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

[STAii]

The subject of IQ tests have been discussed over and over in PF 2.0 (but in different topics, and in the middle of topics).
It seems that the PF members don't all agree on wether the IQ test is really a good pointer to the person's intelligence.
-Some of the users on PF said that IQ tests are only how good you are at taken IQ tests.
-Other said that IQ tests actually give a little pointer to the person's intelligence, but it is not really a good pointer (Since it is not always right).
-Others said that IQ tests are a very conventinal way to calculate intelligence.

So what do you think ?

Personally i think that the IQ can measure some of the person's intelligence if taken under the right conditions (but it will still not be very accurate, and most people do not take it under the right conditions).

 

[Bubonic Plague]

IQ tests are a double-edged sword.

If you find out from the test that you've got a crappy IQ, then you would find yourself in a morale chute.

But if you find out that you've got an IQ that would make Einstein go green in the gills, then you would have your morale boosted tremendously.

So, my take is, forget about IQ tests and do what are you got to do.

 

[plus]

Anyone doing well on IQ tests has a good level of reasoning ability. This says nothing about memory or anything else, although there is positive correlation between high IQ and other 'brain things' such as memory.

 

[STAii]

Right Plus.
But you can't also say that a person with low IQ means he is bad at reasoning skills, it is very likely that this person only freaks out of IQ tests !

 

[Kerrie]

IQ tests only measure the amount of intelligence that the author of the test considers worthy of intelligence...which automatically discounts the credibility of the test...

talents such as a musical gift or artistic/creative streak are not traditionally considered as an indicator of intelligence, yet i think these (and others) should be ranked as a measure of smarts...

 

[Mentat]

Well, I love I.Q. tests. I don't really know how accurate they are at rating my reasoning ability, but I just enjoy taking the tests.

 

[Zero]

I enjoy the way they stretch my brain, but I don't put faith in the results.

 

[spacemanspiff]

what IQ test measure is a very limited idea of intelligence. i wouldn't say they have 0 merit. but i view them as glorified SAT tests.

considering cognitive scientist have yet to even completely agree on what intelligence is, if find it hard to believe that this test that is flawed in many ways could be an accurate measure. sure it's the best thing we have, but it still isn't that great.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

IQ tests don't measure much. I mean, it for people who have a hard time taking tests(the pressure! ). For people who are more intellectual, it can't quite be measured with an IQ test. I think its unfair. Maybe an IQ test should be more customized?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I wonder if the opinion of IQ tests is correlated with the results of the poster's tests? Or negatively correlated, I should have said.

 

[Pauly Man]

Also IQ tests can be very culturally restrictive.

For example I know someone who moved from the US and took an IQ test here in Aus, and one question used hectares as a unit of area, without stating what a hectare was how the hell was she to work out the answer?

I'm sure there are many more examples.

 

[Galatea]

Originally posted by Bubonic Plague
IQ tests are a double-edged sword.

If you find out from the test that you've got a crappy IQ, then you would find yourself in a morale chute.

But if you find out that you've got an IQ that would make Einstein go green in the gills, then you would have your morale boosted tremendously.

This is interesting to me because as a child I took an IQ test given by a child psychologist - they thought I had a learning disability and just wanted to see what was going on. Apparently it was not a bad score and I got transferred to gifted classes. I was never told as a child what the score was and for that reason it had very little impact on my confidence. In this case it was beneficial because of the accelerated classes I was placed in. IQ tests are about the only way to place people in classes that go at the right tempo and with their peers.This is probably the ideal situation for most people if they are going to be administered an IQ test (although I did eventually find out what the score was when I was about 21.)

I tend to think that IQ tests given to adults are less valid. By then you've learned how to manipulate the answers, or at least what the answers should be. As a child, though, I only remember puzzles. I had no idea what the test was about and don't think I suffered any ill effects because of it (i.e. stress, feeling nervous.)

I also think comparing them to the SAT's is kind of silly - they're not standardized tests. Although Kerrie is right about them not measuring 'creativity' so to speak, as with music and art, I would venture to say that from what I know, even the greatest artists, musicians and poets are talented in other areas, specifically in patterns, memory, and visualization.

 

[Another God]

I wonder if everyone would be interested in doing one common online IQ test?

I have done different online IQ tests over the years, and some are really dodgy, some seem OK, and some are slightly better than OK, but none have really inspired me with confidence that they are actually measuring anything real.

The best IQ test I have probably done was one which was on TV Australia wide last year. It was a quality one, but still, I don't think any IQ test which is done outside the confines of an actual IQ testing facility can be trusted too much.

But, if we all agree to use the one IQ test, then maybe it would at least give us some basis for comparison?

I did one at emode.com recently. It seemed reasonable. Anyone else interested? Anyone else know any good online IQ tests?

 

[Bubonic Plague]

This is interesting to me because as a child I took an IQ test given by a child psychologist - they thought I had a learning disability and just wanted to see what was going on. Apparently it was not a bad score and I got transferred to gifted classes. I was never told as a child what the score was and for that reason it had very little impact on my confidence. In this case it was beneficial because of the accelerated classes I was placed in. IQ tests are about the only way to place people in classes that go at the right tempo and with their peers.This is probably the ideal situation for most people if they are going to be administered an IQ test (although I did eventually find out what the score was when I was about 21.)

Congrats then. I've seen on the newspapers about some dude and his brother going for IQ tests. His bro got a much higher IQ score then he did. So his confidence was shot to shreds and his parents also mildly discriminated against him if i remember correctly.

I wonder if everyone would be interested in doing one common online IQ test?

Fer me, i wouldn't. After all I'm a male, and i hit puberty, so I'm saturated with testerones.

 

[STAii]

Originally posted by Pauly Man
Also IQ tests can be very culturally restrictive.

For example I know someone who moved from the US and took an IQ test here in Aus, and one question used hectares as a unit of area, without stating what a hectare was how the hell was she to work out the answer?

I'm sure there are many more examples.

I agree.
The language can also be a reason for the person to get an IQ that is not really his IQ.
For example, a person can have learned a language only newly and taking an IQ test in it, he may not understand the questions, therefore get a low result.
Or the person may be very intellectual, but bad at language (it happens that you find people that are extremely gifted in mathematics (for example) but very bad at languages), this person will not understand the questions too.

I wonder if everyone would be interested in doing one common online IQ test?

I have done different online IQ tests over the years, and some are really dodgy, some seem OK, and some are slightly better than OK, but none have really inspired me with confidence that they are actually measuring anything real.

I have taken many tests from this site, and it seems that lot of IQ tests writers tend to steal the questions from other IQ tests.
It also seems that some IQ tests writer are unable to actually make a good measuring of the score according to the questions being asked.
So i guess the online versions of IQ tests are not really good, not promising at all.

 

[spacemanspiff]

I wonder if the opinion of IQ tests is correlated with the results of the poster's tests? Or negatively correlated, I should have said.

i scored pretty well on it and i still don't have a very high opinion of the test. well not the test so much as the intepretations of the results of the test.

there are plenty of factors that could influence your score other than intelligence, such as culture. and there are plenty of things that could be thought of intelligence that are not tested, such as creativity.

 

[RageSk8]

If you have a high IQ, then you are smart. If you don't have a high IQ, and don't have a really low IQ, then an IQ test is useless in determining if you are smart or not - you very well maybe. Ex: Richard Feynman had an IQ of 125.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I once had a friend in grad school, who was going for a Ph.D. in math - and got it. He has since had a successful career as a mathematics professor. But before that, he already had a masters degree and had been working as a mathematician in something super secret in Washington D.C. As part of the job he had to take an IQ test, so he went around to the place they gave them and took it. And he scored 87. The person in charged was very embarrassed - seeing what my friend was actually employed as - and offered to let him take it again. So he did, and scored an 83! He used to tell this story on himself as a joke.

So it's clear to me that individual tests and individual people can be outliers in the distribution. But in spite of that, IQ itself, or rather g, which lies behind it, is simply a fact of life. And it is correlated with success in business or just about anything else.

 

[Pauly Man]

Originally posted by Galatea
IQ tests are about the only way to place people in classes that go at the right tempo and with their peers.
[/B]

This isn't true. There are other ways to identify gifted children, and they are much less restrictive than an IQ test. However an IQ test can be useful if used correctly.

I am currently doing a Diploma of Education course on Gifted and Talented Students, (although I am not doing a dipEd). It is only week three of the course, by the end of the university session I will be able to talk about this with more knowledge than at present.

 

[Galatea]

Originally posted by Pauly Man
This isn't true. There are other ways to identify gifted children, and they are much less restrictive than an IQ test. However an IQ test can be useful if used correctly.

\

Can you give an example? I said it was "about the only way" which means, more or less, it's the only way I know of - I've never seen any other tests to determine what children belong in gifted programs.

 

[DreadVile]

If someone is bad at math, but can grasp advanced concepts with ease. They would prob do bad on a I.Q. test since they are mostly math based. I never put much stock in them anyway.

 

[selfAdjoint]

They're not all about math. Consider the Raven Matrices:
http://www.psych.uAlberta.ca/~knoels/P105/intelligence/sld004.htm

 

[LURCH]

"I took an IQ test. It came back negative."

I am sceptical as to the veracity of these tests. Aren't they pretty much designed to measure the subject's acpacity to think along the same lines as those who wrote the test? And doesn't true brilliance, true genius lie in one's ability to think in ways that are unlike the standard?

I wonder how Einstein or Socrates would have done on one of these standardised tests.

 

[Pauly Man]

Originally posted by Galatea
\

Can you give an example? I said it was "about the only way" which means, more or less, it's the only way I know of - I've never seen any other tests to determine what children belong in gifted programs.

Yeah sorry about.

Um, to be honest I have no idea at present what kind of tests are available, however over the next few weeks we will be looking into exactly that problem. So I'll keep you up to date.

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by LURCH
"I am sceptical as to the veracity of these tests. Aren't they pretty much designed to measure the subject's acpacity to think along the same lines as those who wrote the test?

Yea, or maybe they just measure the subject's "acpacity" to put letters in the correct order ! "Dislexics of the world, UNTIE!"

 

[Sgt.Hartman]

How about a Physical Fitness test?

 

[Galatea]

Originally posted by Zefram
There's a correlation between high IQ and memory? I never knew that.

You might have at one point in your life and just forgot.

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Sensei
There are too many kinds of intelligence for I.Q. tests to be valid as a general indicator.


mathematical intelligence
reading comprehension intelligence
visual - spatial intelligence
musical intelligence
athletic intelligence


so on and so forth.


the real I.Q. test? LIFE

i think common sense is a great indicator of intelligence...

 

[RageSk8]

Can you give an example? I said it was "about the only way" which means, more or less, it's the only way I know of - I've never seen any other tests to determine what children belong in gifted programs.

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).

 

[Pauly Man]

Here in Australia IQ tests are not that common. An IQ test is a useful indicator of potential academic ability, however I stress potential. "Gifted" children may not put that potential to use, they may be lazy, or bored, or not interested in academic school life.

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).

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.

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.

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.

 

[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.