4 ms·

I know a quite prominent MENSA member and according to him IQ tests are a fundamentally flawed way of measuring intelligence. Not only are there different type

I know a quite prominent MENSA member and according to him IQ tests are a fundamentally flawed way of measuring intelligence. Not only are there different types of intelligence but more importantly, the current methodology is actually a test of one's ability to solve a very narrow type of puzzles. This can be practised effectively increasing your score significantly. Does becoming good at puzzles mean I got any wiser?

wenc 8y ago
As you alluded to in your comment, there are different types of intelligence. Also, the concept of intelligence itself is too broad to define precisely. That said, IQ tests are not as flawed as people think -- they measure a particular set of abilities, and there is evidence that those abilities correlate to aptitudes that are useful in some areas of life. For instance, the Advanced Raven Matrices test (a "culture-free" test used by Mensa and other organizations) measures visual-spatial skills and does it fairly well at that (as long as it is not gamed -- it is possible to study for an IQ test and do well in it -- but then again any test can be gamed). If a particular task/job requires heavy visual-spatial skills, chances are that people who score well on visual-spatial tests will tend to do well there. Visual-spatial skills are a type of intelligence. It's not the only type, but it is one type. You need to understand what the test is measuring.
dionidium 8y ago
I'm not an expert in the field, but my casual understanding is that the research shows basically the opposite to be true. That is to say that IQ is generally predictive of success and/or ability across just about any dimension you want to choose. Said another way, if you had to hire somebody sight-unseen and you were only allowed to know one piece of information about them, IQ would be the strongest predictor of performance. (I want to be very clear: that's not to say that the person with the highest IQ will always be the best performer; it's just to say that if you had no other information, and you had to hire based on just one piece of information, IQ would be your best bet.)
- Scea91 8y ago
  You would have to define more formally what you mean by one piece of information and even then I think there are counterexamples to your argument. For example, If I wanted to hire a doctor I would prefer to know if the applicant had medical degree over their IQ.
  - ben509 8y ago
    You don't need a formal definition, you just need to read more carefully: > it's just to say that if you had no other information, and you had to hire based on just one piece of information, IQ would be your best bet. You might prefer to know if they have a medical degree, but that knowledge is already excluded.
  - dionidium 8y ago
    Right, and if the job is "forward in the NBA," then maybe you'd rather know height. Fair enough, but it's not really responsive to my point about the general case. Perhaps to help clarify your thoughts on this, imagine the case where you don't even know the job requirements.
MaxBarraclough 8y ago
It makes people uncomfortable to think that intelligence can be reduced to single one-dimensional scale, but that doesn't mean it's not generally the case. 'General intelligence' has been well studied (though I admit I don't know much about it myself) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
JoeAltmaier 8y ago
I did the puzzles in a mensa quiz book (informal). They were scored in the back, by a small set of Mensa members who had taken the question. From those stats, I determined that 25% of Mensa members can't do algebra, and 10% can't do arithmetic. Because that's all some of the 'puzzles' were. This is to be expected, because even smart folks have wildly different interests and talents. I'm not doubting those arithmetic-failures weren't 'mensa material'. I doubt they took an interest in that subject.
jarfil 8y ago
Actually, becoming good at solving a certain kind of problem is what it means to "get wiser". However, whether "wisdom" an "intelligence" should be considered to be the same, is debatable. There is the view that intelligence should be an attribute that doesn't change during one's lifetime, but actually wisdom is the one that's useful in our lives.

wenc 8y ago

As you alluded to in your comment, there are different types of intelligence. Also, the concept of intelligence itself is too broad to define precisely. That said, IQ tests are not as flawed as people think -- they measure a particular set of abilities, and there is evidence that those abilities correlate to aptitudes that are useful in some areas of life. For instance, the Advanced Raven Matrices test (a "culture-free" test used by Mensa and other organizations) measures visual-spatial skills and does it fairly well at that (as long as it is not gamed -- it is possible to study for an IQ test and do well in it -- but then again any test can be gamed). If a particular task/job requires heavy visual-spatial skills, chances are that people who score well on visual-spatial tests will tend to do well there. Visual-spatial skills are a type of intelligence. It's not the only type, but it is one type. You need to understand what the test is measuring.

dionidium 8y ago

I'm not an expert in the field, but my casual understanding is that the research shows basically the opposite to be true. That is to say that IQ is generally predictive of success and/or ability across just about any dimension you want to choose. Said another way, if you had to hire somebody sight-unseen and you were only allowed to know one piece of information about them, IQ would be the strongest predictor of performance. (I want to be very clear: that's not to say that the person with the highest IQ will always be the best performer; it's just to say that if you had no other information, and you had to hire based on just one piece of information, IQ would be your best bet.)

Scea91 8y ago
You would have to define more formally what you mean by one piece of information and even then I think there are counterexamples to your argument. For example, If I wanted to hire a doctor I would prefer to know if the applicant had medical degree over their IQ.
- ben509 8y ago
  You don't need a formal definition, you just need to read more carefully: > it's just to say that if you had no other information, and you had to hire based on just one piece of information, IQ would be your best bet. You might prefer to know if they have a medical degree, but that knowledge is already excluded.
- dionidium 8y ago
  Right, and if the job is "forward in the NBA," then maybe you'd rather know height. Fair enough, but it's not really responsive to my point about the general case. Perhaps to help clarify your thoughts on this, imagine the case where you don't even know the job requirements.

MaxBarraclough 8y ago

It makes people uncomfortable to think that intelligence can be reduced to single one-dimensional scale, but that doesn't mean it's not generally the case. 'General intelligence' has been well studied (though I admit I don't know much about it myself) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

I did the puzzles in a mensa quiz book (informal). They were scored in the back, by a small set of Mensa members who had taken the question. From those stats, I determined that 25% of Mensa members can't do algebra, and 10% can't do arithmetic. Because that's all some of the 'puzzles' were. This is to be expected, because even smart folks have wildly different interests and talents. I'm not doubting those arithmetic-failures weren't 'mensa material'. I doubt they took an interest in that subject.

jarfil 8y ago

Actually, becoming good at solving a certain kind of problem is what it means to "get wiser". However, whether "wisdom" an "intelligence" should be considered to be the same, is debatable. There is the view that intelligence should be an attribute that doesn't change during one's lifetime, but actually wisdom is the one that's useful in our lives.