3 ms·

I'm very curious to what that research looks like. The only IQ-Tests I know of are the ones alike to the Mensa Online Tests, and maybe my IQ is too low (rimshot

I'm very curious to what that research looks like. The only IQ-Tests I know of are the ones alike to the Mensa Online Tests, and maybe my IQ is too low (rimshot) but I can't fathom it being anything other than an indicator on how well someone can solve these matrix association problems. Since you seem knowledgeable in it, what would be a rigid definition of IQ? As opposed to the vague definition of social intelligence?

disgruntledphd2 4y ago
The colloquial definition is pattern recognition. The rigorous definition is whatever IQ tests measure (I wish I were joking about this).
Viliam1234 4y ago
> The only IQ-Tests I know of are the ones alike to the Mensa Online Tests All online IQ tests are fake, no exception. Most "Mensa online tests" are unrelated to Mensa; they just say so, because it makes people more likely to click on them. A serious IQ test would look like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices > I can't fathom it being anything other than an indicator on how well someone can solve these matrix association problems. Well, this is one of the interesting findings about intelligence. Turns out that how well people can solve these tests, correlates strongly with many other things. At some moment in history, there was a competing theory of "multiple intelligences", assuming that the kind of intelligence for doing math is independent from the kind of intelligence for solving verbal problems. But when people were given different tests, it turned out that the people who score high on one kind of test are also likely to score high on the other kind of test. So the reason why the "matrices" tests are so popular is that it doesn't matter much what kind of test you use, and the matrices are less culturally sensitive (i.e. in English verbal test, it would matter a lot whether English is your first or second language). > what would be a rigid definition of IQ? Approximately: That thing that allows you to do better in a wide range of problems. (As opposed to a talent or learning disability, which is that thing that allows you to do better/worse in one specific thing.)

disgruntledphd2 4y ago

The colloquial definition is pattern recognition. The rigorous definition is whatever IQ tests measure (I wish I were joking about this).

Viliam1234 4y ago

> The only IQ-Tests I know of are the ones alike to the Mensa Online Tests All online IQ tests are fake, no exception. Most "Mensa online tests" are unrelated to Mensa; they just say so, because it makes people more likely to click on them. A serious IQ test would look like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices > I can't fathom it being anything other than an indicator on how well someone can solve these matrix association problems. Well, this is one of the interesting findings about intelligence. Turns out that how well people can solve these tests, correlates strongly with many other things. At some moment in history, there was a competing theory of "multiple intelligences", assuming that the kind of intelligence for doing math is independent from the kind of intelligence for solving verbal problems. But when people were given different tests, it turned out that the people who score high on one kind of test are also likely to score high on the other kind of test. So the reason why the "matrices" tests are so popular is that it doesn't matter much what kind of test you use, and the matrices are less culturally sensitive (i.e. in English verbal test, it would matter a lot whether English is your first or second language). > what would be a rigid definition of IQ? Approximately: That thing that allows you to do better in a wide range of problems. (As opposed to a talent or learning disability, which is that thing that allows you to do better/worse in one specific thing.)