It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Spiro
a reply to: Thecakeisalie
One persons intelligence is another persons ability to learn the intelligence. Some people are smarter at certain skills, subjects etc than others, and visa versa.
I feel, to have every human take the same test to determine their intelligence is a non intelligent way of doing it.
For example, I'm quite intelligent when it comes to farming, rearing cattle, arable etc however, I can not for the life of me answer many IQ questions that are broadcast on UK TV every year for the populace to determine their IQ.
It should not work like that.
I don't believe a NASA employee is more intelligent than me. No, he may have the intelligence to do his job.....as I do mine.
Yes, its a stupid test indeed. We are all equal in intelligence to some degree on certain subjects.
My dad used to always say that he would prefer to have more common sense than book sense and I didn't really understand that fully until I was grown. IMO he was right. I know people who are highly Intelligent but can not function in any situation where something went unexpectedly wrong or didn't happen exactly as "the book" taught them it would. Some lack the ability to go off script so to speak. Not all of them of course, but a lot.
Wherever it has been studied, children with high scores on tests of intelligence tend to learn more of what is taught in school than their lower-scoring peers. (But) achieving good grades depends on many factors other than IQ, such as 'persistence, interest in school, and willingness to study'.
'For hiring employees without previous experience in the job the most valid predictor of future performance is general mental ability.' The validity of IQ as a predictor of job performance is above zero for all work studied to date.
While IQ is more strongly correlated with reasoning and less so with motor function, IQ-test scores predict performance ratings in all occupations.
While it has been suggested that 'in economic terms it appears that the IQ score measures something with decreasing marginal value. It is important to have enough of it, but having lots and lots does not buy you that much,' large scale longitudinal studies indicate an increase in IQ translates into an increase in performance at all levels of IQ; Charles Murray, coauthor of The Bell Curve, found that IQ has a substantial effect on income independently of family background.
Regardless of race, people with IQs between 70 and 90 have higher crime rates than people with IQs below or above this range, with the peak range being between 80 and 90. The 2009 Handbook of Crime Correlates stated that reviews have found that around eight IQ points, or 0.5 SD, separate criminals from the general population, especially for persistent serious offenders. It has been suggested that this simply reflects that 'only dumb ones get caught' but there is similarly a negative relation between IQ and self-reported offending. That children with conduct disorder have lower IQ than their peers 'strongly argues' for the theory.
originally posted by: tridentblue
a reply to: Spiro
That's a really good point, and its been discussed a lot: Its generally understood that IQ tests are really useful for diagnosing learning disabilities, like retardation, and how much support people need. But the problem is that intelligence goes in different directions as it gets higher, so high IQ is less meaningful at high levels. This is a FACT. I remember taking MENSA tests and not making the cut, then I studied a whole bunch of statistics and discrete math - the maths used by test makers and evaluators - and all the sudden my evaluation on those and other intelligence tests went through the roof. However if I had studied any other field, my scores would not have grown. At high levels, intelligence tests reflect how much you think like the people that made the tests.