3 ms·
>How do you know you haven't simply written a test which measures how much time the person has to think about brain teasers? Come on man, do you really think a
by Consultant32452 9y ago
>How do you know you haven't simply written a test which measures how much time the person has to think about brain teasers?
Come on man, do you really think a century's worth of psychologists never considered such trivial questions?
- skj 9y agoThis kind of response is, in my opinion, anti-academic. A better response would be too try to find some literature on the subject.
- Consultant32452 9y agoOne aspect of IQ is your ability to solve certain kinds of abstract problems. OP asked what if the IQ tests just test your ability to solve certain kinds of abstract problems. OP's post didn't seem like a genuine academic inquiry but instead a weak emotional attempt to dismiss something they don't like.
- ggggtez 9y agoFallacy: Appeal to authority. Besides, obviously they have, which is the reason I said it. And even further: researchers say that you can study for IQ tests to get a higher score. Presumably general intelligence is not something you can cram for. This is one of the reasons psychologists argue the IQ test is not an accurate system, and may or may not be just testing secondary effects of intelligence (like brain teaser ability).
- Consultant32452 9y agoOf course IQ tests test for secondary effects of intelligence. In what way does that invalidate it? It's important to remember we're talking about population level distributions here. A person could theoretically test well for some form of IQ but actually be a moron. That would mean nothing with regard to the efficacy of the test or validity of IQ in general.
- tomc1985 9y agoI've had psychology professors tell me their industry is pretty much 'full of shit' ... how much damage has Freud et al done to our understanding of ourselves?