Why do you think IQ is bullshit?

[Deleted member 8382]

No offense intended, I really would like to have a calmed and mature discusion. If you're gona reply to insult, please stay away. It's perfectly ok if you believe it's bullshit, just explain me why.

It's not that I've made a religion out of the IQ, but I find the way people call BS on it interesting.

 

[pullbangdead]

An IQ test, like any other test on earth, can only provide certain facts or answers. They are of a very limited utility, and really only truly useful to professionals who know how to use and interpret the results. However, IQ tests and their results are often abused in many ways. The tests, especially internet tests which are entirely unscientific and often highly inaccurate, don't actually say many of the things that people say they do.

It's really just another tool to be used by professionals, like any other test. Like many other scientific results, the results are often extended far beyond the test's actual capabilities, rendering them largely useless outside of specific applications.

For instance, trying to apply any other characteristic to a single person based on an IQ test or making sweeping generalizations across entire populations based on IQ correlations, are both unscientific applications. Correlations do exist, but applying those correlations can only honestly be done under very specific circumstances.

 

[digital_blue]

IMO, high IQ simply means your thought processes are more efficient and on a "higher order". Also as PBD mentioned, the testing window is extremely narrow. Some people are "better developed" in certain areas and an IQ test may or may not cover such areas.

 

[daguin]

There are many "kinds" of genius.

There are many "kinds" of tests

Plus, the vast majority of them are both Euocentric or Americentric AND focused on the types of knowledge gained in urban scholastic settings.

Finally, your "test taking" skills influence your scores.

Peace,
dave

 

[HIMNL9]

[joke] Because they gives only 3 spaces for the IQ on the questionaries, and i don't know how write in only 3 spaces a 5 digits number [/joke]

Sorry, no offense, just kidding

Seriously, i don't think that IQ is a total bullshit ..... but i think i've understood what you mean, cause i also see peoples confusing it with knowledge or ability or attitudes ..... that what i mean is that IQ is an important data, but only ONE of the important data, about evaluations, where instead is usually considered the only one, just cause all talk about it and not about all the rest.

Let me propose you an example, about what i mean ..... i know a person that can't "change a tire" as in an example of the other post about IQ, that have an IQ on Mensa tests of 174, the last time he made it, is a fanatic of mathematical puzzles and riddles, that solve mostly "in-mind", and as passtime is trying to derivate something called "armonic dissonance from a transfinite numbers sequence", or something similar (and no, i also don't know what the hell is a transfinite numbers sequence ..... i hate mathematics ) ..... the mechanic near my shop have just statal schools attestates, no superior courses, and have difficults with numbers doing "in-mind" operations, but can take a motor, also one that he have never seen, totally dismantle it, reassemble it and turn it on at the first trial, without any instruction manual or specifications ..... both of them can't build a flip-flop circuit nor know what's a junction or how a transistor works ..... who of them is more "intelligent" ?

As you can see, here the question "who is more intelligent" have no sense, posted in this way ..... it can be said as "who is more gifted for mathematics and puzzles" ..... or "who is more gifted in intuitive mechanic" ..... but just asking who is more "intelligent" is a nonsense, without specific indications ..... one is more "able" in solving almost-impossibles math riddles in mind, one is more "able" in look a machine and understand how it work and where's the damage, and both are "unable" in work with electronics .....

I personally think that both of them are "intelligent" enough in their specific fields ..... but there's no IQ tests that can incorporate ALL the specific fields of interests and works and so on, at least until now, so it's hard to answer to that question .....

I personally think that the IQ tests must be changed in the way that they include a bit of anything (maybe joining all these IQ, aptitude, career, personality, social interaction, verbal, reasoning, intuition and all the other tests that the psichologists have "invented" in all these years in a single exam), and converted in an "GAQ" test (means, GLOBAL ABILITY, not just intelligence) ..... only in this way, you can have an almost decent indication about the complexive abilities of a person ..... but i see it very hard to realize in a short time ..... and a possible startup of a bloody war between the different currents of "psichologists", too, LOL


EDIT: and, as usual, while i'm typing, other 2 or 3 peoples beats me in speed ..... ah, the wonderful speed of the 2-fingers-typing-technique, LOL

 

[Deleted member 8382]

An IQ test, like any other test on earth, can only provide certain facts or answers. They are of a very limited utility, and really only truly useful to professionals who know how to use and interpret the results. However, IQ tests and their results are often abused in many ways. The tests, especially Internet tests which are entirely unscientific and often highly inaccurate, don't actually say many of the things that people say they do.

It's really just another tool to be used by professionals, like any other test. Like many other scientific results, the results are often extended far beyond the test's actual capabilities, rendering them largely useless outside of specific applications.

For instance, trying to apply any other characteristic to a single person based on an IQ test or making sweeping generalizations across entire populations based on IQ correlations, are both unscientific applications. Correlations do exist, but applying those correlations can only honestly be done under very specific circumstances.

So, if I understand it well, you don't think it's BS but you consider that the way people treat it is BS. If that was what you meant, I'm 100% with you. The funny side, though, is that the ones that know less about it are the ones complaining the most lol

IMO, high IQ simply means your thought processes are more efficient and on a "higher order". Also as PBD mentioned, the testing window is extremely narrow. Some people are "better developed" in certain areas and an IQ test may or may not cover such areas.

Exactly, however, modern tests are made in a way that they cover the main ones. And, that "sequences tests", believe it or not, usually give you the same result than a real one. They are not as acuratte as the real ones, and of course there are people who will score low while having a high IQ, but, for most of the people, they are accurate enough.

I mean, there are always exceptions, but the fact that there are exceptions don't mean that one thing is useless! Also, if you want my personal opinion, having higher IQ is more about "learning a lot and very fast", although that might be due to what you said... :evil:

There are many "kinds" of genius.

There are many "kinds" of tests

Plus, the vast majority of them are both Euocentric or Americentric AND focused on the types of knowledge gained in urban scholastic settings.

Finally, your "test taking" skills influence your scores.

Peace,
dave

Well, so as I understood it, those are the reasons for which IQ is BS to you. As I said above, do the fact that one thing isn't 100% accurate and reliable means that it's BS? It's like calling medicine BS because your mom died on the hospital...

Seriously, i don't think that IQ is a total bullshit ..... but i think i've understood what you mean, cause i also see peoples confusing it with knowledge or ability or attitudes ..... that what i mean is that IQ is an important data, but only ONE of the important data, about evaluations, where instead is usually considered the only one, just cause all talk about it and not about all the rest.

yeah, and those are exactly the ones who then say it's BS lol

Let me propose you an example, about what i mean ..... i know a person that can't "change a tire" as in an example of the other post about IQ, that have an IQ on Mensa tests of 174, the last time he made it, is a fanatic of mathematical puzzles and riddles, that solve mostly "in-mind", and as passtime is trying to derivate something called "armonic dissonance from a transfinite numbers sequence", or something similar (and no, i also don't know what the hell is a transfinite numbers sequence ..... i hate mathematics ) ..... the mechanic near my shop have just statal schools attestates, no superior courses, and have difficults with numbers doing "in-mind" operations, but can take a motor, also one that he have never seen, totally dismantle it, reassemble it and turn it on at the first trial, without any instruction manual or specifications ..... both of them can't build a flip-flop circuit nor know what's a junction or how a transistor works ..... who of them is more "intelligent" ?

yeah, the mechanical could have a high IQ too, who knows lol, what's that about Mensa test telling him his IQ was 174? Mensa tests give you the score in percentile and without decimals, so the maximum you can score is "above 99%", which is 137 in the Binet scale.

As you can see, here the question "who is more intelligent" have no sense, posted in this way ..... it can be said as "who is more gifted for mathematics and puzzles" ..... or "who is more gifted in intuitive mechanic" ..... but just asking who is more "intelligent" is a nonsense, without specific indications ..... one is more "able" in solving almost-impossibles math riddles in mind, one is more "able" in look a machine and understand how it work and where's the damage, and both are "unable" in work with electronics .....

100% agreed. I hate the word intelligence anyway. I think I'm gonna replace it for "cognitive ability" xD

 

[daguin]

Well, so as I understood it, those are the reasons for which IQ is BS to you. As I said above, do the fact that one thing isn't 100% accurate and reliable means that it's BS? It's like calling medicine BS because your mom died on the hospital...

Not only have you completely exagerated my argument, you have constructed an invalid analogy.

I haven't said one thing about 100% accuracy. It may be an argument you want to use, but it has nothing to do with what I said.

The tests are too limited to have signficant value in any general setting. First, you must match the test to the type of intellegence you are testing. Second, the person being tested must have knowledge of the type garnered in European and/or American urban settings to perform at a high level. Third, if you have better "test taking" skils, you score higher.

Re: the invalid analogy -- IQ tests and the medical field do not have nearly enough in common to be able to build an analogy between them. Also, I'm not even remotely aware of what my mother has to do with this argument

Peace,
dave

 

[Deleted member 8382]

Not only have you completely exagerated my argument, you have constructed an invalid analogy.

I haven't said one thing about 100% accuracy. It may be an argument you want to use, but it has nothing to do with what I said.

The tests are too limited to have signficant value in any general setting. First, you must match the test to the type of intellegence you are testing. Second, the person being tested must have knowledge of the type garnered in European and/or American urban settings to perform at a high level. Third, if you have better "test taking" skils, you score higher.

Re: the invalid analogy -- IQ tests and the medical field do not have nearly enough in common to be able to build an analogy between them. Also, I'm not even remotely aware of what my mother has to do with this argument

Peace,
dave

Since my first post was a question, I understood your post as an answer and not as a comment hehe

About what you just said, I guess it has some thing to do with thefact that people with high IQ learn fast. As I see it, since they learn faster, they are supposed to know "more" than others, that's why general culture questions appear in tests. It's just a theory, I might be wrong. About the "testing skills", you're supposed to do the tests only once xD

 

[digital_blue]

To be honest, IQ scores and ratings are completely weightless, it's how you apply your knowledge and intelligence. So what if you've derived equations and formulas that are beyond your time? If you can't find a practical application, it's worth less than the paper it's written on...

 

[Deleted member 8382]

I was waiting for someone to say something like that

To be honest, IQ scores and ratings are completely weightless

to what

it's how you apply your knowledge and intelligence

in order to...?

If you can't find a practical application, it's worth less than the paper it's written on

Exactly. You couldn't have said it better. Now, ask yourself, where did you got the idea that having high IQ was guarantee of anything? I didn't say it, no expert has said it. What's more, I, and every reliable source I've seen, has described IQ as just "potential"!

 

[digital_blue]

to what

Why does it need to be in reference to something? It's a pretty simple; "IQ ratings don't mean $hit"...

in order to...?

Was I expected to give specific examples?

Exactly. You couldn't have said it better. Now, ask yourself, where did you got the idea that having high IQ was guarantee of anything? I didn't say it, no expert has said it. What's more, I, and every reliable source I've seen, has described IQ as just "potential"!

I didn't say or imply that. I simply stated that knowledge without application is useless.

No offense or anything but you're being slightly over-analytical . Try reading my posts in whole and taking it at face value; there's no hidden message/references/agendas, etc...

 

[Deleted member 8382]

well, imagine we are talking about size. I tell you, hey, I'm 1'87! Then, you answer me "but size is BS because some girls may like you being shorter, and because there are short basketball players that jump higher than the tall ones". Well, that might suit the conversation if the tall guy had said that he was better or something, but he didn't.

IQ measures the "potential" and not the "actual abilities", doesn't it? It's an obvious thing that then it all depends on how the guy uses it, you get me?

 

[digital_blue]

well, imagine we are talking about size. I tell you, hey, I'm 1'87! Then, you answer me "but size is BS because some girls may like you being shorter, and because there are short basketball players that jump higher than the tall ones". Well, that might suit the conversation if the tall guy had said that he was better or something, but he didn't.

IQ measures the "potential" and not the "actual abilities", doesn't it? It's an obvious thing that then it all depends on how the guy uses it, you get me?

IQ ratings can be a good indicator but it's not reliable. First off, IQ is very subjective, thus making it difficult to quantify. Secondly, these tests lack scientific rigor. On what basis is a correct answer (on an IQ test) proportional to intelligence/potential? Who decides that the question actually even tests intelligence?

IMO, there's too many holes and loopholes to make for an accurate assessment...

Also, I believe IQ is simply a matter of thought process efficiency. Those with higher "IQ" (whatever IQ means) simply come to the "solution/answer" faster and more efficiently than someone with a "lower IQ".

 

[Meatball]

IQ measures the "potential" and not the "actual abilities", doesn't it? It's an obvious thing that then it all depends on how the guy uses it, you get me?

No, an IQ test is exactly what it stands for... and intelligence quotient. Its used to asses intelligence. Take that as you want to, but I don't think potential has anything to do with outright intelligence.

 

[Deleted member 8382]

No, an IQ test is exactly what it stands for... and intelligence quotient. Its used to asses intelligence. Take that as you want to, but I don't think potential has anything to do with outright intelligence.

for me, they are almost synonyms.

IQ ratings can be a good indicator but it's not reliable. First off, IQ is very subjective, thus making it difficult to quantify. Secondly, these tests lack scientific rigor. On what basis is a correct answer (on an IQ test) proportional to intelligence/potential? Who decides that the question actually even tests intelligence?

IMO, there's too many holes and loopholes to make for an accurate assessment...

Also, I believe IQ is simply a matter of thought process efficiency. Those with higher "IQ" (whatever IQ means) simply come to the "solution/answer" faster and more efficiently than someone with a "lower IQ".

As far as I know the best the test is, the best the results dispersion represent a Gaussian curve. I'm really not a test expert, but there's people that work making tests and I'm sure there are not as many holes as you think. Did you ever investigate on that? I haven't, but it sounds like an interesting thing to me. I'll let you know if I ever find any good article hehe

 

[lasersbee]

Also, I believe IQ is simply a matter of thought process efficiency. Those with higher "IQ" (whatever IQ means) simply come to the "solution/answer" faster and more efficiently than someone with a "lower IQ".

That is the way I see an IQ test result... Since the test was a mental
test and not an actual hands on test...

When I get up in the morning and can find my way to the coffee
machine without slamming my head into a wall... I figure I passed
that Real Life IQ test by passing that task put before me...

Other than that...an IQ test result and $0.05 have a total value
of $0.05... IMO

I think a lot of people only use it to brag... (my wee-wee is bigger
than yours...:crackup

Jerry