Who Had the Highest IQ of All Time?

[Tigers2B1]

...If you disagree, post one of the questions used in the IQ test and we can discuss it...

Standardized IQ tests are not published so I don’t know what a standardized culture free test looks like. However, I may have seen a 'culture free test' at one time even though it wasn’t described to me that way. I suspect this online "IQ test," which takes about a minute to load, is composed of what might be thought of as 'culture free' type questions. Not actual standardized IQ questions used by professionals but, nevertheless descriptive of the types of questions I saw. Does anyone know what professionally administered culture free questions look like and if so, do they look anything like what is shown at this site? ----- That is, they don’t assume much or anything in the way of “knowledge,” -- if these questions even do that. Also ---- if these questions aren’t considered culture free why would that be?

http://home.hetnet.nl/~rijk42/progressivUS.swf

 

[JohnDubYa]

As I said:

"Your statement is (mostly) accurate when applied to children. However, we are discussing the application of IQ tests to adults. There is no way to measure "natural" cognitive ability since a person's education affects his cognitive ability."

A person who has an IQ of only 60 has no education. In fact, his cognitive abilities have not developed much beyond his childhood years. Therefore we are, in effect, testing the IQ of a child.

Those on the upper scale of IQ have had too much meaningful interaction with their surroundings to make IQ tests practical. You simply cannot remove a person's cognitive skill developed in life when testing his IQ. If you can't, then you are testing aptitude, not intelligence.

And no one has answered my question, how can you tell if an IQ result is accurate?

 

[Monique]

People worry so much about their IQ, I think intelligence should be measured by success. Being able to accomplish things in life is much more important than being assigned a number..

 

[selfAdjoint]

People worry so much about their IQ, I think intelligence should be measured by success.

Hmmm. Some people achieve success by skullduggery. Examples will come to mind, I am sure. I think it would be better to be an obscure "quick study" than to be one of those.

 

[JohnDubYa]

We need to design a Success Quotient. :)

So who would have the highest SQ?

 

[Tigers2B1]

Also, while "success" is open to individual interpretation --- in that it could mean having a large family in a five million dollar home OR it could mean living alone as a self-reliant near a pond OR anything in between if graded by individual standards. When discussing certain types of "achievement" - IQ does have correlations with real life achievements and activities. As this paper from the American Psychological Association indicates, IQ has a correlation with school performance, job performance, years of education and a variety of other life achievements.

Note that a correlation of +1 (or 1.0) means that whenever you see one item you always see the other. (e.g. the sun and sunlight) A correlation of ‘0’ mean that if you see one there is a random chance you will see the other. A correlation of –1 means that if you see one you never see the other. You can get an approximate idea from that -

Tests as Predictors

School Performance. Intelligence tests were originally devised by Alfred Binet to measure children's ability to succeed in school. They do in fact predict school performance fairly well: the correlation between IQ scores and grades is about .50…

Years of Education. Some children stay in school longer than others; many go on to college and perhaps beyond. Two variables that can be measured as early as elementary school correlate with the total amount of education individuals will obtain: test scores and social class background. Correlations between IQ scores and total years of education are about .55 …

Job Performance. Scores on intelligence tests predict various measures of job performance: supervisor ratings, work samples, etc. Such correlations, which typically lie between r=.30 and r=.50, are partly restricted by the limited reliability of those measures themselves. They become higher when statistically corrected for this unreliability: in one survey of relevant studies (Hunter, 1983), the mean of the corrected correlations was .54. This implies that, across a wide range of occupations, intelligence test performance accounts for some 29% of the variance in job performance….

Social Outcomes. Psychometric intelligence is negatively correlated with certain socially undesirable outcomes. For example, children with high test scores are less likely than lower-scoring children to engage in juvenile crime. In one study, Moffitt, Gabrielli, Mednick & Schulsinger (1981) found a correlation of -.19 between IQ scores and number of juvenile offenses in a large Danish sample; with social class controlled, the correlation dropped to -. 17…

The link –

http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/iku.html

 

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "As this paper from the American Psychological Association indicates, IQ has a correlation with school performance, job performance, years of education and a variety of other life achievements."

Gee, I would hope so.

 

[selfAdjoint]

So first you say IQ doesn't predict anything, and then when you are told about these correlations (which are old, old news), you imply it was obvious.

Would it hurt you to investigate, just as an interesting thought, that you were wrong?

 

[JohnDubYa]

You are trying to assign a cause/effect relationship to mere correlation. That is an obvious fallacy.

My point has been that IQ tests cannot separate learned knowledge from natural intelligence. Your correlation study would support my argument as equally as yours. Think about it: If IQ tests really only tested learned knowledge, doesn't it make sense that those measured with a high "IQ" would have better education, more money, and so on?

If you are so sure that the questions on an IQ test can be applied to adults and test purely intelligence, then post one of the questions for our review. If you don't even know the questions, then how can you be so sure? (Appeal to authority fallacy coming up, I bet.)

 

[selfAdjoint]

Here's a site that gives the honest skinny on online IQ tests (mostly sucker bait), and a couple of suggestions on how the find out your own IQ. Not an authority, just a resource.

http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/L2-1UnderstandingIQ.html

 

[Tigers2B1]

You are trying to assign a cause/effect relationship to mere correlation. That is an obvious fallacy.

Who said there was a direct cause - effect relationship? As in "a 130 IQ = PHD degree." Not me nor has anyone else that I've noticed. In fact, I used the word "correlation" in my post a number of times, never used the term "cause - effect" or anything similar, and even went as far as to explain what "correlation" meant. Now ---- high positive correlations of the sort offered certainly create a strong implication that a relationship exists between the abilities displayed by IQ results and other achievement.

My point has been that IQ tests cannot separate learned knowledge from natural intelligence.

You've already posted that 'conclusion' without even the supporting reasons OR any source once. Since everybody can post anything about everything --- I’ll ask again --do you have an authoritative source for that? And if not an authoritative source --- do you have any rationale to support what are only, at this time, unsupported conclusions?

Your correlation study would support my argument as equally as yours.

Well its not "my correlation study" – it is a paper from the American Psychological Association. The American Psychological Association is the primary association of psychometricians, psychologists, and psychiatrists, who are involved in this sort of testing.

And finally, how does this study support "…my argument as equally as yours" as you stated in the above quote?

Think about it: If IQ tests really only tested learned knowledge, doesn't it make sense that those measured with a high "IQ" would have better education, more money, and so on?

This paper dealt with IQ as a predictor. That is – take two large, random groups of 10 year olds from the same economic background. For the purposes of this example - everyone in Group 1 has an IQ score of 130 and everyone in Group 2 has an IQ score of 100. These groups are similar but for their IQ scores. Individual personality (motivation, values, et. al) is factored out due to the size of the groups. From those IQ scores you can make valid predictions about the later life 'achievements' generally found in each of those two big groups many years later.

If you are so sure that the questions on an IQ test can be applied to adults and test purely intelligence, then post one of the questions for our review. If you don't even know the questions, then how can you be so sure? (Appeal to authority fallacy coming up, I bet.)

Did you not see this prior post directly responding to the same request made by you? --- Here it is -

“Standardized IQ tests are not published so I don’t know what a standardized culture free test looks like. However, I may have seen a 'culture free test' at one time even though it wasn’t described to me that way. I suspect this online "IQ test," which takes about a minute to load, is composed of what might be thought of as 'culture free' type questions. Not actual standardized IQ questions used by professionals but, nevertheless descriptive of the types of questions I saw. Does anyone know what professionally administered culture free questions look like and if so, do they look anything like what is shown at this site? ----- That is, they don’t assume much or anything in the way of “knowledge,” -- if these questions even do that. Also ---- if these questions aren’t considered culture free why would that be?”

So --- go to this site ----> http://home.hetnet.nl/~rijk42/progressivUS.swf take a look at THESE QUESTIONS and let me know what your objections are – (i.e. Why these questions test ‘knowledge’ - rather than cognitive ability.)

 

[hitssquad]

Culture-free vs culture-reduced vs unbiased

“Standardized IQ tests are not published so I don’t know what a standardized culture free test looks like.

There are no culture-free instruments that rely on voluntary item performances by test subjects. Arthur Jensen explains this in his 1980 book Bias in Mental Testing. Raymond Cattell's Culture-Fair IQ Test is sometimes misremembered as his Culture-Free test.

There are, however, culture-reduced tests. Further however, these tests are not necessarily any less biased than tests that are highly-loaded on culture. As Arthur Jensen shows in Bias in Mental Testing, tests highly-loaded on culture can be virtually free of bias, given that the tested populations in question have been given equal exposure to the particular culture the tests are loaded on.

However, I may have seen a 'culture free test' at one time even though it wasn’t described to me that way. I suspect this online "IQ test," which takes about a minute to load, is composed of what might be thought of as 'culture free' type questions.

http://nicologic.free.fr/ tests seem to me to be good examples of culture-reduced tests.

Does anyone know what professionally administered culture free questions look like and if so, do they look anything like what is shown at this site? ----- That is, they don’t assume much or anything in the way of “knowledge,” -- if these questions even do that.

IQ tests do not have questions per se; they have items.

• Test and Item. A test is any collection of items (tasks, problems, questions, etc.) that elicit abilities when persons are asked to respond to the items in a particular way. The items may be anything the test maker chooses, so long as each one elicits an ability.
  
  It is important not to confuse the three distinct meanings associated with the term "item." First, there is the physical item itself--a spoken or printed question, or problem, or task to be performed (but not including the person's performance). Second, there is the item response --the record or score of a person's adequacy of performance on the item. Third, there are the item statistics --the mean and variance of the scores on an item taken by a group of persons.

[Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. p53.]

 

[Tigers2B1]

Thanks hitsquad for pointing out the correct terms and the clarification on bias and culture-reduced/fair tests. But thanks especially for your link to the online library --- I’ve now got that site linked in my favorites list :)

 

[hitssquad]

Questia and Seymour W. Itzkoff

thanks especially for your link to the online library

You're welcome. If The g Factor is of interest to you, the other books Questia has online that are written (or edited) by that book's editor, Seymour W. Itzkoff, may also be of interest to you. To find Itzkoff's other books, just perform an author search for the name Itzkoff.

One you may find yourself interested in in particular is The Decline of Intelligence in America: A Strategy for National Renewal.

 

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "Who said there was a direct cause - effect relationship? As in "a 130 IQ = PHD degree." Not me nor has anyone else that I've noticed."

You posted a correlation and implied that the sole determiner of the correlation was IQ. Go back and read your post. In no way did you allow for the possiblity that other factors may be present, such as aptitude.

RE: "In fact, I used the word "correlation" in my post a number of times, never used the term "cause - effect" or anything similar, and even went as far as to explain what "correlation" meant. Now ---- high positive correlations of the sort offered certainly create a strong implication that a relationship exists between the abilities displayed by IQ results and other achievement."

Not at all, especially since learned knowledge would produce the same result.

You have two possible factors, X and Y. Both predict Z. Finding Z implies in no way that X was present at all until you eliminate Y.


RE: "You've already posted that 'conclusion' without even the supporting reasons OR any source once."

That would be proving the negative. It is assumed that learned knowledge and high IQ are present in many individuals and that they would provide similar results. It is up to science to prove that they can separate one from the other. It is not up to skeptics to prove that they cannot be separated, since such a proof is impossible.

The burden of proof is on the IQ testers.


RE: " Since everybody can post anything about everything --- I’ll ask again --do you have an authoritative source for that?"

I don't argue from the viewpoint of appeals to authority. I have offered my rationale many times here -- learned knowledge can mask raw intelligence. There is little doubt about that.

Since you do not have any actual IQ questions for us to examine, do you have anything other than appeal to authority to support your notion that IQ can be isolated and tested in adults?


RE: "Well its not "my correlation study" – it is a paper from the American Psychological Association. The American Psychological Association is the primary association of psychometricians, psychologists, and psychiatrists, who are involved in this sort of testing."

In other words, you are resorting to an appeal of authority fallacy.


And finally, how does this study support "…my argument as equally as yours" as you stated in the above quote?

Easy. Those that have learned a great deal would exhibit the same characteristics -- better average salary, and so on -- when tested as those with high IQs. It was pointless to even bother posting the study for the sake of this argument.

RE: "Think about it: If IQ tests really only tested learned knowledge, doesn't it make sense that those measured with a high "IQ" would have better education, more money, and so on?"

RE: "This paper dealt with IQ as a predictor. That is – take two large, random groups of 10 year olds..."

This argument is the validity of IQ tests when given to ADULTS.

If you are so sure that the questions on an IQ test can be applied to adults and test purely intelligence, then post one of the questions for our review. If you don't even know the questions, then how can you be so sure? (Appeal to authority fallacy coming up, I bet.)

“Standardized IQ tests are not published so I don’t know what a standardized culture free test looks like."

In other words, you can't be sure. Is that correct?

Read the next paragraph -- hardly sounds like a definitive example of anything to base a theory on.

"However, I may have seen a 'culture free test' at one time even though it wasn’t described to me that way. I suspect this online "IQ test," which takes about a minute to load, is composed of what might be thought of as 'culture free' type questions. Not actual standardized IQ questions used by professionals but, nevertheless descriptive of the types of questions I saw. Does anyone know what professionally administered culture free questions look like and if so, do they look anything like what is shown at this site? ----- That is, they don’t assume much or anything in the way of “knowledge,” -- if these questions even do that. Also ---- if these questions aren’t considered culture free why would that be?”

RE: "So --- go to this site ----> http://home.hetnet.nl/~rijk42/progressivUS.swf take a look at THESE QUESTIONS and let me know what your objections are – (i.e. Why these questions test ‘knowledge’ - rather than cognitive ability.)"

Never did load.

And you still haven't answered my question: How do you know whether or not an IQ is test is accurate?

 

[selfAdjoint]

RE: "So --- go to this site ----> http://home.hetnet.nl/~rijk42/progressivUS.swf take a look at THESE QUESTIONS and let me know what your objections are – (i.e. Why these questions test ‘knowledge’ - rather than cognitive ability.)"

Never did load.

Loads just fine for me.

 

[BobG]

So --- go to this site ----> http://home.hetnet.nl/~rijk42/progressivUS.swf take a look at THESE QUESTIONS and let me know what your objections are – (i.e. Why these questions test ‘knowledge’ - rather than cognitive ability.)

I think this test just points out the impossibility of filtering all past experiences. A person who had dealt with AND gates and NOR gates would be a little quicker and more likely to recognize a couple of the patterns than the average person.

None the less, this is at least a culture reduced test, where you'd at least expect a very small amount of deviation due to past experience and learning, even for adults. For younger age groups, I think you could be pretty confident in believing this was testing at least one aspect of cognitive ability rather than past learning.

 

[hitssquad]

Loads just fine for me.

It's .5 MB in size. If one doesn't have a broadband connection, it may "never" load.

 

[hitssquad]

The limited power of face validity

So --- go to this site ----> http://home.hetnet.nl/~rijk42/progressivUS.swf take a look at THESE QUESTIONS and let me know what your objections are – (i.e. Why these questions test ‘knowledge’ - rather than cognitive ability.)

I think this test just points out the impossibility of filtering all past experiences.

There do not seem to be statistics supporting that conclusion.

 

[BobG]

I admit, that's an extreme general statement made in response to the test in question.

The statement is obviously true (even if it may be quibbling). You can get close to 100% correlation, but you're never going to quite reach it, especially if you test adults with a diverse background. With a good test, good testing technique, and a good method of measurement, you can still reduce the 'noise' level enough to gain valuable information - at least a ball park figure for a person's intelligence.

The test in the link has a standard deviation of about 16 points, but it's only a free online test that only tests ability to recognize visual patterns. In this case, such a large deviation might be due more to the limited scope and the shortness of the test than question quality. The questions don't eliminate the possibility of results being 'corrupted' by using past experiences to reason out the answer, but a long enough test could also measure the rate that performance improves over the course of the test to compensate for that.

A culture free verbal test is a lot more challenging to develop. The closest I've seen to a culture-free verbal test is the military's DLAB tests, which test an individual's ability to learn new languages. The test invents new languages over the course of the day that the testee could not possibly have been exposed to and measures how quickly and accurately they learn the vocabulary and structure of new languages. Portions of the lessons/tests are even read to the testee via recording. Yet, since the languages they invent use structures similar to existing languages (even if modifying the specifics), a multi-lingual person will still be more likely to recognize the patterns and structures than a person who knows only English. A small matter for the military, since the tests' primary aim is to find people who can be literate in a foreign language in a short amount of time - not to figure why people can learn new languages.

 

[Tigers2B1]

Would the test described here qualify as a culture free test? I had read of these sorts of tests – from Arthur Jenson for one, which measure reaction time to a dot that appears on a screen. As quoted below this reaction time is correlated with old fashion IQ results. I, however, had trouble finding information on the Net related to this.

I posted this link and quote already - on page two of this thread - but maybe you didn’t catch that.

Here’s the link - http://www.brainmachines.com/body_wolf.html

…The idea was to provide a way of testing intelligence that would be free of "cultural bias," one that would not force anyone to deal with words or concepts that might be familiar to people from one culture but not to people from another. The IQ Cap recorded only brain waves; and a computer, not a potentially biased human test-giver, analyzed the results…

It was not a complicated process. You attached sixteen electrodes to the scalp of the person you wanted to test. … Then you had him stare at a marker on a blank wall. This particular researcher used a raspberry- red thumbtack. Then you pushed a toggle switch. In sixteen seconds the Cap's computer box gave you an accurate prediction (within one-half of a standard deviation) of what the subject would score on all eleven subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale or, in the case of children, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—

 

[hitssquad]

Reaction time, inspection time, and evoked potentials

Would the test described here qualify as a culture free test?

A fitting rule would seem to be that any mental abilities test that relies on voluntary responses has cultural loading above zero and that any mental abilities test that does not rely on voluntary responses has cultural loading at zero.

I had read of these sorts of tests – from Arthur Jenson for one, which measure reaction time to a dot that appears on a screen.

No. The test involving seeing something on a screen is an inspection time test. The task is to identify the fundamental figure through a precisely timed mask (the figure appears and a precise number of milliseconds later a masking figure appears - hence what is tested how large of a time gap you need - and the larger the time gap needed, the lower your IQ, generally.)

Reaction time tests involve a physical response (such as pushing a button) excecuted as quickly as possible to a stimulus (such as a light or a pattern of lights).


A culture free brain-electrode IQ test would probably involve evoked potentials (brain waves evoked by a fundamental stimulus such as auditory click).

Here’s the link - http://www.brainmachines.com/body_wolf.html

 

[The_Professional]

Don't they administrate their own version of an IQ test?

Yes, they do

http://www.mensa.org/info.html

Generally, there are two ways to prove that you qualify for Mensa: either take the Mensa test, or submit a qualifying test score from another test. There is a large number of intelligence tests that are "approved". More information on whether a test you have taken is approved, as well as information on the procedure for taking the Mensa test, can be obtained from the nearest Mensa office. There are no on-line tests that can be used for admission to Mensa. Feel free to contact Mensa for specific details about eligibility.

Mensa gatherings are a way for really intelligent people to get together and pat themselves in the back in a sort of 'We feel good, we're so smart' kind of way

 

[franznietzsche]

Yes, they do

http://www.mensa.org/info.html


Mensa gatherings are a way for really intelligent people to get together and pat themselves in the back in a sort of 'We feel good, we're so smart' kind of way

Beats spending time with stupid people instead.

 

[shonagon53]

Why are there still people of my generation who believe all the nonsensical, superstitious crap surrounding the validity of IQ tests? IQ tests are what they are: a tool for frustrated paranoid psychologists with tiny penises.

 

[Tigers2B1]

Why are there still people of my generation who believe all the nonsensical, superstitious crap surrounding the validity of IQ tests? IQ tests are what they are: a tool for frustrated paranoid psychologists with tiny penises.

No cites? Or you just mindlessly ranting? Since, outside of the tiny penis claim ---- if I thought you had any credible cite to back up your assertion – well, I’d ask. But I don’t so I don’t.

-- But to the question portion of your statement ---- concerning your assertion that people still use IQ results notwithstanding their proven invalidity. I don’t know –- maybe it's because there are still people who look for evidence and don’t march lock step with the PC crowd? No? Surprise me.

 

[BlackVision]

Why are there still people of my generation who believe all the nonsensical, superstitious crap surrounding the validity of IQ tests? IQ tests are what they are: a tool for frustrated paranoid psychologists with tiny penises.

Because the genetic correlation of IQ tests is .80. Meaning it is 80% genetic based. It measure your natural intelligence.

 

[shonagon53]

No cites?

Wow, since when do you have to be able to cite someone else to back up a thought?

This is really interesting. It says a lot about you, and your IQ, no doubt.

 

[BlackVision]

Wow, since when do you have to be able to cite someone else to back up a thought?

This is really interesting. It says a lot about you, and your IQ, no doubt.

Well there certainly is plenty of researches and articles that hold the validity of IQ tests. Showing the correlation of one's IQ to one's ability to do multitude of different skills. Tigers2B1 was asking for any research to refute any of this but it seems like you do not have any.

Also the fact that you state that "It says a lot about you, and your IQ" shows that you put weight behind IQ.

 

[shonagon53]

Also the fact that you state that "It says a lot about you, and your IQ" shows that you put weight behind IQ.

Djee, on the scale of understanding Irony, you score a big ZERO.