4 ms·

Rather than claim that "IQ" has fallen they should give some examples of the particular questions which people have got worse at answering correctly, because "I

by bloak 8y ago

Rather than claim that "IQ" has fallen they should give some examples of the particular questions which people have got worse at answering correctly, because "IQ" doesn't really exist; all that exists is the normalised score from a particular questionnaire. I took an IQ test once. One of the questions that I couldn't answer was to spot what was missing in a picture. It was the hat band. I can't tell you exactly what kind of hat it was, but it was worn by a man and looked like something I might perhaps see in an old film. One of the questions that I could answer was to spot the odd one out in a list that looked something like: spondee, dactyl, trochee, ... If people have got worse at answering those two questions then I am not surprised.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Rather than claim that "IQ" has fallen they should give some examples of the particular questions which people have got worse at answering correctly, because "IQ" doesn't really exist; all that exists is the normalised score from a particular questionnaire. No, because IQ (as much as any other concept denoted by a label in language) does really exist, and there isn't just a single test (“questionnaire”) for measuring it.
bakhy 8y ago
Sounds like a really bad IQ test. I took a Mensa IQ test once, and all the questions were grids, 3x3, with various patterns in all cells except the lower right one, and 6 (I think) offered answer patterns. You pick the one that you think best fits into the overall pattern of the grid. Such a test seems much better to me, since it does not depend on what you know, though I guess even that might have some issues. Many popular IQ tests are really full of trick questions that mostly depend on whether you've seen the trick before...
- IggleSniggle 8y ago
  Pattern recognition ability is associated with higher false positives. Eg, conspiracy theorists typically perform significantly better on pattern recognition tests. A pattern recognition test is indeed measuring something, but “intelligence quotient” may be a misnomer. Full disclosure: I do very well on pattern recognition tests. I also am often accused of “reinventing the wheel.” I think these are related; but then, I would.
  - ravar 8y ago
    Lets propose that pattern recognition is indeed something different than what most people would call intelligence. If this is so then there should be a statistically reliable way to measure pattern recognition in a way that does not also measure intelligence. However based on my understanding of how the IQ test is designed this is not the case.
    - chillacy 8y ago
      Just want to throw in the context, performance in subtests which measure pattern recognition or short term memory all correlate into g: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) There’s still debate over whether this correlation points to anything meaningful though.
  - bakhy 8y ago
    You are implying that conspiracy theorists are unintelligent. Though it is a very tempting assumption :) I don't know if it's fully warranted. From my experience, ignorance is more essential to conspiracy theory thinking. People lack the will and/or time to learn all they need to make sense of the world, so they fall prey to overly simple, manipulative stories. And furthermore, it is known that more intelligent people tend to be more naive... I'm not saying you're fully wrong, lack of intelligence can surely help, but I think on the whole it's more complicated than just a lack of intelligence.
    - IggleSniggle 8y ago
      On the contrary, I was trying to suggest that intelligence is a broad term, and that being skilled at pattern recognition is a singular ability that is one small sliver of what most people usually mean when they talk about intelligence. IQ doesn’t really measure what most people believe it measures, and may therefore be a misnomer.
      - bakhy 8y ago
        Ok, I misunderstood. I agree with you. I think it's an interesting situation - the broader term is more relevant, but it's also less measurable. So we settle for what we can measure and kinda forget that it doesn't capture the full picture.

by bloak 8y ago

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Rather than claim that "IQ" has fallen they should give some examples of the particular questions which people have got worse at answering correctly, because "IQ" doesn't really exist; all that exists is the normalised score from a particular questionnaire. No, because IQ (as much as any other concept denoted by a label in language) does really exist, and there isn't just a single test (“questionnaire”) for measuring it.

bakhy 8y ago

Sounds like a really bad IQ test. I took a Mensa IQ test once, and all the questions were grids, 3x3, with various patterns in all cells except the lower right one, and 6 (I think) offered answer patterns. You pick the one that you think best fits into the overall pattern of the grid. Such a test seems much better to me, since it does not depend on what you know, though I guess even that might have some issues. Many popular IQ tests are really full of trick questions that mostly depend on whether you've seen the trick before...

IggleSniggle 8y ago
Pattern recognition ability is associated with higher false positives. Eg, conspiracy theorists typically perform significantly better on pattern recognition tests. A pattern recognition test is indeed measuring something, but “intelligence quotient” may be a misnomer. Full disclosure: I do very well on pattern recognition tests. I also am often accused of “reinventing the wheel.” I think these are related; but then, I would.
- ravar 8y ago
  Lets propose that pattern recognition is indeed something different than what most people would call intelligence. If this is so then there should be a statistically reliable way to measure pattern recognition in a way that does not also measure intelligence. However based on my understanding of how the IQ test is designed this is not the case.
  - chillacy 8y ago
    Just want to throw in the context, performance in subtests which measure pattern recognition or short term memory all correlate into g: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) There’s still debate over whether this correlation points to anything meaningful though.
- bakhy 8y ago
  You are implying that conspiracy theorists are unintelligent. Though it is a very tempting assumption :) I don't know if it's fully warranted. From my experience, ignorance is more essential to conspiracy theory thinking. People lack the will and/or time to learn all they need to make sense of the world, so they fall prey to overly simple, manipulative stories. And furthermore, it is known that more intelligent people tend to be more naive... I'm not saying you're fully wrong, lack of intelligence can surely help, but I think on the whole it's more complicated than just a lack of intelligence.
  - IggleSniggle 8y ago
    On the contrary, I was trying to suggest that intelligence is a broad term, and that being skilled at pattern recognition is a singular ability that is one small sliver of what most people usually mean when they talk about intelligence. IQ doesn’t really measure what most people believe it measures, and may therefore be a misnomer.
    - bakhy 8y ago
      Ok, I misunderstood. I agree with you. I think it's an interesting situation - the broader term is more relevant, but it's also less measurable. So we settle for what we can measure and kinda forget that it doesn't capture the full picture.