What is an IQ test?

  • Thread starter jammieg
  • Start date

IQ scores:

  • Below 90

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • 90 to 110

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 110 to 120

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 120 to 130

    Votes: 3 17.6%
  • 130 to 140

    Votes: 8 47.1%
  • above 140

    Votes: 5 29.4%

  • Total voters
    17
  • #26
52
0
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.
 
  • #27
3,762
2
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?
 
  • #28
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.
 
  • #29
52
0
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.
 
  • #30
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 guage 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.
 
  • #31
52
0
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 knowledgable. 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.
 
  • #32
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, plz.

Thanks!

Dx :wink:
 
  • #33
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, plz.

Thanks!

Dx :wink:

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.
 
  • #34
54
1
^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?
 
  • #35
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.
 
  • #36
54
1
^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?
 
  • #37
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.
 
  • #38
54
1
^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.
 
  • #39
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 gonna 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 knowledgable 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.
 
  • #40
52
0
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.
 
  • #41
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 alot 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.
 
  • #42
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
LogicalAtheist
Mmm. Einstien's brain proved to have nothing out of the ordinary.
 
  • #44
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
 
  • #45
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.
 
  • #46
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.
 
  • #47
LogicalAtheist
Jammie - To propose that anything that could have happened to einstien 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.
 
  • #48
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....
 
  • #49
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...
 
  • #50
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 irrelevent when investigating the potential of a specific individual.
 

Related Threads on What is an IQ test?

  • Last Post
2
Replies
45
Views
11K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
947
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
870
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
19K
Top