Your views on IQ testing

[Abu Bishr]

Hi All

I've conducted a WR search on IQ, and apparently this topic has not been dicussed. But then again, I won't be surprised if it got discussed before and I was just not able to find it.

Intelligence Quotient or IQ is deine by Wkikpedia as "a score derived from one of several different standardized tests attempting to measure intelligence". How accurate and reliable in your view are such tests and the scores based on them, and is it worthwhile taking such a test just to know your own intellectual ability and potential? Might it even help in making career choices?

On the negative side, could such testing lead to intellectual arrogance and even to intellectual discrimination by those who have achieved high IQ scores? Also, while these tests might boost and inflate the egos of some, they might completely deflate the egos of others leading to a lack of self-confidence and self-worth.

I, myself, am sort of two-minded about the whole thing, as is clear from my question. How do you feel about IQ testing?

 

[danielfranco]

I think it is difficult to ascertain to which extent those tests are useful. For example, here in the States those tests are used in conjunction with other aptitude tests to determine the "normalcy" of a child's learning abilities. But when it comes to children from other cultural backgrounds or that do not speak the English language, those tests grind to a halt. The inherent bias in those tests make it difficult to take them as the golden rule for intelligence aptitude. In a more homogenized culture it might be advisable to use them as the deciding factor in measuring intelligence, but in such a diverse culture as in the USA I find occasion to feel suspicious of such tests.
Needless to say, when I was a boy I was given one of these tests and scored well. Twenty five years later I took one on a lark to see what would happen, and of course I scored much higher. Does this mean I'm more intelligent now than when I was a child? Or does it mean that I'm better suited to find the patterns my society expects me to find?
Difficult to say objectively.
But no worries so far: I'm far from being considered a genius by IQ testing standards, so that at least is in accord with real life!

 

[_forumuser_]

I agree. How high you score all depends on how familiar you are with the kind of mental exercises used in IQ tests. It is not at all surprising--and simply indicative of how area-sensitive these tests are--that the farther you stray from cultures where these tests have been popular for some time, the lower test-takers score. Unfortunately, no one has told journalists (or scholars, for that matter) who keep boring us with comparative by country average IQ statistics ...Interesting read in this respect.

 

[Etcetera]

My views are rather sceptical.
I can believe in a test which defines a person's abilities in a particular area, but IQ testing seems to me to be just too broad.

 

[alexacohen]

Hello:

and is it worthwhile taking such a test just to know your own intellectual ability and potential? Might it even help in making career choices?

You can take one out of curiosity... but I doubt it would help you in making any choice.
Those tests are not common in Spain, but I did take several. And I found them highly discriminating. Mainly for 3 reasons:
1- The people who made the questions did not seem to take into account that for some questions there might a different answer than the "correct" one.
2- They seemed not to consider that many immigrants to our country would not be able to answer many questions, so they would score worse...
3- Nobody knows who are the people who decide what is standard and for whom.
Go ahead and take one... but even if you test in the stratosphere for IQ, just remember that is no guarantee of anything.
Alexa

 

[xrayspex]

Taking many IQ tests doesn't do much more than measure your ability to take tests.

HOWEVER... taking tests can be an important skill. So it's wrong to say that IQ tests are meaningless.

 

[alexacohen]

Taking many IQ tests doesn't do much more than measure your ability to take tests.

HOWEVER... taking tests can be an important skill. So it's wrong to say that IQ tests are meaningless.

I did not say they were meaningless. I said they were not guaranteed to solve anything.
The company I used to work for forced the staff to take those tests, and that's why I found them to be discriminating. They were directed to Spaniards with Spanish culture, and therefore the company was discriminatig people who were not Spaniards.
Alexa

 

[cuchuflete]

Taking many IQ tests doesn't do much more than measure your ability to take tests.

HOWEVER... taking tests can be an important skill. So it's wrong to say that IQ tests are meaningless.

Exactly right!

A ninth grade science teacher gave me valuable advice. Here's a paraphrase from distant memories:

When you take the PSAT, you will often see that all four choices are wrong, or that more than one is correct. Don't waste time arguing with the test maker inside your own head. Try to figure out
what they are looking for by reading a full page of questions before you pick up your pencil.
Then go through the whole test, 'feeding' them what they want.

I followed his good advice, and consistently scored extremely well on standardized tests, often giving answers I believed to be wrong, but which satisfied the test makers.

He was a member of a minority group, and had honed his skills of observation, determining
the expectations of his surroundings, and "feeding" people what they expected as a matter of
survival in sometimes hostile surroundings. IQ test taking is a skill. It measures adaptability, I think, more than intelligence.

 

[Outsider]

My views are rather sceptical.
I can believe in a test which defines a person's abilities in a particular area, but IQ testing seems to me to be just too broad.

I agree very much with Etcetera, here.

My views on the Intelligence Quotient were largely shaped by Stephen J. Gould's excellent book The Mismeasure of Man, and I strongly urge those who are interested in this matter to read it themselves. Here's a preview: did you know that IQ tests were originally designed to detect mental disability in children? That's what they were made for, and they're fairly efficient at it. Using them to rank normal, healthy adults or teenagers, however, is basically a misuse of the tests. But beware that it's an incredibly popular misuse. Clearly, many people have an ingrained need to believe that intelligence can be reduced to a neat number.

 

[TRG]

Exactly right!

A ninth grade science teacher gave me valuable advice. Here's a paraphrase from distant memories:

When you take the PSAT, you will often see that all four choices are wrong, or that more than one is correct. Don't waste time arguing with the test maker inside your own head. Try to figure out
what they are looking for by reading a full page of questions before you pick up your pencil.
Then go through the whole test, 'feeding' them what they want.

I followed his good advice, and consistently scored extremely well on standardized tests, often giving answers I believed to be wrong, but which satisfied the test makers.

He was a member of a minority group, and had honed his skills of observation, determining
the expectations of his surroundings, and "feeding" people what they expected as a matter of
survival in sometimes hostile surroundings. IQ test taking is a skill. It measures adaptability, I think, more than intelligence.

How do you know that's not exactly what they were looking for?

IQ tests have proven to be a good measure of general intelligence unless you of are a mind to believe there is no such thing as general intelligence. I can't imagine how this could be, but what does it matter? What good is measuring IQ unless you have an academic interest? Knowing one's IQ or that of someone else is of little practical value in everyday life. I suppose if it were possible to learn how to increase IQ that would be a good thing, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Outsider]

IQ tests have proven to be a good measure of general intelligence unless you of are a mind to believe there is no such thing as general intelligence.

What do you mean by "general intelligence"?

 

[TRG]

What do you mean by "general intelligence"?

I'm talking about this.

 

[Outsider]

Ah, yes, the infamous g factor -- reality, or purely statistical construct?
Gould had a lot to say about it, as did others.

 

[Kajjo]

How accurate and reliable in your view are such tests and the scores based on them

Most IQ tests you can train for. Personally, I can drastically improve my IQ rating by excercising, just the same as I can improve my success in most other tests. Thus, IQ tests are not comparable at all if not done under clear, equal conditions -- and are generally almost meaningless for normal, healthy adults with unknown history of similar tests. When applied to children that have not been drilled, IQ tests might reveal some tendencies.

Might it even help in making career choices?

If the applicants know what to expect, such tests can reveal how much efforts they invested and what score they are capable to obtain. However, if the range of applicants is very heterogeneous or the applicants do not know what to expect, the test is meaningless, because those who prepared for the test will score better than the unexpecting victims -- with almost no correlation to their real intelligence.

Kajjo

 

[la reine victoria]

I am totally in favour of IQ tests, especially for primary school children.

These were once a determining factor, in the UK, in a child's future educational opportunities.

LRV

 

[curly]

I like IQ tests, but the problem I find with them is that they don't really tell you your potential, they tell you what you can do at the moment you take them, not what you could acheive given some hard work.

 

[Athaulf]

Here's a preview: did you know that IQ tests were originally designed to detect mental disability in children? That's what they were made for, and they're fairly efficient at it. Using them to rank normal, healthy adults or teenagers, however, is basically a misuse of the tests.

I haven't read Gould's book (it has been on my reading list for several years, but somehow never reached the top), but this is very consistent with my observations.

It seems to me that among virtually all adults that don't suffer from any severe mental disability, there are only minuscule differences in the sort of "intelligence" that is supposed to be measured by IQ tests. By this I mean the general ability to calculate precisely and logically. The differences in the ability for precise and logical calculation in a particular area are indeed enormous -- e.g. the difference in chess skills between a grandmaster and a patzer, or in algebraic skills between a mathematician and an average person -- but this difference is almost solely the product of training and practice and applies only to that particular area.

Experimental findings in psychology and cognitive science indicate that experts with seemingly superhuman mental abilities in their field don't show any remarkable skills when tested in an unrelated field that is also based on logic and calculation. What appears to laymen as a computer-like calculating mind is in fact mostly a well-trained ability for specialized pattern recognition. (There was an excellent article about this topic in Scientific American last year.) It seems to me that this equally applies to IQ tests: they measure some specific pattern recognition abilities, which can be learned and trained just like anything else.

This is not to say that some individuals don't stand out among others in general mental abilities, but such differences are both smaller and rarer than most people think, and the IQ tests certainly aren't an accurate (if any) measure of such a general ability. Even the propaganda materials of Mensa admit this, although in a highly weasely language.

 

[Athaulf]

IQ tests have proven to be a good measure of general intelligence unless you of are a mind to believe there is no such thing as general intelligence. I can't imagine how this could be, but what does it matter? What good is measuring IQ unless you have an academic interest? Knowing one's IQ or that of someone else is of little practical value in everyday life.

Well, there are quite a few snake oil salesmen who try to sell their methods for selecting gifted individuals to the HR departments of large corporations. I've heard stories from people being exposed to all sorts of ridiculous trials on job interviews, so I'm sure IQ tests also have their share of fans among HR managers. Not that it matters much for me as an engineer, since every single person I know who works in engineering (and all other fields with a mathematical basis) utterly excels in these tests.

I suppose if it were possible to learn how to increase IQ that would be a good thing, but I'm not holding my breath.

I have a foolproof method: solve a few IQ tests, each time going over the solutions after the test to figure out what you've done wrong. For each subsequent test, your score should improve, and I have no doubt that with enough tests solved, an average individual would start scoring "genius" IQ.

The training doesn't even have to be based on actual IQ tests. Getting some expertise in any area that requires logical manipulation with symbols will do -- any sort of pure or applied math, computer programming, chess... -- although the progress probably won't be as rapid as with the above method.

 

[fenixpollo]

I've conducted a WR search on IQ, and apparently this topic has not been dicussed.
How do you feel about IQ testing?

While the question has not been phrased as you phrased it, some of us discussed IQ testing in the thread Modern I.Q. -v- Ancient I.Q.

How I feel about IQ testing was revealed in that thread, and it would be redundant, if not cruel and unusual punishment, to subject you all to another dose of my opinion.

Cheers.

 

[gaer]

I am totally in favour of IQ tests, especially for primary school children.

I'm not. I score low on IQ tests.

These were once a determining factor, in the UK, in a child's future educational opportunities.

My IQ test scores were used as a "determining factor". If I had not believe that they were invalid for me, I would have given up.

I loathe the damn things.

Gaer

 

[Hutschi]

The first such tests, I made without even knowing they are IQ tests. It is a long time ago. I only remember, that I tried to find complicate solutions.

For example:
Continue the following:
3, 5, 7,
I continued: 11, 13, 17 rather than 9,11,13
(I do not remember the real thing. This is just an example.) Until now, I do not know, which is right. Logically correct, I could have also continued: 5, 3, 5 ,7
or anything else. 3,5,7,5,3, ...)
I never ever got any result of such tests, and we were never told, what was the goal of the tests, as far as I remember. But it is a long time ago (ca. 1966 ...1970).

For about 2 of such tests, I got a little bit money, about 5 Mark, it was a lot for a child.

Later, after 1990, I bought a book with such tests. I see, you test something, but you do not test the intelligence in a complex sense.

One thing, I remarked, is: the tests do not use concise and exact language. It is not possible to solve some of the questions, because they are ambigous. This connects them - on the other side - to the real life.

I hated "Tip-Klausuren" - multiple choice exams - I understood the problem, I knew the solution, but I did not know how they use the words "and", "or", and some others.

 

[Sepia]

The first such tests, I made without even knowing they are IQ tests. It is a long time ago. I only remember, that I tried to find complicate solutions.

For example:
Continue the following:
3, 5, 7,
I continued: 11, 13, 17 rather than 9,11,13
(I do not remember the real thing. This is just an example.) Until now, I do not know, which is right. Logically correct, I could have also continued: 5, 3, 5 ,7
or anything else. 3,5,7,5,3, ...)
I never ever got any result of such tests, and we were never told, what was the goal of the tests, as far as I remember. But it is a long time ago (ca. 1966 ...1970).

For about 2 of such tests, I got a little bit money, about 5 Mark, it was a lot for a child.

Later, after 1990, I bought a book with such tests. I see, you test something, but you do not test the intelligence in a complex sense.

One thing, I remarked, is: the tests do not use concise and exact language. It is not possible to solve some of the questions, because they are ambigous. This connects them - on the other side - to the real life.

I hated "Tip-Klausuren" - multiple choice exams - I understood the problem, I knew the solution, but I did not know how they use the words "and", "or", and some others.

This is just about what I critisize too: Nobody tells you what kind of answers are expected and often there are questions where more than one answer is possible - and this consumes time because you have to decide which answer was the one the author was looking for. One example:

Which material does not fit in - Water, oil, petrol, wood?

What an intelligent question!!! Three of them are fluids and three of them are combustible materials. Sometimes I have my doubts concerning the intellgence of the people who want to measure our intelligence. I have made IQ tests three times in my life - at least where they told me the score. Once with an IQ of 78, once 105 and once 129.

At the time I made the one with the score of 78 I had already spoke 5 languages fluently (admittedly 2 of them have strong similarities). That is pretty normal for a person with an IQ of 78, right?

Besides, intelligence manifests itself in a lot more fields than are covered in IQ tests: Here is a nice example I watched on television where they were testing a small child of about 1-2 years. The usual scheme - put the triangular things into the box through the triangular holes, the cubic ones through the square holes etc. The little guy tried once, then looked at the box with a "don't-give-me-that-s.it-look", took off the lid of the box and shoveled them all with both hands into the box.

 

[Kajjo]

3, 5, 7, I continued: 11, 13, 17 rather than 9,11,13
It is not possible to solve some of the questions, because they are ambigous.

Right. Many of these stupid number tests are only applicable to a very specific audience. 9 year olds can be tested with odd numbers, 13 year old with prim numbers, engineer students could add any number they like: 3, 5, 7, 21 -- it is always possible to find a function to fit any seriesof numbers.

Anyway, the main argument against IQ tests is that you can train for IQ tests and significantly change you result.

Thus, IQ tests are only applicable after exactly the same, intensive training opportunity. IQ should measure "how much insight you can acquire", but not how much "insight you already have".

Kajjo

 

[Kajjo]

Which material does not fit in - Water, oil, petrol, wood?

What an intelligent question!!! Three of them are fluids and three of them are combustible materials. Sometimes I have my doubts concerning the intellgence of the people who want to measure our intelligence.

Excellent example. I seriously doubt the intelligence of test makers quite regularly.

Kajjo

 

[Hutschi]

One example:
Which material does not fit in - Water, oil, petrol, wood?

Here it is clear: Water does not fit. It is the only word with no "o".

Hutschi

 

[Henryk]

At the time I made the one with the score of 78 I had already spoke 5 languages fluently (admittedly 2 of them have strong similarities). That is pretty normal for a person with an IQ of 78, right?

That's quite another cup of tea. The IQ has nothing to with language acquisition.

 

[SoyChino]

We can be trained to get high score in iq tests,but does that mean anything?

 

[Kajjo]

We can be trained to get high score in iq tests,but does that mean anything?

It means at least that you cannot validly compare untrained and trained persons. It means that IQ tests can only be carried out under very well-defined conditions.

Kajjo

 

[alexacohen]

I don't know if I'm allowed to post it, but this is a real question taken from an IQ test. For me, it's completely illogical..

One shepherd has to cross a river in a small boat. He has with him a wolf, a sheep and a cabbage. He can make several trips to the other side of the river, but he is only allowed to take one object or animal with him in each trip. How many trips will he need to take?
Answers:
a -7
b -5
c -4
d -1
I marked -d-. A shepherd would take the sheep with him and leave the wolf behind! For me, it was the logical answer.
It was the wrong answer.
Alexa

 

[Hutschi]

I think, it was the right answer. Implicitely, they gave another question. The full question should have been: How many trips were necessary so that would have been on the other side and no damage occured to any of the animals or objects.

We had to solve a similar question in mathematics.

 

[Outsider]

I suppose if it were possible to learn how to increase IQ that would be a good thing, but I'm not holding my breath.

I'd missed this part of your post. There is indeed a way to increase IQ scores: just wait long enough!

 

[Chaska Ñawi]

The "one of the words is not like the other" sort of question, along with Alexa's contribution, are a perfect example of the problems in this sort of testing.

There is no room for an explanation of your logic - if you don't think along the same tangent as the test designer, you are just plain wrong.

What does that say about the test designers and the opinion they hold of their own intelligence?

 

[Zsanna]

I only had to do an "official" IQ-test once (in a foreign language I hardly spoke at the time) it was then that I could see for myself how culture (& language) specific these tests are really.

As adaptability was mentioned earlier, I'd like to say that it is a form of intelligence, so no wonder if these tests try to measure it.

I don't know about others but I find it straightforward amusing to do such tests even for fun (a bit like crosswords only more varied). Trying to do them in different languages is even more interesting!

 

[CrazyArcher]

IMO those test have little use... They are too one-sided, and don't take into account various factors. I believe that it's possible to create tests that would measure more aspects of human intelligence, though, this way being able to tell what does the kid have an aptitude for. In any case, no tests should be the only benchmark determinig a person's future.

 

[cuchuflete]

I don't know if I'm allowed to post it, but this is a real question taken from an IQ test. For me, it's completely illogical..

One shepherd has to cross a river in a small boat. He has with him a wolf, a sheep and a cabbage. He can make several trips to the other side of the river, but he is only allowed to take one object or animal with him in each trip. How many trips will he need to take?
Answers:
a -7
b -5
c -4
d -1
I marked -d-. A shepherd would take the sheep with him and leave the wolf behind! For me, it was the logical answer.
It was the wrong answer.
Alexa

Thanks Alexa,

The test makers probably assume that the test taker shares the notion that it is good to preserve
the person, the sheep, the cabbage and the wolf.
But what about those urban dwellers who know nothing of sheep, and think that the sheep and the cabbage ought to be fine companions, or that it is normal to give the sheep the opportunity to eat the cabbage while the person is coping with the wolf? They too would score badly, not for any lack of raw intelligence, but for holding a different perspective.
What if the wolf likes the taste of cabbage?

 

[Kajjo]

Thanks Alexa,

The test makers probably assume that the test taker shares the notion that it is good to preserve
the person, the sheep, the cabbage and the wolf.

Or maybe he needs to wait long enough so that the cabbage and the sheep are eaten. He then only needs one travel with the wolf.

This question is so extremely stupid -- why on earth would a shepherd travel together with a wolf? It obviously requires a certain amount of intelligence to make up intelligence tests.

Kajjo

 

[Hutschi]

I remember a test similar to the test with the ship, we had to solve during a special training. It was also a ship, but the ship started to sink, there were 23 persons on the ship, but the boot was only supposed for 20. Three had to stay. There were different professions, different gender, age, abilities, illness and so on. We had to decide who had to stay on the ship. (Fortunately, only theoretically). There was an island, but about one hour away, and the ship was sinking. Only the boot could help.

My solution was not accepted. I tried to save all, by overloading the boot slightly. We were small groups and had to find agreements insde the group.

Later I knew: The real test was our discussion.

So if they invite you to a test in an office, the test already starts, when you are coming.

This is not in mass intelligence tests, but if they want to know, whether you fit into the tasks, the tests will include many kinds of intelligence, including adaption, knowledge, solving problems and so on.

The provided solution for the ship was:
The captain, the priest, the locksmith (Schlosser) had to stay on the ship.
The priest because of the connection to the heaven, the captain leaves as last, and the locksmith tries to repair the ship.

The trainer did not even think about saving all.

(Some times it is not possible, but in this case: If a boot is designed for 20 persons, it has place also for 23, I think.)

I think, such tests show a lot about the attenting people. Will the old woman have to stay, or the boy with Aids?

 

[Hutschi]

Or maybe he needs to wait long enough so that the cabbage and the sheep are eaten. He then only needs one travel with the wolf.

This question is so extremely stupid -- why on earth would a shepherd travel together with a wolf? It obviously requires a certain amount of intelligence to make up intelligence tests.

Kajjo

Hi, Kajjo,

it is a kind of riddle, and this special kind is well-known. I think, it is not stupid, but logical. But here, the riddle was told incomplete. May be, the testers wanted to test also the cultural knowledge, which let you complete the missing part, or they just did not see that they omitted essential parts of the riddle.

The solution has some similarity with the "Turm of Hanoi".

Hutschi

 

[Outsider]

One shepherd has to cross a river in a small boat. He has with him a wolf, a sheep and a cabbage. He can make several trips to the other side of the river, but he is only allowed to take one object or animal with him in each trip. How many trips will he need to take?
Answers:
a -7
b -5
c -4
d -1
I marked -d-. A shepherd would take the sheep with him and leave the wolf behind! For me, it was the logical answer.
It was the wrong answer.

You know why I think they omitted the detail that the farmer must take the wolf along with him? Because they expected everyone would know it.

Indeed, it's a well-known puzzle, and people who like puzzles and have been exposed to this one will recall, or reconstruct, the solution. One could argue that the test is measuring one's problem-solving ability along with one's general knowledge of puzzles. O.K., but no one can convince me that the latter is innate, constant throughout life, or genetic.

 

[Hutschi]

You know why I think they omitted the detail that the farmer must take the wolf along with him? Because they expected everyone would know it.

Indeed, it's a well-known puzzle, and people who like puzzles and have been exposed to this one will recall, or reconstruct, the solution. One could argue that the test is measuring one's problem-solving ability along with one's general knowledge of puzzles. O.K., but no one can convince me that the latter is innate, constant throughout life, or genetic.

I fully agree. It was just a trap for themselves. Your solution was right.

 

[Kajjo]

it is a kind of riddle, and this special kind is well-known.

Of course it is. But this particular riddle is an extremely bad instance of the general scheme. First, the story is dumb, because no shepherd would take a wolf with him. Secondly, it is highly stupid to measure IQ with well-known riddles: Either you know it, then you solve it in seconds and gain time for other excercises, or you don't and have to invest the minute to figure it out. Third, it is no innovation, no spark of insight needed, but just counting the travels for three items. Not even the order of transport is to be given. Argh. This almost hurts.

The solution has some similarity with the "Turm of Hanoi".

No, it has not. The "Turm of Hanoi" is a mathematical, purely logical riddle with no part of linguistics involved at all. No understanding needed, only recursive problem solving -- which again is extremely easy if you know recursion and quite difficult to comprehend if you don't. No reasonable IQ test either.

Kajjo

 

[Outsider]

Third, it is no innovation, no spark of insight needed, but just counting the travels for three items. Not even the order of transport is to be given.

That in itself is not wrong, since you are only likely to know the correct number if you figure out the correct sequence for the tasks. But I agree with your other criticisms.

 

[zebedee]

Let me just remind everyone of the original questions posed in this thread:

How accurate and reliable in your view are such tests and the scores based on them, and is it worthwhile taking such a test just to know your own intellectual ability and potential? Might it even help in making career choices?

On the negative side, could such testing lead to intellectual arrogance and even to intellectual discrimination by those who have achieved high IQ scores? Also, while these tests might boost and inflate the egos of some, they might completely deflate the egos of others leading to a lack of self-confidence and self-worth.

I, myself, am sort of two-minded about the whole thing, as is clear from my question. How do you feel about IQ testing?

Please don't sidetrack the thread debating the correct answer to a specific IQ question but concentrate instead on debating these questions.

Thank you!

zebedee
Moderator

 

[Paulfromitaly]

I'm not so sure that the IQ test gives a reliable answer to the question "How intelligent are you?"
What I've noticed about it is that many people are willing to take the IQ test hoping to show off how clever they are, then, depending on the test result, the IQ is:

- Rubbish if they screwed it up;
- The best way to measure people's intelligence if they got good results.

 

[Kajjo]

What I've noticed about it is that many people are willing to take the IQ test hoping to show off how clever they are, then, depending on the test result, the IQ is:
- Rubbish if they screwed it up;
- The best way to measure people's intelligence if they got good results.

Nice idea.

However, I do not think so. I trained for some tests and did well. I am still opposed to IQ tests. As long as you can train for them, they are only applicable to a homogeneous set of candidates with equal training. Candidates are never better than the test setup -- a severe restriction as the story about the baby sorting pieces told us easily!

Kajjo

 

[Hutschi]

Hi,
Are there also new kinds of intelligence tests? What kinds are common now? (Just a question to avoid prejudice because of the tests I know.)

 

[Kajjo]

I would like to draw the attention to the term "intelligence test" itself. Most tests are mixtures of mathematical, linguistic, logical and visual abilities, maybe even musical, creative or technical talents. This is the first problem, because above-average abilities in one segment does not necessarily imply above-average abilities in other segments.

I would like to see specific, clearly distinguished results in these different forms of intelligence or ability. There are young children with extraordinary grasp of maths with poor linguistic abilities, and vice versa of course. It would help much more to do such tests with children and return specific, detailled results. Also it would help to publish the answers and explanations.

Kajjo

 

[Sepia]

That's quite another cup of tea. The IQ has nothing to with language acquisition.

However, I know of very few mentally retarded persons who speak more than 2 languages fluently. Do you?

 

[Zsanna]

I wouldn't be able to tell exactly why but I feel that IQ tests do have something to do with language acquisition.
Partly because you cannot do an IQ test without the knowledge of the language and culture it is set in and partly because both are connected to the capacity of learning (in one way or another).
The sooner, easier you learn, the more, earlier you may develop a sense of how to adapt yourself in certain situations (which can be linguistic or otherwise).

 

[. 1]

Intelligence Quotient or IQ is deine by Wkikpedia as "a score derived from one of several different standardized tests attempting to measure intelligence". How accurate and reliable in your view are such tests and the scores based on them, and is it worthwhile taking such a test just to know your own intellectual ability and potential? Might it even help in making career choices?

They are incredibly culturally biased.
I would fail any test written in a Mediterranean country dismally.
I have no knowledge of the million little things that go with being a Mediterranean person.
Such tests are totally language based.
An Australian child will instantly identify a question about a redback where an Arabic child has no concept and would fail that question.
An Australian asked about Outback Stations is not thinking about trains in the slightest while a German would already be looking for the timetable.

On the negative side, could such testing lead to intellectual arrogance and even to intellectual discrimination by those who have achieved high IQ scores? Also, while these tests might boost and inflate the egos of some, they might completely deflate the egos of others leading to a lack of self-confidence and self-worth.

I disagree with both possibilities.
Everybody knows exactly how smart they are.
I am not intellectually arrogant because I scored 153 on a Standardised Test.
I am intellectually arrogant because I am intellectually arrogant. I spurn test scores and standardised anythings. Rules are an average or a mean to an end.
I effectively manipulated the testing process by using Examination Techniques.
I do not think that it was fair that I could skip a question and gamble that a later question would give me a clue as to how to process the oblique question.
Sure enough the next set of questions was just the same type I had just attempted but of a more complex nature but the nature of the later question solved the puzzle of the earlier question.
In time critical tests such simple techniques can improve scores markedly and it is the final one or two questions that push the result to the edge of the Bell Curve.

I, myself, am sort of two-minded about the whole thing, as is clear from my question. How do you feel about IQ testing?

Give it a shot and keep your eyes open but understand that it means nothing.
You will learn something about the tetsting technique and this may help you to do better in tests that might actually matter.
It is all context and technique.
It is well documented that a glass of water just before you start an exam and a lolly half way through will boost your powers of concentration and this will be reflected in a better score.
I good solid meal and a good night's sleep are the same.
Some geniuses or geniusi or geniui just can't handle the pressure of exams fail miserably if they try.

Tests are square peg type of events and higher intelligence seldom enjoys strictures.

.,,