It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is IQ a good measurement of intelligence?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 10:09 PM
link   
For all of you that are not sure what IQ is then this site should help: www.geocities.com...

For all of you guys out there that took one or more IQ tests, I would like to know what you guys though of the testing methods they used to achieve that number (you don't have to post it). Also I would like to know if you thought that this was a good way of measuring intelligence. And do you think that most test are accurate enough to do most people justice?

In my opinion IQ testing is an O.K. form of testing overall intelligence but its still lacking that its not very accurate on the very low or high end. Its a great way of testing basic intelligence like logic, math, verbal, science, history and similar things along those lines but it does not have the ability to test artistic talent and other mental capacities. The only other big problem is that it could be very subjective to the culture around it. Since all IQ test are different, its possible to score differently on them because of the different questions, also the mood and condition you are when taking the test could effect the score too. Until we can make truly culture free and less subjective tests its not exactly fair to judge everyone on IQ. Although taking the average of multiple scores could be an accurate way of finding the appropriate result.

[edit on 29-11-2004 by beyondSciFi]




posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Thanks for the link, I put it in my bookmarks!


The problem with IQ tests is that they really only measure one type of intelligence, the componential. A good introduction to multiple intelligence theory can be found here.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 11:25 PM
link   
It would be interesting to know the average IQ of an ATSer...



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 02:20 AM
link   
I watched a documentary, and it said the reason why the IQ test was developed was actually to see how stupid people were not how smart.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 05:30 AM
link   
that i.q. tests are not a good way to measure intelligience. Because what it measures is what a person already knows. Now given that one person can have the opportunity to learn more then another...I.E. college, better school system, access to the internet, etc... you cannot base a persons ability to learn, on things that they already have learned.

Per say a person that lives in poverty and lives in a rural area may not be able to learn as much as a person who lives in an urban area, is well off, and has access to much more information. The person that lives in poverty may not be able to afford books, internet, college, and the school system may be below average in that area. Does that mean he/she is not intelligent because he/she was not given the correct tools to learn with?

Just a thought is all.

My thoughts are I.Q. tests should test a persons ability to learn,



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Yes I think it's a good measurement of intelligence and yes I know my IQ...however a high IQ does not equate to being successful or having any "horse sense"...it simply means your have a high intelligence level. “Emotional intelligence” is the term now used to describe personal and social skills. These include what might be called “soft skills”.....intuition, sensitivity, creativity, cooperation, social ability, knowledge sharing, empathy, rapport, adaptability and teamwork. People can also be "smart" in different ways and areas. Verbal (linguistic) Intelligence, numerical Intelligence, Spatial Intelligence: It is the ability to maneuver and operate space, Interpersonal Intelligence: It is the ability to relate to people and understand them (people skills) There are also people that are "sly" which doesn't necessarily mean they are "smart" just good at sneakiness.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 09:35 AM
link   
IQ testing is only a small measurement of intelligence, but it doesn't account for things such as "street smarts" nor can it measure "verbal aptitude". I score fairly high on most IQ tests, but it doesn't say much for my intelligence because speaking to me in person, you might think you were speaking to a drunken sailor and half the time, my dyslexia makes my writing turn into gibberish, so while you can use my iq scores to say I'm smart, other charactistics might gives you a totally different impression of me.


Xon

posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I think a I.Q test is not a good way to measure intelligience. Have you done one you will learn the answe to it nextime you try. And it is about how fast you see this "picture" My friend goes on a relly hig and difficuld school he is verry intelligience and I did score more then him on a IQ test, And I am youst a car mecanic that works not a man who go on school his hole life.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 09:54 AM
link   
IQ tests doesnt test inteligence. For example I can tell you the president of almost any country, I actualy know 5 languages, and have 3 masters degrees, but acording to IQ tests I'm smart as a cow.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xon
I think a I.Q test is not a good way to measure intelligience. Have you done one you will learn the answe to it nextime you try. And it is about how fast you see this "picture" My friend goes on a relly hig and difficuld school he is verry intelligience and I did score more then him on a IQ test, And I am youst a car mecanic that works not a man who go on school his hole life.


The whole idea of IQ testing is to test the abilities of a person to solve new problems (which is a direct measure of intelligence). It does not matter what school you went to or what job you have, those are social factors. Take for example Albert Einstein, he failed most of his class in school,(he was considered the class clown), and as for his job, he was a patent cleck, which doesnt requiare much know, how but we can all eazyly say that he was one of the greatest geniues the world has ever know.

But remember you can't take the result of one test as to being ACCURATE, because many factors come into play. Thats why after many different IQ tests (over 10 good ones), you have to find the average to get an accurate score.


Originally posted by Pavel
IQ tests doesnt test inteligence. For example I can tell you the president of almost any country, I actualy know 5 languages, and have 3 masters degrees, but acording to IQ tests I'm smart as a cow.


Like I said above one or a few IQ test are not accurate, you neet to take many to find an accurate result. And as for the presidents part... can you name one? because I know my history pretty well and I can tell you that most presidents are not very intelligent.


[edit on 30-11-2004 by beyondSciFi]



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   
IQ testing is becoming Passé as a stand alone quotient. The EQ or emotional quotient is gaining ground.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   
not be a determinate in i.q.? If you do not have the opportunity to learn what someone else has had the opportunity to, wouldn't that effect the outcome of any test you would take in regards to your intelligience?



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I have noticed that many of the people posting in this thread are misinformed about IQ tests and "intelligence" in general.


IQ tests doesnt test inteligence. For example I can tell you the president of almost any country, I actualy know 5 languages, and have 3 masters degrees, but acording to IQ tests I'm smart as a cow.


Intelligence and memorization are not the same thing. Just because one has a photographic memory and can retain information doesnt mean that one is intelligent. You can retain all the information in the world, but if you are unable to comprehend its meaning and apply it, then it is useless.


IQ testing is only a small measurement of intelligence, but it doesn't account for things such as "street smarts" nor can it measure "verbal aptitude". I score fairly high on most IQ tests, but it doesn't say much for my intelligence because speaking to me in person, you might think you were speaking to a drunken sailor and half the time, my dyslexia makes my writing turn into gibberish, so while you can use my iq scores to say I'm smart, other charactistics might gives you a totally different impression of me..


You are talking about people's perception of your intelligence, not your actual intelligence. As you said, the IQ test showed that you are intelligent, even though your dyslexia could make people believe otherwise.
Also, people who are "street smart" would score high on an IQ test because it measures a person's intellectual capacity not their level of education.


that i.q. tests are not a good way to measure intelligience. Because what it measures is what a person already knows. Now given that one person can have the opportunity to learn more then another...I.E. college, better school system, access to the internet, etc... you cannot base a persons ability to learn, on things that they already have learned.


No, IQ tests dont measure "what a person already knows", they measure the ability of a person to manipulate and apply information. You could be a person with a first grade education and still score higher than someone who has a photographic memory and a masters degree.

That being said, being intelligent doesnt mean that one will be financially "successful" or become a rocket scientist. If you dont apply your intelligence, then you could end up working at the Jiffy-mart for the rest of your life.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   
If you are manipulating and applying information, isn't that because you've learned how to manipulate and apply that information? Maybe I'm way off here (and believe me, this wouldn't be the first time) but, all I'm saying is that social factors are , in some way, responsible for the knowledge that you have gained and are able to gain throughout your lifetime.

Heres an example: when my daughter was 2 years old, she was reading at kindergarden level. Was it because she was smarter then everyone else? No, it was because I helped her to learn how to read. Made it fun for her, and she found it to be enjoyable. So she persued it because she was given the opportuntiy and ability to do so. If I hadn't presented it to her, or made it part of her everyday life, she wouldn't have excelled in that area.

This pertains to the i.q. tests because when she was tested at school, she was labled as a gifted child because she scored high in her tests. But she did no better then the average child in math and other areas because she was not given the additional opportunity to do so.

Hopefully this makes some sense. I have been intertaining the in-laws the last few days and frankly, I'm a little spent.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 04:20 PM
link   
It's the truth. Many questions on IQ test are based on items that we culturally perceive as general knowledge. For example, we all know that:

'Hotdog is to Bun as Taco meat is to...Shell'

But take a person from a third world country, ask him that same question and it's alien to him.




www.wilderdom.com...
Cultural Bias in Intelligence Testing

It is extremely difficult to develop a test that measures innate intelligence without introducing cultural bias. This has been virtually impossible to achieve. One attempt was to eliminate language and design tests with demonstrations and pictures. Another approach is to realize that culture-free tests are not possible and to design culture-fair tests instead. These tests draw on experiences found in many cultures.

Many college students have a middle-class background and may have difficulty appreciating the biases that are part of standardized intelligence tests, because their own background does not disadvantage them for these tests. By doing some intelligence tests which make non-mainstream cultural assumptions, students can come to experience some of the difficulties and issues involved with culturally biased methods of testing intelligence.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by blend56
If you are manipulating and applying information, isn't that because you've learned how to manipulate and apply that information? Maybe I'm way off here (and believe me, this wouldn't be the first time) but, all I'm saying is that social factors are , in some way, responsible for the knowledge that you have gained and are able to gain throughout your lifetime.

Heres an example: when my daughter was 2 years old, she was reading at kindergarden level. Was it because she was smarter then everyone else? No, it was because I helped her to learn how to read. Made it fun for her, and she found it to be enjoyable.


Certainly, there are social factors related to any test. That is why you shouldnt rely on a single test or trial to determine intelligence. That being said, the wording of IQ tests very depending on the language and culture that they are used in.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 07:12 PM
link   
You all are having such a great discussion on this and all I can add to it is that I think that IQ tests are fun.... I enjoy taking different ones when I am bored.

But I am not sure if I agree with the cultural or social factors related to taking the tests -- a lot of it is just logic IMHO


jm



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I think IQ tests judge how practical you are for society. I dont think it accurately judges how intelligent someone is. For example, on some of the questions, someone who is creative will find another answer. Everyone thinks differently. I dont think its a true indicator of intelligence, just more practical for the type of society we live in. As mentioned, there is a bit of cultural bias also.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:35 AM
link   
I'm living proof that IQ testing is wrong lol, I apparently have an IQ of 116 and yet im so stupid. I personally believe that everyone is clever in their own way eg: One person may be very clever when it comes to conspiracies and another is very good when it comes to maths ( which the IQ test mostly consits of) but both are not very good at anything else lol.

Anway that is my oppinion.

Regards,
Neo!



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 05:10 AM
link   
shouldn't I.Q. tests be changed? I mean, to me, the real test of a persons intelligience is how well they retain/comprehend information that is newly introduced to them.

Not only would this give a person the opportunity to gain additional knowledge, but it would be a uniform way of testing all people from all societies.

For example,
When I have to train a new member of my team, I can tell the level of intelligience I am dealing with within the first few days of training them by how well they "catch on" to the processes and procedures that I introduce to them. Realizing that everyone learns at a different pace, my training has been purposely geared to incompass all levels of ability. By being able to switch gears in order to customize the training to suit the individuals learning level, I have been able to establish a pretty good guide as to who is capable of comprehending the knowledge that they receive, and who does not have the capabilities/desire to move forward within my company.
My first 3 days of training is a good measure of someones ability to grasp simple,common sense information.

The example referred to above would be a better measure of someones itelligience rather then an i.q. test, because not only is the person receiving additional/new information in there training, they also are judged on thier ability to use that information. Which to me is the most vauable part of any humans intellect. How we use the knowledge that we have obtained.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join