3 ms·

What is the name of the IQ test you took? Intelligence really isn't "multi-faceted" (read Gardner's own admission that his theory never panned out) and it isn'

What is the name of the IQ test you took? Intelligence really isn't "multi-faceted" (read Gardner's own admission that his theory never panned out) and it isn't ill-understood (refer to the Nature or Nurture interview with Nancy Segal on YouTube). There's two reasons people say that. One is, they fared badly on a test and want to dismiss it, and the other is, they fared well on a test and are bashful about it. Also, IQ tests are meant to measure a person's intelligence, not to convince them that IQ tests are "a good idea" - for that you would have to study Psychometrics.

arethuza 11y ago
"it isn't ill-understood" I worked on AI research for a number of years and my strong opinion is that our understanding of general intelligence is, as some wit put it, "pre-Newtonian".
- themetrician 11y ago
  AI research has nothing whatsoever to do with Psychometrics so you are not qualified to opine.
Mz 11y ago
IQ tests are somewhat ridiculous to begin with. The first tests that eventually became IQ tests were not intended to measure intelligence. They were intended to measure school readiness of rural children whose birthdates were often not known with certainty. The lack of clear birthdates meant an age cut off could not be used and rural children faced cultural differences from kids in the big city (namely: Paris) that created inherent challenges to them fitting in and doing well in school. Intelligence is neither well defined nor well understood. It is fairly controversial stuff.
- themetrician 11y ago
  You argument is a non-sequitur. How an idea started bears no relevance to what it represents today. IQ is not what is used to be, as you correctly point out; it is now considered to represent intelligence. This is only controversial in the political sense, but there is no scientific controversy, and the definition of g is broadly accepted.

arethuza 11y ago

"it isn't ill-understood" I worked on AI research for a number of years and my strong opinion is that our understanding of general intelligence is, as some wit put it, "pre-Newtonian".

themetrician 11y ago
AI research has nothing whatsoever to do with Psychometrics so you are not qualified to opine.

Mz 11y ago

IQ tests are somewhat ridiculous to begin with. The first tests that eventually became IQ tests were not intended to measure intelligence. They were intended to measure school readiness of rural children whose birthdates were often not known with certainty. The lack of clear birthdates meant an age cut off could not be used and rural children faced cultural differences from kids in the big city (namely: Paris) that created inherent challenges to them fitting in and doing well in school. Intelligence is neither well defined nor well understood. It is fairly controversial stuff.

themetrician 11y ago
You argument is a non-sequitur. How an idea started bears no relevance to what it represents today. IQ is not what is used to be, as you correctly point out; it is now considered to represent intelligence. This is only controversial in the political sense, but there is no scientific controversy, and the definition of g is broadly accepted.