7 ms·

I usually score higher when taking intelligent tests, but I dismiss all the intelligent tests I have taken. I know people who are more intelligent than me who c

I usually score higher when taking intelligent tests, but I dismiss all the intelligent tests I have taken. I know people who are more intelligent than me who can score higher if they are tested in their own indigenous languages and on subjects that are important to their cultural backgrounds. For someone who lives in a remote area and survives on hunting wild animals, being able to tell where game is situated, is more valuable than matching some geometrical figures or knowing capital city of a country he will never visit. Such tests that take into account language and cultural differences don't exist. Not knowing something you are not interested in, doesn't make one dumb. It is just not important to that person. I also noticed that the older I grow, the higher my IQ due to voraciously reading technical books and articles.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
nyolfen 9y ago
>I also noticed that the older I grow, the higher my IQ due to voraciously reading technical books and articles. I can guarantee you this is not the case. This comment is honestly so thoroughly full of misconceptions about the nature of IQ and IQ testing that it reads like a troll.
- madiathomas 9y ago
  Please enlighten me about those misconceptions you are talking about. While at it, show me an IQ test that was compiled using my first language since you are dismissing facts I put on the table.
  - nyolfen 9y ago
    IQ is a relatively stable attribute after adolescence. it begins declining around 60. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/ageing-and-skills_5k9csvw87ckh-en http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/ageing-and-skills_5k9... IQ is meant to measure g, or 'general intelligence'. it's roughly the ability to solve complex tasks, and tends to span across domains (ie, if you are above average in one area of problem-solving, you are likely to be above average in others): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) >While at it, show me an IQ test that was compiled using my first language since you are dismissing facts I put on the table. just for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices
    - madiathomas 9y ago
      Well, for every link you paste to prove that IQ is a credible measure for general intelligence, I can also paste links of studies rejecting the use of IQ as the measure of intelligence. 1. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-funda... 2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2250681/IQ-tests-meaningless-simplistic-claim-researchers.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2250681/IQ-te... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticis...
      - nyolfen 9y ago
        the position that IQ isn't a measure of intelligence is misinformed at best or psuedoscientific at worst. we have a century of research on the topic, and very strong correlations with everything from life expectancy[1], to job performance[2], to educational attainment[3]. pretty strange that something that doesn't measure anything meaningful would be consistently tied to these other traits, no? it looks very defensive to simply ignore my responses that directly answered your challenges and say 'oh yeah well i can google things'. you may also try not to rely on tabloids for science reporting. [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=iq+and+life+expectancy&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&as_vis=1 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=iq+and+life+expectancy&... [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=iq+and+job+performance&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&as_vis=1 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=iq+and+job+performance&... [3] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=iq+and+education&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&as_vis=1 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=iq+and+education&btnG=&...
jgome 9y ago
> For someone who lives in a remote area and survives on hunting wild animals, being able to tell where game is situated, is more valuable than matching some geometrical figures or knowing capital city of a country he will never visit. Such tests that take into account language and cultural differences don't exist. If you have studied engineering or simply maths, and like learning maths, you already have some background on geometry, algebra, etc. (and specially geometry/spatial stuff). At least the tests I've seen have some stuff that seems quite obviously been taking from maths... So, IMO, you can obviously score higher than someone that is, perhaps, as intelligent as you are, yet doesn't know or care about maths, or sorting things in certain way, or whatever. While I don't really know much about the topic, IMO these tests ignore the fact that you can learn to solve certain problems, and yet "experts" still say they are about general intelligence. And by that logic, if you weren't to measure intelligence by a set of arbitrary characteristics, some of which can be learned in some specific social contexts... How would you even measure general intelligence? As you say, intelligence is relative to context. You can "learn" intelligence measured by these tests, or you can be "dumb" according to these tests, simply because you are ignorant of some things.
- madiathomas 9y ago
  > As you say, intelligence is relative to context. You can "learn" intelligence measured by these tests, or you can be "dumb" according to these tests, simply because you are ignorant of some things. This part sums up what I was trying to say.
Sharlin 9y ago
Proper well-designed IQ tests have nothing to do with language; they are purely visual pattern recognition challenges. These tests are highly culture-independent and correlate highly with practically any other reasonable measure of intelligence. Being able to tell where the game is situated is not intelligence. It's a domain-specific skill. Intelligence is a general ability that makes one better at learning any domain-specific skill that utilizes cognitive capabilities.
- dagw 9y ago
  These tests are highly culture-independent While that is certainly the goal and ambition of the people creating the tests, there still seems to be much debate as to what extent they are succeeding.
- arethuza 9y ago
  What I do find puzzling is why people seem so emotionally attached to the idea of general intelligence measured as a single number. Is there some political/educational aspect that I'm missing out on - I'm from the UK where IQ tests seem to be generally regarded with a high degree of healthy scepticism.
  - Sharlin 9y ago
    No, it's just the opposite. There is emotional attachment to the idea that intelligence cannot be measured with a single number - the idea that everybody is "good at something" with regard to cognitive skills; that there are different kinds of intelligence that are mostly orthogonal or even mutually exclusive. A mathematically highly skilled individual must be socially awkward or have poor language skills and so on. It would be unfair otherwise, after all. On the other hand, the idea that there is a single number that correlates highly with most other definitions or aspects of "intelligence" has strong experimental backing, like it or not.
    - arethuza 9y ago
      So what do you do with this number? I'm genuinely puzzled as I've never encountered a situation where IQ was used for anything.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

nyolfen 9y ago

>I also noticed that the older I grow, the higher my IQ due to voraciously reading technical books and articles. I can guarantee you this is not the case. This comment is honestly so thoroughly full of misconceptions about the nature of IQ and IQ testing that it reads like a troll.

madiathomas 9y ago
Please enlighten me about those misconceptions you are talking about. While at it, show me an IQ test that was compiled using my first language since you are dismissing facts I put on the table.
- nyolfen 9y ago
  IQ is a relatively stable attribute after adolescence. it begins declining around 60. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/ageing-and-skills_5k9csvw87ckh-en http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/ageing-and-skills_5k9... IQ is meant to measure g, or 'general intelligence'. it's roughly the ability to solve complex tasks, and tends to span across domains (ie, if you are above average in one area of problem-solving, you are likely to be above average in others): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) >While at it, show me an IQ test that was compiled using my first language since you are dismissing facts I put on the table. just for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices
  - madiathomas 9y ago
    Well, for every link you paste to prove that IQ is a credible measure for general intelligence, I can also paste links of studies rejecting the use of IQ as the measure of intelligence. 1. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-funda... 2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2250681/IQ-tests-meaningless-simplistic-claim-researchers.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2250681/IQ-te... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticis...
    - nyolfen 9y ago
      the position that IQ isn't a measure of intelligence is misinformed at best or psuedoscientific at worst. we have a century of research on the topic, and very strong correlations with everything from life expectancy[1], to job performance[2], to educational attainment[3]. pretty strange that something that doesn't measure anything meaningful would be consistently tied to these other traits, no? it looks very defensive to simply ignore my responses that directly answered your challenges and say 'oh yeah well i can google things'. you may also try not to rely on tabloids for science reporting. [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=iq+and+life+expectancy&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&as_vis=1 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=iq+and+life+expectancy&... [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=iq+and+job+performance&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&as_vis=1 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=iq+and+job+performance&... [3] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=iq+and+education&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&as_vis=1 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=iq+and+education&btnG=&...

jgome 9y ago

> For someone who lives in a remote area and survives on hunting wild animals, being able to tell where game is situated, is more valuable than matching some geometrical figures or knowing capital city of a country he will never visit. Such tests that take into account language and cultural differences don't exist. If you have studied engineering or simply maths, and like learning maths, you already have some background on geometry, algebra, etc. (and specially geometry/spatial stuff). At least the tests I've seen have some stuff that seems quite obviously been taking from maths... So, IMO, you can obviously score higher than someone that is, perhaps, as intelligent as you are, yet doesn't know or care about maths, or sorting things in certain way, or whatever. While I don't really know much about the topic, IMO these tests ignore the fact that you can learn to solve certain problems, and yet "experts" still say they are about general intelligence. And by that logic, if you weren't to measure intelligence by a set of arbitrary characteristics, some of which can be learned in some specific social contexts... How would you even measure general intelligence? As you say, intelligence is relative to context. You can "learn" intelligence measured by these tests, or you can be "dumb" according to these tests, simply because you are ignorant of some things.

madiathomas 9y ago
> As you say, intelligence is relative to context. You can "learn" intelligence measured by these tests, or you can be "dumb" according to these tests, simply because you are ignorant of some things. This part sums up what I was trying to say.

Sharlin 9y ago

Proper well-designed IQ tests have nothing to do with language; they are purely visual pattern recognition challenges. These tests are highly culture-independent and correlate highly with practically any other reasonable measure of intelligence. Being able to tell where the game is situated is not intelligence. It's a domain-specific skill. Intelligence is a general ability that makes one better at learning any domain-specific skill that utilizes cognitive capabilities.

dagw 9y ago
These tests are highly culture-independent While that is certainly the goal and ambition of the people creating the tests, there still seems to be much debate as to what extent they are succeeding.
arethuza 9y ago
What I do find puzzling is why people seem so emotionally attached to the idea of general intelligence measured as a single number. Is there some political/educational aspect that I'm missing out on - I'm from the UK where IQ tests seem to be generally regarded with a high degree of healthy scepticism.
- Sharlin 9y ago
  No, it's just the opposite. There is emotional attachment to the idea that intelligence cannot be measured with a single number - the idea that everybody is "good at something" with regard to cognitive skills; that there are different kinds of intelligence that are mostly orthogonal or even mutually exclusive. A mathematically highly skilled individual must be socially awkward or have poor language skills and so on. It would be unfair otherwise, after all. On the other hand, the idea that there is a single number that correlates highly with most other definitions or aspects of "intelligence" has strong experimental backing, like it or not.
  - arethuza 9y ago
    So what do you do with this number? I'm genuinely puzzled as I've never encountered a situation where IQ was used for anything.