IQ Tests

[Marm]

Are standard IQ tests really accurate? People often wonder why some people who are bright in class don't do so well in IQ tests. On the other hand, those who don't do well in class may excel in IQ tests. This doesn't mean that IQ tests aren't accurate. It only means that some people are smarter when it comes to logic and reasoning, while others have better memory skills. Because school examinations cover such a wide array of topics, it is difficult to judge the overall intelligence of a person. Students may do well for one or two subjects that they are exceptionally good at, while scoring lower marks for subjects that they are not so interested in. There are people with low IQ test scores that do very well for their exams and the reason behind this may be just that they have studied harder than others. This has nothing to do with logic and reasoning skills; it is just a matter of determination and hard work. Therefore, the definition of intelligence is a continuous debate. Any thoughts on this?

[Xei]

I think IQ is more potent than most people suspect, because pattern recognition and manipulation is an (or even the) extremely fundamental aspect of intelligence. Studies do bear out the notion that it's an objective measure of something, because people do well in disparate fields; language, logic, art: if you score highly in one you'll tend to score highly in another. This is called the 'g-factor'. Studies also show that such traits are extremely heritable. The only objections I've ever heard are on the basis of some kind of 'higher liberal values', not actual analysis of reality.

[cmind]

I think IQ is more potent than most people suspect, because pattern recognition and manipulation is an (or even the) extremely fundamental aspect of intelligence. Studies do bear out the notion that it's an objective measure of something, because people do well in disparate fields; language, logic, art: if you score highly in one you'll tend to score highly in another. This is called the 'g-factor'. Studies also show that such traits are extremely heritable. The only objections I've ever heard are on the basis of some kind of 'higher liberal values', not actual analysis of reality. I've got to agree with you. No one says that IQ is the full story, but it obviously correlates very strongly with 'real' intelligence, whatever that is. And to the OP, I reject your anecdotes about smart people having low IQs and dumb people having high IQs. I have never in my life experienced this.

[snoop]

I've got to agree with you. No one says that IQ is the full story, but it obviously correlates very strongly with 'real' intelligence, whatever that is. And to the OP, I reject your anecdotes about smart people having low IQs and dumb people having high IQs. I have never in my life experienced this. He never used the words smart or dumb? He said some people who do worse in school simply do not try, therefore receive lower grades. Some of these people happen to be more intelligent than people who receive high grades, due to hard work and studying. I see this all the time, at least in America. Hell, my year's valedictorian had literally no problem solving skills of her own. She had to cover the exact material she was going to be tested over or she could not function. She could not make an "educated guess" because she didn't know how to apply different concepts to what. Therefore, she lacked in all the critical thinking portions of tests. However, since there weren't many of those on tests, she studied basically the entire time she wasn't attending class, and she worked hard and turned all her homework in. There were a multitude of cases just like hers in my school and any of the other schools I had been to. I got 13th in my class without studying more than 2 hours in a week (and that was only junior year when I took AP US History, otherwise I never studied), doing only half of my homework, and sleeping through class. The only reason I did well at all is because I am good at taking tests. I usually got top 2/3 in whatever class I was in (bar any kind of math beyond algebra 2), if not first. I looked at the spark notes for Huckleberry Finn during study hall the day of the test over it in Honors English and I beat the girl who became valedictorian by 2 points, who likely studied her ass off, yet I only did a quick glance through at a summary. However, I will say that if I took an IQ test, I do not believe I would score anything better than above average. I am just better at retaining information I hear and see, regardless of whether or not I am actively listening or paying attention. I don't think this necessarily disproves what was said in the OP because cases like that still exist. That's not to say that that is the case for most people with low grades; rather, only a small percentage of them are actually more intelligent. Most are just as dumb as their grades are low.

[khh]

Intelligence and IQ are correlated, but not the same. When it comes to why some of the bright students don't seem to do well in IQ tests, and often simply doesn't seem to be smarter than anyone else, is because of the way school works. As you said, with hard work and determination most people will be able to get good or even excellent grades. What's more interesting, are the students who seem to be doing well in almost all subjects, but who never really does any homework. I think that if you tested them, you'd find higher than average IQ.

[Xei]

IQ is supposed to be a measure of intelligence. What does 'intelligence and IQ are correlated but not the same' mean? How are you measuring intelligence, in that case?

[khh]

IQ is supposed to be a measure of intelligence. What does 'intelligence and IQ are correlated but not the same' mean? How are you measuring intelligence, in that case? It's my view that intelligence is a very broad and complex thing. In a way it's your ability for creative problem-solving. It's the ability to connect facts and draw from them something no-one has told you, it's the ability to recognize patterns and utilize them, it's the ability to learn quickly. Creativity is a very important part of it, but not the normal "arts" creativity. More the creativity it takes to invent new technologies, new mathematical approaches and new theories of how the world works. So you could say that IQ measures part of it, but IQ does not tell you the whole story. Because a lack in the specific abilities measured by an IQ test can be made up for in other aspects. However all of these skills are related, which is what I meant by the statement. Of course, as intelligence is such a complex thing in my view, it's hard to measure numerically. But if you speak to a person and get to know them, that can often give you a hint. And if you invent something brilliant, say (to adhere to conventions) special relativity, that's really all the proof that's required. I don't think intelligence is the same thing as knowledge. I agree. But without knowledge, intelligence cannot be utilized.

[Arch]

Person A studies all his life, works very hard, achieves a PHD or something similar. Person B dosses around, gets a low paid job. Person A can be classed as intelligent, not necessarily have a high IQ. Person B is classed as unintelligent, but could have an extremely high IQ. IQ in my opinion is a measure of Natural Intelligence.

[Quantiq]

Well there isn't really an exact definition for intelligence however the Intelligence Quotient is quite close. I agree, however, that people who may do well in school may not excel on IQ tests and the same vice versa. In my opinion, just because someone is able to remember and understand concepts (basically being able to regurgitate information) does not show someone's overall intelligence. A huge aspect of someone's intelligence is the creation of new ideas and concepts. Public schooling in general does not encourage this type of creativity. Anyway, apart from the diagnosis of MR and neato statistics which confirm common sense (such as higher crime rate the lower your IQ), I think IQ does not serve much of a purpose. The tests are extremely subjective and they have an extreme amount of variability. Just my thoughts.

[Xei]

Person A studies all his life, works very hard, achieves a PHD or something similar. Person B dosses around, gets a low paid job. Person A can be classed as intelligent, not necessarily have a high IQ. Person B is classed as unintelligent, but could have an extremely high IQ. IQ in my opinion is a measure of Natural Intelligence. I don't think intelligence is the same thing as knowledge.

[Quantiq]

I don't think intelligence is the same thing as knowledge. Well some people mistake intelligence for success.

[Marm]

I don't think intelligence is the same thing as knowledge. I always thought intelligence is the innate ability to generate new ideas based on one's previous knowledge and experience. But nowadays in schools, a kid could be branded "smart" or "intellgent" simply by being able to recall stuff they've learned. In fact, a few days ago everyone thought this guy in my class was intelligent just because he remembered the binomial expansion formula.

[Puffin]

I always thought intelligence is the innate ability to generate new ideas based on one's previous knowledge and experience. But nowadays in schools, a kid could be branded "smart" or "intellgent" simply by being able to recall stuff they've learned. In fact, a few days ago everyone thought this guy in my class was intelligent just because he remembered the binomial expansion formula. I agree with you. But now that begs the question, how can one truly tell whether they're "intelligent" or not based on your explanation?

[Xei]

A more interesting issue than the link between IQ and intelligence (most people seem to agree they're pretty synonymous) is the link between intelligence, creativity, and curiosity. I have always thought that people vastly underestimate their intelligence. I think the reality is, once you reach a kind of 'critical mass' that allows you to think about your own thought processes, there is a very large amount you can achieve. The issue is just how motivated you are. I swear, if everybody was smart enough to learn the underlying reasons for whatever they're learning about, instead of trying to memorise it as a deluge of disparate facts, they'd be fine. Just reduce stuff to a simple, intuitive chain. And for anything they're learning that really is just a list of disparate facts (like the names and dates), which really constitutes only a minor aspect of education and arguably doesn't count as knowledge at all, just use various mnemonic techniques. But people just aren't bothered to put in the effort, despite the large gains, and then excuse their poor performance on various factors like their genes or their teachers. Richard Feynman was once measured as having an IQ of only 125, but went on to win a Nobel Prize for his work in theoretical physics. A common theme in all of his discourse is his reduction of complex phenomena to the intuitive atomic components that any idiot could understand. The man just knew how to think properly. He also had curiosity, which engendered the drive within him, and creativity, which led to his creation of new things. But I think these two factors could be quite separate; they appear to be, within the animal kingdom. Also when speculating about their neurological bases, they seem very different. Creativity has a mechanism that is easily conjectured; a basal level of random neuronal firing. This would periodically connect disparate symbols in the brain. Perhaps this is what hypnagogic imagery is. But a reductionist account of curiosity, which is essentially motivation for knowledge, is in my opinion hard to create. This applies to all aspects of motivation and desire really, and as this is crucial to free will perhaps it's not surprising that it's not easy to explain. It's the ability to connect facts and draw from them something no-one has told you, Pattern recognition. it's the ability to learn quickly. Pattern recognition. Creativity is a very important part of it, but not the normal "arts" creativity. Pattern recognition and extrapolation. Or to elaborate: this accounts for the ability to select intelligently from mental creations. It's worth bearing in mind that we developed all of these facets, historically, in an extremely short period of time, and they had never been seen in nature before. This, alongside the aforementioned g-factor and its heritability, suggests a single novel phenomenon. One of the standout features of our ancestors, the great apes and primates, is a highly developed visual system and spacial intelligence. It's my very speculative contention that intelligence could have arisen from some kind of variation in the visual system. I always thought intelligence is the innate ability to generate new ideas based on one's previous knowledge and experience. But nowadays in schools, a kid could be branded "smart" or "intellgent" simply by being able to recall stuff they've learned. In fact, a few days ago everyone thought this guy in my class was intelligent just because he remembered the binomial expansion formula. I think you characterised it very well. I agree with you. But now that begs the question, how can one truly tell whether they're "intelligent" or not based on your explanation? IQ test?

[cmind]

I have always thought that people vastly underestimate their intelligence.

[Xei]

Why facepalm? That is exactly my experience of people. Y'know, from conversations.

[Pandabear]

A facepalm?! Oh, I can see it now! I've always thought it was an ass. Look, I'm not intelligence at all!

[Photolysis]

I have always thought that people vastly underestimate their intelligence. Actually, this only tends to happen with more intelligent people. I can only make guesses as to the people you associate with, and who you're basing this on, but without further information I'm not surprised you've come to this conclusion. Certainly I've found in my own experience that the less intelligent people I know tend to believe themselves to be more rational and intelligent than they are.

[Xei]

Actually, this only tends to happen with more intelligent people once you reach a kind of 'critical mass' that allows you to think about your own thought processes" Also, Dunning-Kruger is more about how good people are at rating their own performance. In the real world where most analysis is done by external events (e.g. examinations), people of all intelligences have a grasp of their objective performance. What I'm talking about is everybody being able to raise their performance significantly if they knew how and were willing to put in the effort. If you're below the level of intelligence required to even analyse your own learning, then this would require somebody constantly telling you how to do it, but for everybody else above that, once they understood what was required, I think they'd be a lot less pessimistic about their potential performance.

[Alric]

If you work very hard all your life and study and expand your mind, your IQ does increase. On the other hand, if you are a bum and you don't do anything and basically let your brain turn to mush, then your IQ will decrease. IQ doesn't usually change much because people often go with the status quo and continue on with whatever they were doing. I think if you look at students who don't do much to study but still receive good grades, they are probably doing other things to improve memory and intelligence. It seems unlikely that a person sits at home watching sitcoms all day, and doesn't study, and then also gets very good grades. Some people do focus on one very specific thing and I have no doubt that a person can be very intelligent in a single area, and then be a lot less competent in other areas. Though I think Xei has the right idea mentioning general intelligence. If you do a lot of things to engage and workout your mind, and really learn stuff, your overall general intelligence will improve in all areas. The brain is all about interconnections, and if you build up a lot of connections between thoughts and ideas, you will recognize patterns quicker and be better able to solve problems. I think one of the reasons IQ tests are not seen in a very good light some times, is because people just don't like tests. IQ is the measure of intelligence compared to others of your age. So it would be nice if they had like an IQ game, then you could compete against other people, and the result of multiple games would predict your IQ. Though even then it would have some flaws, since people could get used to the game by doing it very often. Though perhaps if they developed a game where the rules changed during play and you had to adept on the fly, that would solve some of it.

[Wayfaerer]

I think Xei said it all. My guess is that there is a sort of mechanical like intelligence that is more dependent on the physical aspects of your genes and neurology (like memory, pattern recognition) that can be influenced and directed by another level of intelligence that is more dependent on your accumulated experience, thoughts, and attitudes (like curiosity and motivation) that make up your philosophy. Albert Einstein was no math dummy, but relative to his peers in the scientific community he didn't seem at all exceptional. He genuinely wanted to probe nature's mysteries and generally ignored social standards of intelligence. He knew what to overlook in school and the scientific community because of his passionate curiousity, integrity, imagination (although this may have been more of a product of his neurology), and motivation. Essentially his philosophical direction is what made him so successful, though raw memorization and calculation was an integral part which he often said he painstakingly struggled through. I swear, if everybody was smart enough to learn the underlying reasons for whatever they're learning about, instead of trying to memorise it as a deluge of disparate facts [illusion of intelligence], they'd be fine. Just reduce stuff to a simple, intuitive chain. This is the kind of philosophical intelligence I'm talking about! lol

[Wayfaerer]

They do, their philosophy just blocks them from using it lol

[Xei]

Oh I see, you were just being cynical.

[cmind]

Oh I see, you were just being cynical. Not at all. I think you vastly overestimate your intelligence, in every way.

[Xei]

Well that's very interesting, thanks for your thoughts. Fortunately I'm satisfied enough with my current academic achievements to not be bothered too much by a stranger on the internet. But do you have any specific reasons for your contentions, or is it just intuition?