5 ms·

Standardized tests of any kind are fundamentally flawed. You can't measure a person's intelligence using a test. You can only measure very specific things, and

by hooande 17y ago

Standardized tests of any kind are fundamentally flawed. You can't measure a person's intelligence using a test. You can only measure very specific things, and even then you can't expect to do a good job of it. Does a high SAT score predict success in college? People with great test scores drop out / fail out / join the peace corps by the thousands every year. Testing can a good indicator, but it's not an ideal solution. I'm not against testing. There has to be some way to decide who gets into what college, and the SAT is a published standard. But there's no point in defending a flawed system. Let's just accept that IQ tests are a bit ridiculous and move on.

jjs 17y ago
> You can't measure a person's intelligence using a test. Well, you could, but first you must define it! ;)
- billswift 17y ago
  People were measuring temperature with thermometers for centuries before they were able to define it.
  - jjs 17y ago
    Then their effective definition was "that which is measured by the thermometer".
camccann 17y ago
It's been said that IQ tests measure IQ, where IQ is defined as "that quantity which is measured by IQ tests". The interesting part is that, even defined in that rather circular manner, IQ can be consistently measured and compared between individuals and has strong, reliable correlations with performance on other tasks commonly seen as intelligence-based, as well as correlating with both academic and professional success. Yes, these are correlations, not guarantees, but don't underestimate the value of that, and it's not actually clear that there's any better way. The unknown quantity that such tests are trying to measure is usually referred to as g, or the general intelligence factor. Look up the term "g-loaded" for more information.
asciilifeform 17y ago
> You can't measure a person's intelligence using a test. Do you actually believe this dogma? This Usenet post should be read by all "IQ deniers": http://tiny.cc/F7gxA http://tiny.cc/F7gxA "according to IQ doubters, knowing how smart I am should tell you nothing about my IQ. It is as likely to be 50 as 150." The same poster once proposed a beautiful test of the depth of an IQ denier's beliefs: You are to be operated on, and have been given a choice between two surgeons. You know nothing about them, save for the IQ of each. Will you choose the surgeon with the lower IQ? What if the difference between them is an entire standard deviation? Two standard deviations? If you truly believe that IQ tests measure nothing - that the result of any such test is essentially a random number - you should happily choose the surgeon with the lower score. If you do not believe it, we are merely quibbling over the accuracy of existing tests. Moreover, the only way to seriously dismiss the existing IQ tests as hopelessly inaccurate is to borrow tricks from the Creationists' playbook wholesale (as Steven Jay Gould, the patron saint of IQ denial, often did) and close your eyes (and more importantly, those of your audience) to reams of high-quality data. More references, for those actually interested: http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intellig... And if you want to know the core driving force behind the IQ denialists: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconven... "Watson was thinking like a scientist. Which is exactly why he was punished. The moral laws of our society dictate that we are not allowed to think scientifically about some issues. Especially not in public."
- hooande 17y ago
  If IQ is a valid measurement, then why isn't it used to make important decisions? While your surgeon example may be a bit contrived, it raises a valid point: Why haven't you ever considered the IQ of your surgeon? Does anyone even know their surgeon's IQ? Investors don't seem to care about IQ at all. It wasn't an issue of public consideration during the last presidential election. If it could reliably predict anything, don't you think more people would ask about it? I'm sure there are places where IQ scores are considered (applying to college or Google), but these are the exception, not the rule. There is generally a difference between people with an IQ of 50 and an IQ of 150. But you don't need a standardized test to see those differences. The problem is that there is very little difference between an IQ of 120 and an IQ of 130. If all IQ is good for is telling the difference between the very intelligent and the learning disabled, then it isn't very useful in daily life.

by hooande 17y ago

jjs 17y ago

> You can't measure a person's intelligence using a test. Well, you could, but first you must define it! ;)

billswift 17y ago
People were measuring temperature with thermometers for centuries before they were able to define it.
- jjs 17y ago
  Then their effective definition was "that which is measured by the thermometer".

camccann 17y ago

It's been said that IQ tests measure IQ, where IQ is defined as "that quantity which is measured by IQ tests". The interesting part is that, even defined in that rather circular manner, IQ can be consistently measured and compared between individuals and has strong, reliable correlations with performance on other tasks commonly seen as intelligence-based, as well as correlating with both academic and professional success. Yes, these are correlations, not guarantees, but don't underestimate the value of that, and it's not actually clear that there's any better way. The unknown quantity that such tests are trying to measure is usually referred to as g, or the general intelligence factor. Look up the term "g-loaded" for more information.

asciilifeform 17y ago

> You can't measure a person's intelligence using a test. Do you actually believe this dogma? This Usenet post should be read by all "IQ deniers": http://tiny.cc/F7gxA http://tiny.cc/F7gxA "according to IQ doubters, knowing how smart I am should tell you nothing about my IQ. It is as likely to be 50 as 150." The same poster once proposed a beautiful test of the depth of an IQ denier's beliefs: You are to be operated on, and have been given a choice between two surgeons. You know nothing about them, save for the IQ of each. Will you choose the surgeon with the lower IQ? What if the difference between them is an entire standard deviation? Two standard deviations? If you truly believe that IQ tests measure nothing - that the result of any such test is essentially a random number - you should happily choose the surgeon with the lower score. If you do not believe it, we are merely quibbling over the accuracy of existing tests. Moreover, the only way to seriously dismiss the existing IQ tests as hopelessly inaccurate is to borrow tricks from the Creationists' playbook wholesale (as Steven Jay Gould, the patron saint of IQ denial, often did) and close your eyes (and more importantly, those of your audience) to reams of high-quality data. More references, for those actually interested: http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intellig... And if you want to know the core driving force behind the IQ denialists: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconven... "Watson was thinking like a scientist. Which is exactly why he was punished. The moral laws of our society dictate that we are not allowed to think scientifically about some issues. Especially not in public."

hooande 17y ago
If IQ is a valid measurement, then why isn't it used to make important decisions? While your surgeon example may be a bit contrived, it raises a valid point: Why haven't you ever considered the IQ of your surgeon? Does anyone even know their surgeon's IQ? Investors don't seem to care about IQ at all. It wasn't an issue of public consideration during the last presidential election. If it could reliably predict anything, don't you think more people would ask about it? I'm sure there are places where IQ scores are considered (applying to college or Google), but these are the exception, not the rule. There is generally a difference between people with an IQ of 50 and an IQ of 150. But you don't need a standardized test to see those differences. The problem is that there is very little difference between an IQ of 120 and an IQ of 130. If all IQ is good for is telling the difference between the very intelligent and the learning disabled, then it isn't very useful in daily life.