Why do you think IQ is bullshit?

[Seoul_lasers]

ROTFLMAO :crackup:

Sorry, but this remembered me an old discussion i had with one of my professors, when i was young (ages ago )

A perfect example of a totally incomplete question, that is ..... and i used that same example ..... the only possible answer to that specific question is "depend" .

What color is an apple ? ..... depend ..... at what point of the growing ? ..... at start, immature, mature, too mature, rotten ? ..... and what specie of apple ? (there are a lot of species of apples, you know ) ..... and also, a real apple, or a "fake" apple ? (if it's a plastic or wax reproduction of an apple, it can be whatever color you want to make it, including "stars and strips", huh ? ..... )

(yes, i was evily also when i was at school ..... but don't be preoccupied, growing up, i'm becomed a bit worse )

Well, I know you think this is funny... however I once had a co-teacher in Korea re-assure me that the answer to the apple question is red. She actually (believed) told me that all Apples in Korea are red and that is a truth. There was no such a thing as a non-red apple. The discussion was over once I showed a picture of a Granny Smith and a Galla. Talk about having blinders on.....

 

[Raybo]

Is there a test for common sense?
Now that would interest me! (I think Hallucynogenyc was looking for a fight from the get-go) :gun:

 

[Seoul_lasers]

Several kinds of intelligences. I like Howard Gardener's Theory of Multiple Intelligences.

1.1 Logical-mathematical
1.2 Spatial
1.3 Linguistic
1.4 Bodily-kinesthetic
1.5 Musical
1.6 Interpersonal
1.7 Intrapersonal
1.8 Naturalistic
1.9 Existential

 

[Agap8os]

^ ROTFL

Ah, well, it's already resurrected, so .....

trying to introduce a new current (no relations with your voltage ) of thinking ..... i've heard about autistic peoples that can learn foreign languages or solve mathematic and logic problems better than any "normal" people (also, some research companies hire authistic peoples with specific abilities) ..... also, some of the so-called "genius people" of the past, had autistic characteristics (or, at least, the light form called Aspergers Syndrome) .....

Following the actual tests, some of these peoples can be classified between 150 and 200, in the current IQ scale ..... :thinking: ..... so, following this line of thinking, you can also say that IQ can be an indication of a possible mental disease, huh ?

(playing devil's advocate ..... Hm, no, maybe just playing devil, here :crackup

TWIMC:

I stumbled on this thread—indeed, on this site—after Googling “IQ is bullshit”. I just wondered who else might think what I’ve come to believe over the past several years.

I’ve read many posts that touch on some of the reasons why I think that. Some of them are a bit “retarded” in that they’re based on fallacies rather than facts. However, few if any really address the idea that “IQ” itself is bullshit. They mainly confine themselves to the issues of methodology and application.

I am autistic. I am 59 years old and have known about my autism for approximately two years. As does at least one other person posting on this thread, I have harbored some very incorrect stereotypes regarding those called “autistic”. That s/he would suggest that “many” of us score in the 150-200 range or that autism is “some sort of mental disease” demonstrates this. Autism is a difference, not a disease (ref. homosexuality). Because so-called “IQ” weights verbal ability to an unrealistic degree—and because we (autistics) rely so heavily on verbal ability—our scores are inflated.

Following my diagnosis, which came on the heels of my dismissal from a job for reasons I couldn’t then fathom, I was given an IQ test that didn’t rely heavily on verbal ability. Whereas I’ve historically tested in the 140 to 165 range, my score that time was a much-more-realistic 125. For the first time in my life, I’m not beating myself up for failing to “work to [my] potential”.

My point is that the construct of “mental age”, upon which that of “intelligence quotient” is founded is itself ridiculous. A single number isn’t even unidimensional—it’s punctilliar. But even to confine the totality of a person’s inner world to one dimension is preposterous. You simply cannot express all that a person mentally is with a single value, attributed to a single continuum. There would have to be, at least, multiple continua—intersecting and coexisting is multiple planes—to express even the simplest mind. Reducing that to a single number—even an irrational one—is not only impossible, it’s insane.

People develop along so many different lines—memory, abstraction, imagination, social perspective, et cetera—that even a scatter plot of values would be hard pressed to express any individual’s uniqueness. To even attempt to accomplish this with a single number is essentially to equate a human being with a thing that is almost entirely meaningless. Personally, I think that is the entire point of the exercise: to dehumanize people and to reduce them to units of applicability and non-applicability to specific purposes for which “the powers that be” (I almost typoed that as “the posers that be”—a Freudian slip, perhaps?) have designated them. Pathetic.

 

[CrimsonTide0]

Hello, this is going to be my first post so I must admit that I'm rather nervous about posting this, but here goes.

For starters, I do feel as if the concept of being able to measure a person's intelligence (a vague term already within the 2nd sentence!) is a tad unbelievable. I could be completely wrong, of course, I'm posting a reply to have an accelerated chance at learning. One of the reasons that I believe this is that, many of my chance encounters of IQ tests thus far were mostly internet ones, which upon reading some of the comments made me reconsider my positions as apparently internet iq tests are very unsubstantiated to begin with which would imply that a "genuine" iq test may actually be far believable. -Er can't think of the right word here.

Another reason that I dismiss the idea of IQ tests, even if one did allow a leeway statement like genetics could alter the development of different human beings, is that it could be a very slippery slope. First off, the iq test would have to somehow be capable of fully understanding all sorts of intelligences to begin with or at least clarify in what it is trying to measure.- Constances are useless if they are not given life by meaning. (Ha, I met some mathmatical-logical thinkers out there could appreciate this sort of ideal)

Along with this, I'd like to point out one of the ideas that was talked about in this Thread, I think that it pointed out that IQ rather being a questioner of raw knowledge, could exemplify how quickly a person could learn a new subject. This caught my attention as it was rather peculiar, to which I will bring the possibility (I see that I will be sticking to some logics for now) that a person who simply knows or have already learned more would be more apt at learning new things to which that knowledge applies. Simplistically speaking, this may be a little sketchily rooted that a person who has studied the sciences for over 20 years would be better at memorizing sciences rather than a person who has never heard of the subject. So basically I'm implying that with knowledge the rate at which you could learn knowledge could change as well.

Following up on that, if it were indeed true, it may be far more appropriate and viable to say that human beings are capable of developing random skills to which the conscious mind could decide for itself and becomes "better" at the situation by "learning" or "noticing" new things which is used again later to assist in the task. If this is true, then the method of learning things or have been chosen to learn something through that method would imply a far greater significance than anything else. Methods of learning being extremely various of course and therefore different branches of intelligences could be formed to accomplish the same goal, and because of lack of understanding in different branches of intelligences, certain people who are able to do great things would be less than mediocre in other criterias.

I have a lot more to say, but I'm rather interested and anxious to the hopefully existient replies to this reply. I apologize that if I'm very difficult to understand sometimes, clarity has never been a virtue I've learned of, despite desiring it.

 

[Teej]

I think an IQ number is about as BS as say, your weight.

Neither are BS in my opinion...as both are merely ONE way of measuring something.

Its how you interpret that data that matters. If you misuse it/misapply it, that's BS.

IQ tests have validity if used for what they are meant to be used for, and, interpreted in light of that limitation.

The limitations are for example, if "rating" people by their weight, that you don't know their height, or, percent body fat, have fast twitch or slow twitch muscle types, or if they can play the piano, or football, etc.

If you only know their IQ, you have a feel for how smart they are at taking tests, doing puzzles and how many facts they have absorbed so far...of the classes of facts you asked for.

Generally, people who know a lot of facts might be "smarter", or, just be able to absorb info well.

Generally, people who are good at puzzles, might be smarter, or, just good at puzzles, and so forth.

There are specific tests for logic and so forth as well, and, a person can be very logical, albeit have trouble with things that logic is difficult to apply to.

So, what MOST people would consider "Intelligence" can not be ONLY measured with an IQ score.

I've seen guys in prison with IQ scores of ~ 80 (MOST people in prison score low, as a group), who can make a weapon out of almost nothing, can plot intricate ways to kill or steal, and can manipulate their guards into ploys, etc.

That's a type of intelligence, but, it doesn't show up on an IQ test.


Choosing who is "intelligent" by their IQ alone might be akin to choosing a football player by his weight alone....it MIGHT work, but, it might not.

Generally, I find those with higher IQ to be smarter than those with a lower IQ, especially if looking at the extremes....so there is some correlation...but its NOT that tight a line.


A upper middle class kid is more likely to know what a divot is than a ghetto kid from another country, and, if that vocabulary question makes one score higher...and there's NO questions about the parts of a car that are better to pawn, or if a particular slug is edible, to counter balance that disparity.

If the IQ test HAD questions that required familiarity with other environments than middle class/academia...the guys who knew what a divot was would be penalized by not knowing all the parts in an AK47, or what berries were edible in someplace they don't live, and so forth.


The IQ test is best a measure of academic knowledge, so, its use is best utilized in that environment.

Most scientists, as a group, tend to score higher, say ~ 120 or so being average...but, break through work is not all from guys with 160+, much is from these 120 guys with creativity and perseverance and the ability to see things in a new way that allows the break through, not whether they knew what a divot was OR how to field strip an AK47...but how they viewed and interpreted what they were working on...in a way their peers could not.

Creativity is not really rated by an IQ test, its more of a quotient related scale.



There are no advantages to getting a low score, but there are advantages to getting a high score....

...but almost all of the advantages and disadvantages hinge on ego and/or misapplications by those judging you.


So, the score has some validity in itself, but, just like weight, that validity should not be the sole scale of a person's intelligence, and definitely not of their worth.

Medically, sure, brain damage might be indicated, and, a feel for what they are working with can be achieved by looking at their score, but, again, its like their weight, if you want to know if they are too fat or too thin, you need more than their weight itself.

 

[CrimsonTide0]

This is very clarifying to say the least, and I would just like to say that I guess that rather than stating that the IQ tests are bullshit, albiet following out your interpretations, that what I truly thought was bullshit was some of the implications surrounding it made by some people with ideologies regarding that matter.

 

[Alaskan]

Essentially, an IQ test measures the overlap between the passions of the test taker and the passions of the test maker.

 

[Teej]

Essentially, an IQ test measures the overlap between the passions of the test taker and the passions of the test maker.

LOL

You could say that about all tests.

 

[USAbro]

LOL

You could say that about all tests.

Possibly, however for example, a math test is there to help the teacher and you know, what you need to study, and what your already good at, nothing to do with passions!

 

[Pman]

I didn't read any of this but I can personally say I tested out at 147 and can answer only about a 1/4th or less of Jeopardy questions, speak only English and like black licorice lol

 

[Teej]

Possibly, however for example, a math test is there to help the teacher and you know, what you need to study, and what your already good at, nothing to do with passions!

LOL

In this case, passions could be construed as interests, so, your math teacher's interest is in math...and, yes, of course the math test is to see if you're learning/direct remedial measures, etc.

The motivation to give a test is a different issue than the composition of the test, albeit, ideally, one would hope that they too overlap as far as an end result goes.




And, again, an IQ test tests a quotient, and it is biased towards certain cultures more than others. It is not the entire picture of someone's "genius" or even brilliance, common sense, artistic talent, originality, creativity, sense of humor, perceptiveness, etc.

Its more useful to use diagnostically, say to establish if a person is especially strong or weak in certain areas, which may indicate brain damage or function, etc, for certain legal issues, and general "intelligence" when you are interested in a person's overall tendency to have acquired knowledge, etc.

IE: Few people with an IQ of 70 will be working in certain fields, even if they have other talents.

On the other hand, if you take a guy with an IQ of 70, from a cultural upbringing that was the only limiting factor...and give him opportunity/exposure to mainstream culture and education...he might bring that IQ up to essentially ANY range given enough time.

Some people are naturally curious...and learn things they "don't NEED to know". Others hate learning anything unless they HAVE TO, or, have an interest in it.


Two people have a bit of veg time and decide to watch TV. One watches the Discovery Channel and learns about how plate tectonics works. The other watches a show about Kim Kardashian, and learns that you can make a career out of being a rich lawyer's daughter.

If the IQ test rates the knowledge about tectonics higher, and perhaps has very few questions about celebrity birthrights, etc, the Discovery watcher might score higher...but, if the Discovery watcher works as a laser scientist, and not with plate tectonics, and the Kardashian watcher works in Hollywood as a publicist...who was actually probably being more productive?



Who's increased their knowledge in their field more that night?

Who's to say which is REALLY more important?