29 ms·

Fluid and crystallized intelligence (which is what IQ test measure) are the most robust ways of measuring intelligence, and IQ is the single most reliable metr

Fluid and crystallized intelligence (which is what IQ test measure) are the most robust ways of measuring intelligence, and IQ is the single most reliable metric ever discovered in psychology, in terms of making predictions. If you're interesting in measuring how smart somebody is, there's no better way of doing it than with that single number.

heavenlyblue 8y ago
I assume it’s exactly for this same reason there’s an archetype of an incredibly intelligent person, who ends up with a cocaine addiction, because he was never understood...
- sergioj97 8y ago
  I can't understand and I would like to. Could you explain yourself?
  - belenos46 8y ago
    I assume that the parent poster is referring to Sherlock Holmes.
olau 8y ago
... as long as you're limiting yourself to measurements that result in a single number?
orwin 8y ago
Which IQ test? IQ as a number alone mean nothing, as you can't make a standardized test for it. And IQ number is a comparison (you calculate the standard deviation). Also, even in clinical tests, multiple scales can be used, and this mesure evolve. And there is no "single number", multple subjects are tested, and now we have another limitation: those tests don't mesure everything, or mesure thing that can evolve. I "scored" 123 on the weshler when i was 8 (or 9) with a really bad spatial visualisation score of 90 (89?). Since i'm now able to play blindchess or to chart a course on a marine map, either my spatial visualisation skills have improved, either people i know hide a lot. And i'm sure i would score way less on the other subjects too, looking back i was a pretty interesting kid, while now i'm an average adult. I'm not saying it's useless, but to me it is way overvaluated by some people. Maybe you can approximate intelligence with an IQ test, but the number itself is meaningless imho. The classification can be used though.
- Symmetry 8y ago
  The hypothetical g which IQ tests are trying to find is the extent to which every test of mental abilities that anyone has ever devised plus some things like reflex speed all seem to be fairly strongly correlated with each other and all seem to be correlated via a common factor. You can certainly be more skilled at one test than another. These tests are also fairly noisy when applied to individuals. For individuals the results of IQ tests probably are oversold as you say given their noisiness. But for public health problems like air pollution where the results are averaged over populations they're probably undervalued if anything.
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  >IQ as a number alone mean nothing, as you can't make a standardized test for it You don't need standardisation for IQ tests, because 100 will always be the mean. Get people to do your test, set the mean at 100 and you've got an IQ test. >And IQ number is a comparison (you calculate the standard deviation). Also, even in clinical tests, multiple scales can be used It measures deviation from the mean, and 15 points is used to show a standard deviation. This is how any clinical test will be administered. >those tests don't mesure everything Fantastic point. They ONLY measure intelligence. >I'm not saying it's useless, but to me it is way overvaluated by some people. Maybe you can approximate intelligence with an IQ test, but the number itself is meaningless imho. The problem with saying this is that IQ tests are far and away the best way of measuring intelligence. They do a pretty good job of it, as shown by their relative success in predicting outcomes. If you don't put any weight in IQ tests, then there's really nothing else you could rationally give any value to when it comes to measuring intelligence. >but to me it is way overvaluated by some people Personally, I think they're overvalued to the extent that intelligence in general is.

heavenlyblue 8y ago

I assume it’s exactly for this same reason there’s an archetype of an incredibly intelligent person, who ends up with a cocaine addiction, because he was never understood...

sergioj97 8y ago
I can't understand and I would like to. Could you explain yourself?
- belenos46 8y ago
  I assume that the parent poster is referring to Sherlock Holmes.

olau 8y ago

... as long as you're limiting yourself to measurements that result in a single number?

orwin 8y ago

Which IQ test? IQ as a number alone mean nothing, as you can't make a standardized test for it. And IQ number is a comparison (you calculate the standard deviation). Also, even in clinical tests, multiple scales can be used, and this mesure evolve. And there is no "single number", multple subjects are tested, and now we have another limitation: those tests don't mesure everything, or mesure thing that can evolve. I "scored" 123 on the weshler when i was 8 (or 9) with a really bad spatial visualisation score of 90 (89?). Since i'm now able to play blindchess or to chart a course on a marine map, either my spatial visualisation skills have improved, either people i know hide a lot. And i'm sure i would score way less on the other subjects too, looking back i was a pretty interesting kid, while now i'm an average adult. I'm not saying it's useless, but to me it is way overvaluated by some people. Maybe you can approximate intelligence with an IQ test, but the number itself is meaningless imho. The classification can be used though.

Symmetry 8y ago
The hypothetical g which IQ tests are trying to find is the extent to which every test of mental abilities that anyone has ever devised plus some things like reflex speed all seem to be fairly strongly correlated with each other and all seem to be correlated via a common factor. You can certainly be more skilled at one test than another. These tests are also fairly noisy when applied to individuals. For individuals the results of IQ tests probably are oversold as you say given their noisiness. But for public health problems like air pollution where the results are averaged over populations they're probably undervalued if anything.
AmericanChopper 8y ago
>IQ as a number alone mean nothing, as you can't make a standardized test for it You don't need standardisation for IQ tests, because 100 will always be the mean. Get people to do your test, set the mean at 100 and you've got an IQ test. >And IQ number is a comparison (you calculate the standard deviation). Also, even in clinical tests, multiple scales can be used It measures deviation from the mean, and 15 points is used to show a standard deviation. This is how any clinical test will be administered. >those tests don't mesure everything Fantastic point. They ONLY measure intelligence. >I'm not saying it's useless, but to me it is way overvaluated by some people. Maybe you can approximate intelligence with an IQ test, but the number itself is meaningless imho. The problem with saying this is that IQ tests are far and away the best way of measuring intelligence. They do a pretty good job of it, as shown by their relative success in predicting outcomes. If you don't put any weight in IQ tests, then there's really nothing else you could rationally give any value to when it comes to measuring intelligence. >but to me it is way overvaluated by some people Personally, I think they're overvalued to the extent that intelligence in general is.