posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 01:46 AM
I took a professional test when I was 13--scored 130 then. Later on, took another for school that placed me in the 140 range. Online tests, though? I
score in the 120's, reliably.
The differences between the two (pro tests versus online) seems to be their focus on visual relationships (online) rather than numerical or critical
thinking (pro), but intelligence, imho, is simply not an overall thing, though we tend to view it that way.
My opinion on it is that the only meaningful measure of intelligence is how readily a person can learn something new. Since the tests only determine
how much a person understands at present, that's not exactly a measure of capacity, which is the more important aspect of intelligence in a
real-world sense (again, in my opinion).
I've also seen that intelligence (both in the learning capacity sense and in the present understanding sense) is highly specialized. Some people do
well with numbers, some do well with visuals, and unless the test is tailored to focus on a specific area, the numbers don't really indicate what
strengths or weaknesses a given person may have.
I dislike IQ tests for that very reason. I've known far too many brilliant people with low scores and far too many less-than-brilliant people with
If you tell a child he's "average," chances are that he'll limit himself. If you tell a child that he's "above average," chances are that
he'll push too hard, then give up at the first difficulty because he falsely believes that everything should be "easy" for him. Either way you go,
the numbers limit the person.
Which is not to say that everyone should get a prize so that there are "no losers," but I think a more constructive method would involve focusing on
individual strengths and weaknesses to help the child learn where they have innate understanding and where they'll need to work a bit harder, not
just handing them a number and sending them on their way.
My two cents. Sorry, I went on a bit.