Thread: IQ Tests - Good Test of Intelligence... maybe Potential instead?

What is new? IQ tests give an indication of some type(s) of intelligence. Not some super-magical value.

Internet I.Q. tests give a very, very vague indication. But I am pretty certain most of those online I.Q. tests are made easy, for fun or something. You have to be an idiot to click on those banners anyhows : )

I doubt internet I.Q. tests all give the same score, while real I.Q. tests probably do (with the same person).

If you get good scores at IQ tests, it means you're good... at getting good scores on IQ tests.

Also, if you're a fan of the online IQ tests, ask yourself how they make their money. Usually, you pay, and they send you an "intelligence profile" or some crap, with a big red dot indicating where you figure in. Now, when are people more likely to pay for that thing, if they get a low score, or a high one? That's right...

Originally Posted by Replicon

If you get good scores at IQ tests, it means you're good... at getting good scores on IQ tests.

I partially agree with that, in that the more you take IQ tests the better adept you become at solving those sorts of problems, but it is a relatively effective indicator of someone's problem solving skills in general.

Person A has an IQ of 90, while person B has an IQ of 120. Give them some various educational books, and assuming they put the same amount of time and effort into reading those books and trying to understand them, it would make sense to me that person B would have learned and understood more.

That is probably true for a lot of people, possibly even most people, (but I doubt it) but some people would not follow this standard. Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses. A person who did well on an IQ test may have just as hard of a time trying to read the books as the other person, but may be great at rearranging shapes for some reason and doing whatever it is you are supposed to do w/ them (I took the test once, but honestly can't remember:p ). Really, a complete idiot could pass one of those things. Or a really smart person could fail it b/c they are not good test takers.

The other problem with standardized testing is that there's no such thing as standardized. That's because there's no such thing as a 'standard' person. There are cultural differences that are at the root of not just grammatical issues, but also intuition. No test design committee could possibly guess what they're missing, and that affects the results as well.

Now, when are people more likely to pay for that thing, if they get a low score, or a high one? That's right...

Honestly - I don't know. You do not need to pay to receive a score... only some crappy in-depth analysis that'll end up telling you you are good at whatever.

How about... neither? Dumb people don't care, and smart people know better, so how about the average people?

I'd like to take a real test. My IQ is somewhere in the 130s but I don't know for sure.

Cymek... 130 is below average for internet IQ tests. I made this kid who was a feckin retard take an IQ test and he got like, at least a 150.

Originally Posted by blade5x

Dumb people don't care, and smart people know better, so how about the average people?

Average people need that validation the most, I think .

Originally Posted by ataraxis

Cymek... 130 is below average for internet IQ tests. I made this kid who was a feckin retard take an IQ test and he got like, at least a 150.

About 8 years ago, when I decided to take some online IQ tests for fun, I scored between the 130s and 190s. Those scores mean absolutely nothing.

If you take a "real" test (I guess you can call it that), your results will be more consistent, in that the average will be 100, and yours will be relative to that. But unless there's a really wide difference, I don't think different IQ scores in two people mean anything. And if the difference is big enough, you don't need the IQ score to tell who's better at stuff 'in general'.

Originally Posted by ataraxis

Cymek... 130 is below average for internet IQ tests. I made this kid who was a feckin retard take an IQ test and he got like, at least a 150.

Funny post. There are about three fallacious "arguments" in there.

Originally Posted by ataraxis

Cymek... 130 is below average for internet IQ tests. I made this kid who was a feckin retard take an IQ test and he got like, at least a 150.

What? I don't remember mentioning internet IQ tests.

My IQ is 137 (I think, or at least near there last time I checked). Does that mean I'm clever? I think I'm clever.



Me clever. Og.

Originally Posted by M-Cat

Funny post. There are about three fallacious "arguments" in there.

You are fallacious n00b.

Well almost all of them are timed as well. I am not convinced you can tell who would be better at solving long complex problems based off of who can spit out the fastest answer on easier ones.

I mean sure it might give a nice base to start from. Its just that though, a base, not the final answer.

IQ is a test for logical thinking, methinks. I think it is just ONE of the ways to define intelligence. I for one do very well on the IQ tests but anything remotly social and I'm outta the window.

I think there's probably:

Logical intelligence (1+1=2)
Creative intelligence (brand-new art movement)
Emotinal intelligence (Dealing w emotions)
Social intelligence (chitchat)
and lateral intellegiance (problem-solving outta the box)

And I think all five should be displayed in a spiderweb diagram, instead of a number. As I said eariler, I probably do very well at logical intellegence but suck at social.

The only IQ test that I consider real is the Mensa one. IQ tests measure speed, memory, and ability to do logic, none of the internet ones can do that reliably.

Epic necro. :V

1 + 1 = 2 is a tautology btw, not logic.

i used to think that intelligence was the most important key to success. talking to my grandpa, who is the smartest person i know, he told me that iq is not close to eq in terms of accomplishing goals and living the life you want. i believe him.

I'm not a fan of IQ and other similar "intelligence measures," for a variety of reasons which I can more or less divide into three groups.

First, it's not at all clear to me that they are measuring "intelligence" in the first place. Here's an experiment for you all to try. Ask 10 of your friends to define intelligence. Some of them will probably attempt to define intelligence in terms of IQ; however, since this is ridiculously circular (intelligence is defined by IQ, which is a measure of intelligence, which is defined by IQ, which is a measure of intelligence, etc.), refuse to accept this definition and ask for a real one. How many definitions do you end up with? Probably very close to--or exactly--10. "Intelligence" is a fuzzily defined concept which means different things to different people. Since we can't even put a precise finger on what "intelligence" is, how can we possibly have a test to quantify it?

Second, the predictive validity of knowing a person's IQ is disturbingly low. Even the strongest correlations between IQ and objective measures of ability and achievement rarely exceed a Pearson's r of .3, meaning that knowing someone's IQ only allows you to account for at most 9% of the variance in meaningful factors such as their annual income, etc.

Third, the concept of IQ makes two presuppositions about intelligence that I find untenable. It presupposes that there is some real (or at least useful) psychological construct which we can label general intelligence in the first place, and it presupposes that this construct, if it does "exist" (quotation marks are necessary here to remind ourselves that if a construct is useful, we may as well say that it exists, even if we can't touch it), is static and immutable. My view, on the other hand, is that even if there is such a thing as general intelligence, it doesn't seem to be a very useful way to conceptualize human ability, and also that this construct is fluid to the point where it would be more accurately labeled "current general intelligence." It is a well known fact that practicing taking IQ tests repeatedly will substantially increase the IQ scores that one receives. Since it is unreasonable to assume that this practice actually increases someone's "intelligence," we are forced to conclude either that (a) IQ tests don't measure intelligence at all, but rather they simply measure one's ability to take IQ tests, or (b) that intelligence is highly fluid to the point that it's not clear that we get much out of measuring it in the first place. Neither of these conclusions bode well for purveyors of IQ testing.

Given these very serious issues, I am constantly amazed that people put so much stock into IQ tests. It's time that we stop trying to reduce people to single numbers and assess them holistically. I have no idea what my IQ is and have no interest whatsoever in finding out.

That's also why I don't put much stock in grades in school.

It's people skills and your looks that will get you ahead. People who are good looking and suave will always do better than someone ugly and stumbling. Intelligence plays a little role. I'm very smart, but I also have good people skills. I attribute my people skills and salesmenship to any of my successes a lot more than my 150+ IQ.

The problem I see with the concept of intelligence, aside from what DuB has already stated, is that it tries to fit everyone's brains into a neat little spectrum of worth relative to others. Humans are highly complex and adaptable creatures. One's state of mind depends on so much more than some arbitrary number. Not to mention this number is not innate and can potentially change.