However, as Pauly Man states, it is important for them to have education that caters to their needs. And for the record, aren't you in a gifted program (or at least some kind of accelerated learning program?)

It's really easy to see things and say "this should not be done this way" but I don't see anyone offering any alternatives, which I would probably accept if they were a better choice.

 

[Another God]

I think that close friends/teachers etc would be a better indicator of Intelligence than a test would be.

The only problem there, is getting an objective sort of standard.

(To stupid people, average intelligence seems brilliant etc...)

 

[MacTech]

IQ tests are about 1 thing.. brain power.. that is pretty much it.. another pointless number to make people feel better then others.

 

[The Grimmus]

well an iq tests are good pointers as siad before but since intellagence is the ablity to comprehend i would think that a better indication is an observation of a person it is best to observer a child because that is when a person learns the most

 

[RageSk8]

It is very important to identify gifted children. These are children who are above the average, in the case of academically gifted children above the average academically. These children must be given a suitable education to cater for their slightly different needs, just as a disadvantaged child should be given a suitable education to cater for their particular needs.

I agree. My problem is with the notion that IQ is the scale to determine who is gifted, who deserves the different educational opportunities.

You mention Richard Feynman, which is a good case in point. It shows the difference between giftedness and talent. He would be considered mildly gifted, and here in Australia perhaps skipped a grade, or at the least taught a little more unconventionally. Whether he would have been picked up or not, the fact is he worked on his gift for physics and made a contribution to science, he became a prominent scientist, ie. he turned his gift into a talent. Today he would be considered a genius am I right? That is because he transformed his gift into a talent through hard work, and through his life experiences.

This is more than wrong. You assume that IQ is an accurate scale to predict intelligence - it isn't. Sometimes it is a useful tool but not always. Richard Feynman was clearly a genius to those who knew him as a child - he was voted "Mad Genius" in high school. However, he did not have a high IQ! In other words, one can clearly be a genius and have a slightly above average IQ.

So in a way you are right, life is in a way a measure of intelligence, in that whether a gifted child transforms that gift into a talent depends immensely on their life experiences.

This is about right, but you assume that IQ is a good measure of a child's talent - by all accounts this is ignorant. Sometimes IQ can reveal a gifted child, often times it can't.

And for the record, aren't you in a gifted program (or at least some kind of accelerated learning program?)

For the record, yes I am. I was put in GATE after I scored 154 on a professionally administered Stanford Benet test. Right now I am in the IB (International Baccalaureate) program, an international program for college credit during high school (from my classes and tests I could get credit at any major University in over 100 countries).

It's really easy to see things and say "this should not be done this way" but I don't see anyone offering any alternatives, which I would probably accept if they were a better choice.

The problem is that we are not offering alternatives, we are designating resources to a select few based upon a scale that has proven to be inadequate. The problem is not with using IQ, it is with using mainly IQ. Teacher recommendations, past work performance, and peer and parental reorganization of talent all are other valid indicators of intelligence.

 

[Pauly Man]

RageSk8 if you read my posts you will see that I do not say anywhere that IQ tests are the only meadsure of intelligence, they are a restricted test and must be used accordingly.

You must have a different definition of genius to myself. To me the definition goes as follows,(and this is the generally accepted definition in academia):

A genius is a person who has made a large contribution to a given field, and/or changed that field in a very significant way.

IQ has may or may not have much to do with Genius. A genius does not have to considered gifted or talented, although they generally are.

 

[RageSk8]

RageSk8 if you read my posts you will see that I do not say anywhere that IQ tests are the only meadsure of intelligence, they are a restricted test and must be used accordingly.

You must have a different definition of genius to myself. To me the definition goes as follows,(and this is the generally accepted definition in academia):

A genius is a person who has made a large contribution to a given field, and/or changed that field in a very significant way.

IQ has may or may not have much to do with Genius. A genius does not have to considered gifted or talented, although they generally are.

Then we differ about what you, at least strongly inferred, about the nature of gifted. By saying " He would be considered mildly gifted, and here in Australia perhaps skipped a grade, or at the least taught a little more unconventionally.", you implicitly state that IQ is a measure of natural talent of "giftedness". This is hard to swallow, in fact it seems just as absurd. Feynman had talents and gifts the normal person did and does not have. His success, I agree, is due to effort and application, but no average person, or average "gifted" person, would be able to do similar with the same or exponentially more effort. IQ does not correspound (as in it does not differentiate individuals) into any innate biological qualities.

 

[Mulder]

You are ridiculously overstating the relevance of IQ-tests. So what if Richard Feynman happened to get 125 on an IQ test he took? So what if this is perhaps lower as what is generally regarded as 'genius'? I think 125 is still higher than 90-95% of the population. From the casual one that I took a fair while ago, regardless of how 'easy' or 'difficult' it seemed, it was clear that these tests are in no way a guaranteed 'intelligence test'. Worrying they sound almost like an enforced test in the US educational system, which I don't agree with at all. I know in the UK they don't bear anywhere near as much importance.

 

[kyleb]

i agree with those who say they are really fun to take but hold little to no real value other than that.

 

[RageSk8]

You are ridiculously overstating the relevance of IQ-tests.

How so? I believe I said more than once that often times they are useful...

 

[Daniel Y.]

I think of IQ tests in a really broad sense. If someone scores high on an IQ test, I think I can reasonably assume he or she is smart. How smart, or what he or she is good at though...not so much.

120+ smart

160+ very smart

200+ cheater

 

[neu]

I think we'd all agree that if someone got less than 75 on an IQ test that they either didn't bother or that they are very dim.

Or would we?

 

[The_Thinker]

The whole concept of intelligence is highly overrated as far as I can tell.

I would consider someone intelligent if they can put two and two together, as in, if they can say okay, take chocolate cake and vanilla ice cream... Now if we put it together then it would taste much better... That is putting two different "concepts" together and making something new.

The concept of genius is just rubbish.. I would consider a person a genius if and only if, he/she told me a new concept that I would not be able to understand even if I knew all the basic concepts that were present in it.

Intelligence is just a skill, some people harness it due to influence of their environment and some don't. If you want to be brilliant, you just have to want it enough and work towards it... there is not one concept in the world that a normal person cannot fully understand that is as long as he knew the basic concepts surrounding it.

If U.S.A is trying to implement the whole idea of it into their examination system, all I can do is laugh at the stupidity of it... hell I would do that even if my country implemented it.. especially considering some of the more brilliant scientists that came from there... its really sad how a country can have both brilliant and stupid people at the same time...

 

[Howers]

This is more than wrong. You assume that IQ is an accurate scale to predict intelligence - it isn't. Sometimes it is a useful tool but not always. Richard Feynman was clearly a genius to those who knew him as a child - he was voted "Mad Genius" in high school. However, he did not have a high IQ! In other words, one can clearly be a genius and have a slightly above average IQ.

An IQ in the 120s is still very high, so stop saying he had a low IQ. By all accounts Feynman was gifted, just as his score predicted. Most gifted programs accept people above 120.

This is about right, but you assume that IQ is a good measure of a child's talent - by all accounts this is ignorant. Sometimes IQ can reveal a gifted child, often times it can't.

Sometimes it can't? And how do you know this? Your Feynman example is weak.

For the record, yes I am. I was put in GATE after I scored 154 on a professionally administered Stanford Benet test. Right now I am in the IB (International Baccalaureate) program, an international program for college credit during high school (from my classes and tests I could get credit at any major University in over 100 countries).

154 is quite high, congratulations. If this was a real test and if it was well administered you should be breazing through HS.

The problem is that we are not offering alternatives, we are designating resources to a select few based upon a scale that has proven to be inadequate. The problem is not with using IQ, it is with using mainly IQ. Teacher recommendations, past work performance, and peer and parental reorganization of talent all are other valid indicators of intelligence

How has it proven to be inadequate? I think your reccommended methods of evaluating intelligence are more biased than any IQ test can ever be.



I firmly believe in the notion of some people being smarter than others. I also believe that an IQ test does a good job in discriminating levels of intelligence. It is not 100% perfect, as one can study for it in advance, but it has already been shown to correlate with good academics. Only under very extreme circumstances is one not able to write it at full potential, and for some reason people think this is the norm. Its also a perfect excuse to cover ones lower-than-expected score.

What I am still unsure about is whether IQ is genetic or environmental, though the evidence suggests the former. It is a confidence boost to some, and a complete shatter to those who get low. Which is highly unfortunate.