Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence      Home login  
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 76
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligencePage 4 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
I am just wondering how a high IQ individual changes a diaper. Is GQ4 or Sm 3 that determines her/his ability? Or do do these highly ordained individuals always find somebody else to deal with their mechanics, dishes, relationships, walking, turning off the lights, fixing the furnace, plowing their highways, stopping the dripping tap, raking the fallen get the point? How about a high fever? Or a very difficult word for a simple one? Yikes, we are so complicated yet so lacking. Human beings I mean, not my cat! Lots of learning occurs when you change a diaper by! the! way!
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 77
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/1/2008 12:36:33 AM
No and yes. IQ should be determined by your ability to appreciate and respect differences and abililities profoundly. No flippancy wanted. I have found that the more facile and intelligent the person is... the less flexibility and empathy they sometimes demonstrate for the less well endowed. They become circles within circles within circles of supposed intelligence.
Joined: 11/3/2007
Msg: 78
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/1/2008 1:30:09 PM
I asked my Psych prof, Bill Dragon if you want to look him up, today what he thought of IQ tests. He said that he dislikes the way most people think it refers to g (which came up in class today). He said that IQ tests measure exactly what IQ tests are designed to measure, namely IQ. He said that in the psychological community, that intelligence is actually defined, in a very literal way, in terms of IQ. To put it bluntly: how intelligent someone is refers specifically to how well they can do on an IQ test. Using it for any other purpose raises questions of how generalizable an IQ test is. He said that while that doesn't mean IQ tests tell you nothing, it does mean that you need to be careful about correlation and causation and how far you go when generalizing. Trying to use IQ to predict math test scores, for example, is probably not a bad idea. Using it to predict job prefeormance is not as good of an idea.

He did also want to stress the point that IQ tests are only one tool of many. Several analogies later, he came to his point that IQ is only part of g. It is dangerous to assume its all of g, but it is fool hardy to think it isn't part of it either.
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 79
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/2/2008 10:47:49 PM
I have a problem with Bill Dragon's definition. If they do well on the IQ test why isn't the result generalizable? and then the rest of your quote of his remarks is pure smoke and mirrors. What in the world does correlation and causation have to do with generalizing? Frankly most people do not understand math because they had very poor mathematics instructors. What did I miss? What is g.? And, also,how do you use IQ tests in a constructive, positive manner? Do not have the time to look g. up. In general is democratic and all participants valuable.
Joined: 11/3/2007
Msg: 80
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/4/2008 2:25:33 AM
In psychology g is the abstract concept that represents all cognitive ability. It came up when Spearman first noticed that grades in unrelated courses were correlated. He proposed that there is something more than just skill in a particular subject that contributes to performance in that subject. So g was defined to be everything except skill in a subject that accounted for what you know about it.

As far as what Bill said, you're right, he was just stressing what we learned in class that day. It boils down to scoring well on an IQ test means you are intelligent. A person with high intelligence is defined to be someone who will score highly on an IQ test. He was telling us that g is a very useful tool in job analysis, since it is a good predictor for nearly every job. He stressed though that intelligence isn't the most important part of g and in many cases isn't giving you the part of it you want. However, IQ tests are significantly less expensive for a company to administer than any other measure of g. So in many situations just testing IQ is sufficient because it is a good enough measure of g that it should correlate to the portion of g that you want to measure for a specific job.

The correlation/causation point that he brought up was mostly to stress that having a high IQ is positively correlated with some things and negatively correlated with others. However, things like word exposure at a young age, family wealth, higher grades at school, etc all have positive correlations with IQ. That doesn't mean the high IQ caused any of them, or that any of them caused the high IQ.
 The other guy
Joined: 1/19/2008
Msg: 81
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/4/2008 5:02:46 PM
Even though some of the discussion here is detailed and interesting dribble from active minds, I can't imagine anything more intelligent than cheating if I was forced to take an IQ test that has real world consequences. Even if I was able to complete an IQ test with a 100 % score, what would that say about me? It would say at the very best, I have a mind like a computer with some extremely juicy software or it would indicate nothing it was designed to, if I cheated. Or would it? If I cheated and the examiner never knew, boy would he feel stupid standing next to me eh? I aced their test and now I can reap the rewards as all those idiots who value it listen to everything I say. Who really would be the intelligent one in this case?

I venture to say that "IQ" as measured by the social sciences is more a measure of proficiency than intelligence. That's why most intelligent people refer to them as proficiency tests. Take a look at the people who make these tests up...Without a doubt they are very proficient, (ie: good analytical ability, with vast resources of empirical information at there disposal) but many of them are not that intelligent. It will take a bit more than proficiency to quantify something as elusive as intelligence. It may be the case that proficiency is one aspect of intelligence, but it is by no means the only component. Thinking outside a set of given criteria, usually yields the most intelligent answers, even if they are not the answers you hoped for...such is do you put that into a multiple choice scenario? Maybe the ideal IQ test needs also to include a method of quantifying peoples creativity (among other things). Hmm, how do we do that? Quantify creativity? Is that a contradiction of terms somehow in relation to tests?

If you think IQ tests really measure intelligence you need to broaden your horizons, loose the pretentiousness of a sophomore, temper your social science education w/ some philosophy courses, or at the very least get a better understanding of the elusive thing you are trying to quantify before you design tests and wrongly advertise you have everything figured out and argue from some implied and multifaceted sense of intellectual authority.

Labeling proficiency tests as IQ tests has had hurtful results on people: As a small example, the OP... He like many others, feel intimidated by the idea that it may be possible to quantify their intelligence and therefore be judged as dumb compared to some of his peers. Not wanting to feel inferior to anyone, he immediately tells us how smart he is by mentioning his IQ test results (130) which he also seems to use to lend an element of authority to his argument that the whole idea of IQ is nonsense in the first place...What a joke. Maybe he would score better next time if he didn't have self confidence issues.
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 82
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/4/2008 8:36:21 PM
Some test well, many don't. The sign of intelligence I like best is one's ability to demonstrate humility and respect the variety of intelligence that makes this belaboured earth turn on its axis. Now if you administer IQ tests in job situations why are the administrators of our resources, politics, policies, etc. etc. so...besotted...or is it even plainly stupid? Did they score high on IQ tests?
 The other guy
Joined: 1/19/2008
Msg: 83
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/4/2008 10:21:39 PM
I demonstrated humility...just not my
Joined: 11/3/2007
Msg: 84
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/6/2008 2:42:25 PM
You're free to continue to bash this test, other guy. In fact, you are fully welcome to ignore all your critics as well. I'd just appreciate it if you didn't feel a compelling need to convert others to your point of view.

Within the context of cognitive psychology, intelligence has a specific meaning that is different from what lay people use. Within the context of cognitive psychology, intelligence is defined as what is measured by an IQ test. It doesn't mean any more, it doesn't mean any less. You are welcome to debate the merits of jargon all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that when people refer to IQ tests they are talking about something different than what you mean when you say intelligence. And by all means, if you feel as though there is a better measure of how well people score on IQ tests than their score on an IQ test, feel free to revolutionize the scientific community.

As far as the assertions of cheating and the test "measuring proficiency," it is clear you have not had the benefit of taking an IQ test yourself. IQ tests are specifically designed in such a way that it isn't possible to cheat on them. When taking the digit span portion of the test, for example, you are sitting in a chair with a doctor looking at you. You are then given a set of strings of numbers to remember and repeat with various transformations. You are completely allowed to use mnemonic devices, use your fingers as a memory aid, or anything else you can come up with. It's testing your working memory, it's not exactly something you can cheat on. Similarly, the section of the test for the symbol search is where you basically play connect the dots, except they don't make a picture. If you can come up with a way to cheat on that, be my guest.

Further, as far as scoring is concerned, the most common test, the WAIS, does not print out scores that exceed a certain predefined constant. If your score would've landed at a higher level, it prints out "above 140" or "above 160" or whatever the maximum the test can accurately measure. Once that threshold is crossed, there are other tests that can be used to measure intelligence, but after the next "level" of testing, there just isn't a way to quantify it. You simply get to join the ranks of one of the less than 100 prodigious savants that exist and get to basically do whatever you want with your life, unbeholden to the world like us mere mortals.

IQ tests aren't a measure of who tests well and who doesn't. They are methods developed for the purpose of determining certain brain functions. That's why the score you would receive at age 12 is the same as the one you would receive at age 80. Any drift between these scores (without significant trauma) stems from testing error and test designers admit that. They are constantly refining the IQ tests that are administered so that they are better able to measure what they attempt to measure.

However, I would venture a guess that they are already very good at what they claim to do. As a demonstration of this point, the correlation between "job success" (an I/O psych term that means you are able to do a job you are hired to do) and IQ is roughly .40, regardless of the job. That number does fluctuate based on specifics of the job, however in testing done from soldiers to professional, athletes, to politicians and to factory workers, the correlation is still higher than any other single factor. What that means is that roughly 40% of "job success" can be attributable to something that is measured by an IQ test. So whatever criticisms you have of the test, it doesn't change the fact that it works.
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 85
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/6/2008 9:50:14 PM
O.k. in your fine argument it works. But where in the world are all these people with high IQs? In labs? In government? Anyways why so much dialogue on this matter? Humbly, I think they are all in airy fields such as science, astronomy, physics etc. and definitely not getting their hands dirty. Now that is smart, right?
Joined: 8/1/2008
Msg: 86
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/7/2008 5:45:22 PM
As someone who scored absurdly high on almost all the IQ tests available, I'd say they are fairly accurate but mostly just crap. Many of my friends (including me) that took the test and scored high, are not nearly as successful as some of my friends that didn't do so well. But success is subjective I guess.

In response to people who say anyone can do well at one if they practice, the point of an IQ test is that you're not supposed to practice, it doesn't test proficiency at a particular skill or knowledge even, it tests intelligence.
 The other guy
Joined: 1/19/2008
Msg: 87
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/9/2008 11:54:12 PM
"As far as the assertions of cheating and the test "measuring proficiency," it is clear you have not had the benefit of taking an IQ test yourself. IQ tests are specifically designed in such a way that it isn't possible to cheat on them."

It is clear that you have not had the benefit of meeting a cheater before and recognizing it unless they hit you on the back of the head with a shovel (at least not a smart cheater anyways). I wonder if you could extrapolate a formula as to what IQ is necessary to consistently identify cheaters. Would it be something like 30 points over the cheaters IQ (assuming he wasn't cheating at the time of his rating). What kind of IQ would you need to recognize the cheat? Or could it be just a matter of money? For someone with a high IQ, that wouldn't be a problem either since you suggest they can easily obtain mass quantities of that too. If it was advantageous for the test subject to score low, or be in a specific range, no doubt would even pass through your mind that the subject was cheating...or would it? What if I took the test for the soul purpose of scoring low thereby getting you to underestimate me in some way? Or further yet, even if you suspect this, the results of the test are not strictly subject to the initial criteria of the they are subject to a judgment call on the part of the administrators...The real results seem to be deviating further and further away from anything that the designers intended.

I'd like to say it would be foolish to assume that it's impossible to cheat on a IQ test. Ever hear the old saying, "anything made by man, can be broken by man?" It seems to me that those that assume the most, know the least. I'd bet dollars to donuts, I'd have an easier time cheating on an IQ test than knocking off a bank, and in some instances cheating on an IQ test may yield a higher return especially if everyone starts buying into their validity. Now if I was a cheater, I'd tell you how smart you are and how insightful your tests were...or would I?

It's the infinite possibilities that only our imaginations can finger, that can never be accounted for in some test you can throw my way. I don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out....hopefully neither do you. For all you academics out there, this may shed some light on the Flynn effect. Why is it that test results are getting better over the generations? Its the socialization factor, I bet.

Since it would be inherently dangerous to put the kind of power you are looking for into the hands of a few, I dare not tell you the best ways of circumventing modern IQ tests. Cheating is just one of the variables IQ tests do not account for. There are others, and surprising few idiots dare mention them. To even suggest that you have the power that you really don't is almost as bad. I'm not saying that's its impossible to create a much better IQ test, I'm just saying that it will do more bad than good in any modern society, and I'd be just another malignant socially irresponsible individual if I gave up here.

The other guy.
PS: I do have a problem with the jargon...It's dangerous too. Words can be powerful and lend authority where none is deserved.
 The other guy
Joined: 1/19/2008
Msg: 88
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/10/2008 12:00:11 AM
Oh yeah,

If you are concerned with accessing certain brain functions, go back to school and try biology next time.
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 89
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/13/2008 8:54:47 PM
Other guy. and day dreamer....what was your most intelligent response to a difficult situation in your obviously short lives? I am ahead of you but for myself it was dealing with weakness in a constructive way. Now this is hard to do. Apart from outwitting scientific and scientific and scientific and logical, logical, logical and mechanical, mechanical, mechanical, what was the most intelligent response to a difficult situation you have experienced?? Never mind IQ tests, what is intelligence? Anytime? Everytime?
Joined: 10/8/2007
Msg: 90
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/19/2008 10:20:20 PM
I took an IQ test once and didn't do very well but that might have had something to do with I filled in the dots to do quite a proficient picture of Goofy.

I was talking to someone about memory and I'm not sure if it applies but maybe.

I have a horrible memory and would likely score low on anything that involved short term/working memory. I get by because I'm a very good problem solver and never relied on my memory to solve problems. I come up with my own solutions rather than regurgitating anyone else's.

Now the person I was talking to has an excellent short term/working memory. I was commenting on how jealous I was that they had this recall. They then mentioned that they required this recall because they were not good at solving problems. They actually felt a little jealous of me because of the intuitive way I can solve problems while they needed to rely on their memory and basically, the work of others.

She is also better than me at following instruction but it's not a big issue because I don't require a lot of instruction.

Very interesting....

So basically, if you plopped us on an island with no books to refer to, I'd be the one most likely to invent everything we required while she would be reliant on me. We are both smart just in different ways but in this situation, I'd excel.

In a classroom setting, she would be more likely to excel than I would because I wouldn't want to listen to all the details or memorize them. I'd want to figure it all out myself and work on my own. I'd most likely be considered a discipline issue.

I'm thinking she'd probably score higher on an IQ test due to her recall and time to respond. I have no sense of time and would feel pressured having that constriction put on me.

In school she did better than me but in career I do better than her.

It makes me think that IQ is hooey. Different intelligences perform better per their environment. Our environment is diverse enough that you could easily miss a highly intelligent person just because of the environment you were testing them in and the pressures they felt they were under while you did it. Whether a person is intelligent or not is really kind of based on perspective.
Joined: 7/30/2008
Msg: 91
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/19/2008 11:02:12 PM
hey jackass, I don't give a damn about what I got on IQ tests, I just said that to dismiss the idiots who typically like to claim I was jealous of other peoples scores, kind of like you mentioned in your second sentence. youll notice that i didnt take this to mean anything special, and stated that pretty much any idiot off the street could score 130+ with practice

funny you should mention pretentiousness, you sound like quite the 'sophomoric a-hole' yourself right about now. and funny you should say that this represents 'insecurity', because if i used my 'scores' to denote intelligence in respect to others then id have the arrogant belief that i had some innate genetic advantage over the vast majority, which i dont hold at all. you even said that it makes no sense that im using it for my argument that IQ tests are worthless. thats right, because im actually not

so im not sure why youd randomly try to bother me with something that doesnt even make any sense

Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 92
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/20/2008 12:48:59 AM
Well here is something irespire(?) for your consideration. You get more bees with honey than you do with vinegar. Absolute genius. So true. Look at your picture and you are so young. It is really easy to be smart when you are young. Anyhow I was told today that honeybees are disappearing on the face of this earth and THAT their pollination is crucial to some great percentage of our world's food output. Now all you geniuses out there, figure this out. Stupid is us.
Joined: 7/30/2008
Msg: 93
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/20/2008 8:29:22 AM
i wasnt referring to you, fyi

but yeah human civilization does some damn stupid things
Joined: 10/23/2007
Msg: 94
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/20/2008 12:52:30 PM
After half a century of attending class reunions, at least among my former classmates, the ones with high IQ scores were successful in careers requiring higher intelligence, and with only a couple of exceptions, the ones with lower IQ scores were only successful at manual labor, and made less money. Those two exceptions are a couple of drug pushers who just haven't got caught yet. You'll have to dispel half a century of reality to prove that IQ does not determine intelligence. Over the decades, I can recall this same argument being brought up frequently and a number of folks trying to prove otherwise, but all of their efforts were eventually abandoned because they always had the same result. Some people are just smarter than others. Why do some people work so hard to avoid truth?
Joined: 7/30/2008
Msg: 95
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/20/2008 4:11:45 PM
Because it's nonsense.

Those who do 'higher level jobs' (which arguably, do not necessarily require real broad 'intelligence', just proficiency at usually repetitive tasks) are on average more adjusted to modern lifestyles, faster paced, and most likely take the tests a lot more seriously, etc. 'Realty' isn't just "Oh, it's reality because that's what everyone thinks"

Nobody is denying that some people are smarter than others, especially in specific areas. But to say 'IQ' has anything to do with intelligence is pretty lame. You're confusing correlation with causation.
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 96
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/20/2008 5:30:20 PM
IQ certainly has its uses, particularly in education. It makes perfect sense to me to use standardized testing to determine if a child needs to be placed in special education, whether above or below the average, to determine that said child is being challenged enough to ensure growth. I don't know enough to argue one way or the other about the validity of using test scores later in life, but I do know that many businesses/schools have enough faith in them to use them as part of the screening process.

I do think it's a joke that people turn their IQ score into some sort of pissing contest, particularly across the Internet, where anyone can be whoever they want to be. IMO mentioning one's IQ is a lot like mentioning one's penis size, and should be left to middle school locker rooms.
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 97
view profile
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/21/2008 3:58:53 PM
RE msg 1 by Irespire:
As someone who has scored very high, I could not believe the questions I was seeing. They expect THIS to be a determinant of something so complex and deep? THIS? And yes, I'm talking about a 'real' IQ test, administered by a 'licensed psychologist', not that I think much of that profession. An average Joe could score 130+ if they practiced and put their mind to it.
I think you underestimate your intelligence, and overestimate how difficult it is to achieve what you take for granted.

I once took a basic logic test as an extrance exam for a computer programming course, which was designed to test your ability to do computer programming. The questions started out incredibly easy, but got more and more complex as you got through the questions. Before the exam, we were offered coffee, and next to me was a very good-looking chap, who obviously had a very good physique, so he was good at exercise, and probably sports, and was very confident, and very chatty. He was sure he'd do well. After the course, I heard him say in a very dismayed tone that he couldn't even complete the first question.

I saw the same things in university, and even in my own family.

Some people really find certain things incredibly easy and other things incredibly hard. There are more people who are great at sports or socialising and apalling at Maths, or other academic subjects, than you might think.

About 'IQ tests being a predictor of success in life', that might be true if you narrowly define success as 'monetary earnings', because those who are the best at (and don't mind) doing repetitive, boring, but sometimes minorly technically involved tasks at high efficacy usually make the most money.
An American psychologist wrote a book called The Bell Curve, that contended that the more the IQ, the bigger the income. However, this was very controversial. So the American Psychological Association investigated the issue and prepared a thorough report. This is one of their conclusions:
The American Psychological Association's report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns[15] states that IQ scores account for about one-fourth of the social status variance and one-sixth of the income variance. Statistical controls for parental SES eliminate about a quarter of this predictive power. Psychometric intelligence appears as only one of a great many factors that influence social outcomes.[15]

I love how they've also linked IQ to 'genetics'
Actually, one of the few things that are strongly related to IQ is the IQ of your parents:
The role of genes and environment (nature and nurture) in determining IQ is reviewed in Plomin et al. (2001, 2003).[13] Until recently heritability was mostly studied in children. Various studies find the heritability of IQ between 0.4 and 0.8 in the United States;[14][15][16] that is, depending on the study, a little less than half to substantially more than half of the variation in IQ among the children studied was due to variation in their genes. The remainder was thus due to environmental variation and measurement error. A heritability in the range of 0.4 to 0.8 implies that IQ is "substantially" heritable.

but also find that certain races have much lower 'IQ's'. Yet they don't want to say that black people are 'inferior' in line with their bizarrely skewed conclusions because it would make them look nuts, so they just ignore it. Well, except, was it....Francis Crick? Or Watson? The old guy recently under fire in the news for saying some racist stuff.
I have made objective observations about this comment by Francis Crick before on this site. Yet I got attacked for people claiming I was racist. I just believe that you cannot bring your emotions to work with you, and certainly not in science. You cannot easily advance science without professionalism, and professionalism includes that you don't react emotionally to anything without weighing it up first.

The 'race' discrepancy really just shows that IQ is a function of learning environment and family. Ultimately, it also is a self-fulfilling prophecy...if you judge a kid at a young age, chances are that he or she will also develop slowly because of that judgment which carries over to parents and teachers and whatnot.
It makes a lot of sense to say that how you grow up and how your family treat you, affects your levels of intelligence. But studies seem to suggest that adopted children take after their biological parent's IQ, not their adopted parents' IQ:
In the developed world, nearly all personality traits show that, contrary to expectations, environmental effects actually cause non-related children raised in the same family ("adoptive siblings") to be as different as children raised in different families (Harris, 1998; Plomin & Daniels, 1987). There are some family effects on the IQ of children, accounting for up to a quarter of the variance. However, by adulthood, this correlation disappears, such that adoptive siblings are not more similar in IQ than strangers.[14] For IQ, adoption studies show that, after adolescence, adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers (IQ correlation near zero), while full siblings show an IQ correlation of 0.6. Twin studies reinforce this pattern: monozygotic (identical) twins raised separately are highly similar in IQ (0.86), more so than dizygotic (fraternal) twins raised together (0.6) and much more than adoptive siblings (~0.0).[15]

I end this post with a great quote:

"If . . . the impression takes root that these tests really measure intelligence, that they constitute a sort of last judgment on the child's capacity, that they reveal "scientifically" his predestined ability, then it would be a thousand times better if all the intelligence testers and all their questionnaires were sunk without warning in the Sargasso Sea."

-Walter Lippman
The most famous IQ test is probably the Stanford-Binet IQ test, which is actually the "Stanford Revision of the Binet-Simon Scale", the "Stanford-Binet", for short, where the "Binet-Simon scale" was actually the Binet-Simon tests, which were developed by Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon. So you could consider Alfred Binet as the father of IQ tests. Here is what Alfred Binet said about it:
Alfred Binet, a French psychologist, did not believe that IQ test scales qualified to measure intelligence. He neither invented the term "intelligence quotient" nor supported its numerical expression. He stated:

The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured. (Binet 1905)

Binet had designed the Binet-Simon intelligence scale in order to identify students who needed special help in coping with the school curriculum. He argued that with proper remedial education programs, most students regardless of background could catch up and perform quite well in school. He did not believe that intelligence was a measurable fixed entity.

Binet cautioned:

Some recent thinkers seem to have given their moral support to these deplorable verdicts by affirming that an individual's intelligence is a fixed quantity, a quantity that cannot be increased. We must protest and react against this brutal pessimism; we must try to demonstrate that it is founded on nothing.[82]

While IQ tests might measure basic proficiency and speed in answering basic questions related to popular areas of life, they do not really give an accurate assessment of a person's 'intelligence', which involves many factors. An IQ test is just that, a test, and your results can be improved by practice or condition, or reduced by lack thereof.

My conclusions:

What we can see with IQ tests, is that although there isn't that much difference between people who differ by only a few IQ points, a difference of 10 points can make it much more difficult to be understood, and we start to see some real differences in personality and approaches to different subjects. When you get to as much as a difference of 30 points, you are often talking about 2 completely different people, very different in personality and in approach to every subject.

Those differences are just that, differences. Tall people have a longer reach. Short people have a lower centre of gravity that gives them much better support. It is much easier for a tall person to ride a horse. But a short person cannot be knocked over as easily, and can take knocks easier, because of that lower centre of gravity. So each one has his advantages.

Light skin and blue eyes are much better for absorbing vitamin D, and for surviving in a cold environment. Dark skin and dark eyes are better for a hot environment. So each one has his advantages.

The same goes for levels of IQ. There are plenty of jobs that are vital for our society, that people of lower IQs will refuse but others will do, and there are plenty of jobs that are vital for our society, that people of average IQs will refuse but others will do, and there are plenty of jobs that are vital for our society, that people of high IQs will refuse but others will do. There are always jobs that need people of each level of IQ, and so the people on every level of IQ are just as vital for our society.

However, that is not the way that we perceive people. If people resemble our European aristocratic forbears, or at least the image they wanted us to see them as, we tend to think of them as superior in all ways, as if they could do all the jobs that everyone else does, if they wanted to, as well as their own jobs. Caucasian appearance, tall in height, high IQ, these are all stereotypes of the European aristocracy, that were just there to project an image of superiority.

It is not that we cannot change our IQs by a large extent. It is just that we rarely want to. I am often reminded of the film by Bette Davis, "The Corn is Green", about a teacher in a Welsh mining town, who encourages a young boy who just doesn't do very well in the mines, yet clearly has a natural intelligence and a sensitivity to his surroundings. He ends up going to university. After he completes his studies, he longs for home. So he goes home and works in the mines. But he no longer fits in with his family and friends. In the end, Bette Davis advises him to leave and never come back, because he will always be a failure there, but in the world outside, where his intelligence will be appreciated, he will be a success.

Smarter doesn't mean better. But smart people don't fit well with jobs and environments of lower IQs, and vice versa. So changing your IQ by a large amount, usually means you have to change your friends, your social circle, your topics of conversation, your interests, and your career, and sometimes, even where you live. So it is rare that we want to change our IQ by a large degree, because the personal cost outweighs the benefits.

It is wise to realise that we are all vital to our society, and we all have a valid contribution to make, so no-one is superior because they have a high IQ, or even an average IQ.

However, it is also wise to realise that different levels of IQ give us different abilities, and so it is also important to find out each person's strengths and weaknesses, so they can find fulfilling careers and lives, and so they do not become a "square peg in a round hole".
Joined: 7/30/2008
Msg: 98
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/21/2008 10:38:54 PM
ill post tomorrow i dont feel well now
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 99
view profile
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/21/2008 10:42:22 PM

ill post tomorrow i dont feel well now

Thank goodness you let us know. Now I can go to bed, rather than wait. Whew.
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 100
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 10/21/2008 11:06:14 PM
The education system combined with the economic system destroy in the long run. Occasionally a few get through these formidable obstacles but not enough. Who were the geniuses who structured the sub-prime crisis in the U.S.A? Not some working class joe. And if they were, who supported their need to triumph in monetary gains? Primarily the education system that wholeheartedly supports the status quo. Education's main job should be to teach students to read and write. Then as Pink Floyd so aptly phrased..."Leave those kids alone" and presently they do not do a very good job of distilling the potential wisdom of reading and writing which leads to THINKING.
Anyway, this does not address poor parenting either. Oh yes, and genes too. Vive la difference.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence