The REAL purpose of I.Q. Testing

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

WHY IS THIS VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT SO DIFFICULT FOR SOME PEOPLE TO GRASP?

Because it is not so simple, you are "simply" stating this as fact despite it being conjecture.

WE SO TOTALLY DO KNOW WHAT INTELLIGENCE IS:

the capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.


We do NOT measure intelligence by judging someone's athletic potential, painting skills, bank account, farm expertise, social ability, emotional range, etcetera... because these things are *NOT* intelligence.

Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including, but not limited to, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, reasoning, learning, having emotional knowledge, retaining, planning, and problem solving.

Intelligence

This is far from the narrow definition you provided. The only blanket term which can be applied to intelligence is "pattern recognition". I honestly think it is absurd to say that a musical composition containing dozens of different instruments is not a demonstration of an intelligent agent.

People with high IQs tend not to reproduce as much as people with low IQs

The stupid shall inherit the earth and then won't be able to run it.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


I went to school in West Virginia. I am lucky I can read. What exactly did I misspell? Desocialise is not really a word, but it conveyed the concept I wanted so I went with it. At least my posts are coherent. Most of the time.

reply to post by Openeye

Because it is not so simple, you are "simply" stating this as fact despite it being conjecture.

Hardly, I am stating the definition of Intelligence.... I don't see what's "Conjectural" about it.

Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including, but not limited to, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, reasoning, learning, having emotional knowledge, retaining, planning, and problem solving.

And freedom has been defined as slavery.

Okay, a more thorough refutation:

abstract thought
This is part of the definition that I provided.

understanding
This is part of the definition that I provided.

self-awareness
This is not "Intelligence", this is self awareness... which is a manifestation of intelligence.

communication
Communication is not Intelligence, it is a Capability of intelligent entities... not the same thing.

reasoning
This is part of the definition that I provided.

learning
This is the part of the definition that I provided.

having emotional knowledge
This is laughable, and has been debunked as not having any substantiated evidence whatsoever, as well as being completely unfalsafiable.

EI cannot be recognized as a form of intelligence

Goleman's early work has been criticized for assuming from the beginning that EI is a type of intelligence. Eysenck (2000)[33] writes that Goleman's description of EI contains unsubstantiated assumptions about intelligence in general, and that it even runs contrary to what researchers have come to expect when studying types of intelligence:

"[Goleman] exemplifies more clearly than most the fundamental absurdity of the tendency to class almost any type of behaviour as an 'intelligence'... If these five 'abilities' define 'emotional intelligence', we would expect some evidence that they are highly correlated; Goleman admits that they might be quite uncorrelated, and in any case if we cannot measure them, how do we know they are related? So the whole theory is built on quicksand: there is no sound scientific basis."

Similarly, Locke (2005)[34] claims that the concept of EI is in itself a misinterpretation of the intelligence construct, and he offers an alternative interpretation: it is not another form or type of intelligence, but intelligence—the ability to grasp abstractions—applied to a particular life domain: emotions. He suggests the concept should be re-labeled and referred to as a skill.

The essence of this criticism is that scientific inquiry depends on valid and consistent construct utilization, and that before the introduction of the term EI, psychologists had established theoretical distinctions between factors such as abilities and achievements, skills and habits, attitudes and values, and personality traits and emotional states.[35] Thus, some scholars believe that the term EI merges and conflates such accepted concepts and definitions.
en.wikipedia.org...

retaining
Do you mean "Remembering Things"?
Because that is memory.

planning
This is part of the Definition that I provided.

problem solving.
This is part of the definition that I provided.

I honestly think it is absurd to say that a musical composition containing dozens of different instruments is not a demonstration of an intelligent agent.

This is why.

Also, your argument is specious.

The use of symbolic language is a demonstration of intelligence....

This does not mean that everyone who is capable of language is equally intelligent.

And the quality of a musical composition is not open to objective criticism... since beautiful music is in the ear of the beholder.

OP way off base here.
Do you think there is ONE type of IQ test?

Here are a few things that can be measured with such tests


Fluid intelligence (Gf) includes the broad ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems using unfamiliar information or novel procedures.
Crystallized intelligence (Gc) includes the breadth and depth of a person's acquired knowledge, the ability to communicate one's knowledge, and the ability to reason using previously learned experiences or procedures.
Quantitative reasoning (Gq) is the ability to comprehend quantitative concepts and relationships and to manipulate numerical symbols.
Reading and writing ability (Grw) includes basic reading and writing skills.
Short-term memory (Gsm) is the ability to apprehend and hold information in immediate awareness, and then use it within a few seconds.
Long-term storage and retrieval (Glr) is the ability to store information and fluently retrieve it later in the process of thinking.
Visual processing (Gv) is the ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize, and think with visual patterns, including the ability to store and recall visual representations.
Auditory processing (Ga) is the ability to analyze, synthesize, and discriminate auditory stimuli, including the ability to process and discriminate speech sounds that may be presented under distorted conditions.
Processing speed (Gs) is the ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks, particularly when measured under pressure to maintain focused attention.
Decision/reaction time/speed (Gt)reflects the immediacy with which an individual can react to stimuli or a task (typically measured in seconds or fractions of seconds; it is not to be confused with Gs, which typically is measured in intervals of 2–3 minutes).

Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability and have a 95% success rate.

But of course you know better.

To think that there are shady groups that are trying to force you who to date because of some preconditioning which will make the planet dumber is crazy.

reply to post by Taggart

Do you think there is ONE type of IQ test?

Please.... there are probably thousands of different types of I.Q. tests.... and most of them are bull[snip]

Fluid intelligence (Gf) includes the broad ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems using unfamiliar information or novel procedures.
Crystallized intelligence (Gc) includes the breadth and depth of a person's acquired knowledge, the ability to communicate one's knowledge, and the ability to reason using previously learned experiences or procedures.

Crystallized intelligence is the ability to use skills, knowledge, and experience. It does not equate to memory or knowledge, but it does rely on accessing information from long-term memory.

en.wikipedia.org...

Yeah.... that theory is pretty bogus, isn't it?

One of it's types of intelligence is "Stuff you know, and can remember"

Which, last time I checked, was called "Memory"

So, no... not intelligence.

Quantitative reasoning (Gq) is the ability to comprehend quantitative concepts and relationships and to manipulate numerical symbols.

This is typically known as "Using Reason to Grasp Relationships"

Intelligence: 1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

Short-term memory (Gsm) is the ability to apprehend and hold information in immediate awareness, and then use it within a few seconds.
Long-term storage and retrieval (Glr) is the ability to store information and fluently retrieve it later in the process of thinking.

These are Memory.

Visual processing (Gv) is the ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize, and think with visual patterns, including the ability to store and recall visual representations.

This is typically known as "Imagination" or "Abstract Thought"

Auditory processing (Ga) is the ability to analyze, synthesize, and discriminate auditory stimuli, including the ability to process and discriminate speech sounds that may be presented under distorted conditions.

You just got all of these out of the theory of Crystallized and Fluid intelligence, didn't you?

The only definition in that entire work that approaches intelligence is "Fluid Intelligence":

Fluid intelligence or fluid reasoning is the capacity to think logically and solve problems in novel situations, independent of acquired knowledge. It is the ability to analyze novel problems, identify patterns and relationships that underpin these problems and the extrapolation of these using logic. It is necessary for all logical problem solving, e.g., in scientific, mathematical and technical problem solving. Fluid reasoning includes inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.

Everything else in the work is merely a different application of "Fluid Intelligence"

Processing speed (Gs) is the ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks, particularly when measured under pressure to maintain focused attention.

This is part of the original definition...

Decision/reaction time/speed (Gt)reflects the immediacy with which an individual can react to stimuli or a task (typically measured in seconds or fractions of seconds; it is not to be confused with Gs, which typically is measured in intervals of 2–3 minutes).

This is clearly just reaction time, and not intelligence.

Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability and have a 95% success rate.

Then what exactly is your point of contention?

To think that there are shady groups that are trying to force you who to date because of some preconditioning which will make the planet dumber is crazy.

Nice ad homenim attack there.

Did you have a specific rebuttal, or were you just going to copy/paste a theory of intelligence that you clearly did not do any research on, or READ for that matter, and hurl insults at me?

According to Cattell, "...it is apparent that one of these powers… has the 'fluid' quality of being directable to almost any problem. By contrast, the other is invested in particular areas of crystallized skills which can be upset individually without affecting the others."[3] Thus, his claim was that each type, or factor, was independent of the other, though many authors have noted an apparent interdependence of the two.

The "Fluid" one that he was talking about, is "Intelligence", the other one is NOT.

Crystallized intelligence is possibly more amenable to change as it relies on specific, acquired knowledge.

en.wikipedia.org...

Knowledge is not intelligence.

First off I apologise for any ad hominem.
Secondly thanks for your deeply thought out reply.
NOW..
Any IQ test I have taken is a mixture of questions that cover the bases you have previously covered.
Most answers are based off working out the answer with the evidence provided.
I can see your point about prior knowledge to a degree, for instance

Which number comes next in the sequence

2-5-7-12-19 - ?

Now I guess what you are saying is 'prior knowledge' here would be learning maths (basic of course) also abstract thought (is that what code breaking would come under?either way math is still a major 'Prior knowledge' yes?)

But if the question was something like

Which shape comes next in the sequence and you have 4 shapes, you can only use the evidence in front of you.

Though if someone showed you the correct answer (prior knowledge for next time) next time you get that type of question you have an idea how to answer it, therefore does not measure true unbiased intelligence.

Reaction times though you don't count it as true intelligence plays a part in any exam with a time limit,
I guess your argument is time isn't a factor of intelligence if both get the answer correct/

Is that essentially what you are saying? I'm just trying to get my head round it.

reply to post by Taggart

First off I apologise for any ad hominem.

Apology Accepted.

Secondly thanks for your deeply thought out reply.

You are Welcome.

Now I guess what you are saying is 'prior knowledge' here would be learning maths (basic of course) also abstract thought (is that what code breaking would come under?either way math is still a major 'Prior knowledge' yes?)

Numbers would be prior knowledge, as would basic communication, math, symbols, etcetera....

Yes.... certain amounts of "Prior Knowledge" are inescapable due to the nature of how we test (Being able to communicate the conditions of the test, for example)..... However, if we construct the test out of only the most BASIC and FUNDAMENTAL knowledge possible.... such as, communication, symbols, and numbers...

Then most knowledge based contamination can be avoided in the score.

However, it should be noted, that if you do not know how to communicate (Verbal AND written) and do not understand numbers, or basic math... you should NOT be taking an I.Q. test until you DO have these skills...

This is due to the nature of how tests are a basic form of communication, and measurement... of which communication, numbers, and symbolic language are integral to function.

But if the question was something like

Which shape comes next in the sequence and you have 4 shapes, you can only use the evidence in front of you.

Yes, this would be a preferable method of testing..... if some of your test takers do not know about numbers.

Though if someone showed you the correct answer (prior knowledge for next time) next time you get that type of question you have an idea how to answer it, therefore does not measure true unbiased intelligence.

I suppose there could be some contamination of this sort, but if the test is a different one, (as opposed to the same questions and answers) then the prior should not contaminate the score.

Reaction times though you don't count it as true intelligence plays a part in any exam with a time limit,
I guess your argument is time isn't a factor of intelligence if both get the answer correct/

Er... it's... Hmmmm....

There were two mentions of a type of reaction time in your post....

One appeared to be physical... while the other appeared to be mental.

IT is only the mental processing time that plays a role in intelligence, not the physical.

Is that essentially what you are saying? I'm just trying to get my head round it.

Basically, yes....

Intelligence, at it's core, is the ability to understand things.

And the measurement part is comparing how well, quickly, in-depth, someone's comprehension is compared to other people.... Hence "Quotient"

g is typically the factor that most intelligence tests "Test" for...

en.wikipedia.org...

You don't want to contaminate the test with too much knowledge based testing, because then you are testing someone's intelligence, based on what books they have read, what shows they have watched, if they do crossword puzzles, etcetera....

And you are not really measuring INTELLIGENCE, you are measuring the depth of their knowledge, which is not comprehension.

A pure intelligence test would be as simple as possible, contain reference's to as LITTLE specific knowledge as possible, and directly test comprehension.


To give you an example:

I was given an IQ test when I was about 10 years old... and one of the sections was Word Comparisons (multiple choice)

Such as:

Alfalfa is to brussel sprout, as:

A) Carrot is to cucumber
B) Banana is to coconut
C) Hammer is to Nail
D) Pineapple is to Enterprise.

The exception was... they were *VERY* obscure words, that I had never encountered before, and didn't know their meanings....

I was forced to guess on that portion.

But, as it relates to my explanation... this was not a test to determine if I could accurately gauge the relationships between the words... it was now a test to determine if I had even HEARD of the word, and knew it's meaning.

Simmilar to testing someone who doesn't know how to read, using an essay style test.

Or someone who does not know math, with equations.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

Hardly, I am stating the definition of Intelligence

No, you are stating "a" definition of intelligence, one which is not universally accepted as dogma by the academic community.

And freedom has been defined as slavery.

Some may define it that way, this is a philosophical question not a scientific one.

abstract thought
This is part of the definition that I provided.

understanding
This is part of the definition that I provided.

self-awareness
This is not "Intelligence", this is self awareness... which is a manifestation of intelligence.

Self awareness is a bi product of intelligence yes, so is abstract thought, and understanding. There are a plethora of animals in this world which could be labeled intelligent who lack all three of these things.

communication
Communication is not Intelligence, it is a Capability of intelligent entities... not the same thing.

See my above comment...

having emotional knowledge
This is laughable, and has been debunked as not having any substantiated evidence whatsoever, as well as being completely unfalsafiable.

I have no idea if this paper "debunks" anything as it is not available for the general public.

Thus, some scholars believe that the term EI merges and conflates such accepted concepts and definitions.

I believe some is a key word here, there has been no debunking of the claims made, only criticisms.

This is why.

Your example is flawed because what you posted was not "music", it was the sounds of a natural environment which through our abstract thinking we can appreciate as "musical" if not for our minds it would simply be mating calls and rain, it is not the product of an intelligent agent. The process of creating music requires an understanding of mathematics principles.

reply to post by Openeye

No, you are stating "a" definition of intelligence, one which is not universally accepted as dogma by the academic community.

Find me one who does not accept My definition.

Do it.

Some may define it that way, this is a philosophical question not a scientific one.

It was not a question, it was a metaphor.

Self awareness is a bi product of intelligence yes, so is abstract thought, and understanding. There are a plethora of animals in this world which could be labeled intelligent who lack all three of these things.

This is factually incorrect.

Self awareness is a type of understanding, that one exists as a separate entity from one's environment... that one is aware of one's conciousness....

It is an act of comprehension, of Intelligence.

How would these animals be labels intelligent, if they lack all of the qualifications of intelligence?

Are you serious?

I have no idea if this paper "debunks" anything as it is not available for the general public.

Yes, I ran into that problem myself.... which is why I went back and quoted some more appropriate material.

I believe some is a key word here, there has been no debunking of the claims made, only criticisms.

You must have missed the part where:

"[Goleman] exemplifies more clearly than most the fundamental absurdity of the tendency to class almost any type of behaviour as an 'intelligence'... If these five 'abilities' define 'emotional intelligence', we would expect some evidence that they are highly correlated; Goleman admits that they might be quite uncorrelated, and in any case if we cannot measure them, how do we know they are related? So the whole theory is built on quicksand: there is no sound scientific basis."

Also, you are a coconut.

Your example is flawed because what you posted was not "music"

This, coming from a man that some people have called a "Coconut"?

Would you like to explain why what I posted was not music?

I would love to hear your argument!

The process of creating music requires an understanding of mathematics principles.

Then why does music pre-date mathematics?

reply to post by beezzer


That is because the universities of the sixties and seventies turned out a class of people who thought the Soviets were right. They went on to bigger things and have coloured the institutions with their BS.

Originally posted by Robonakka
Well my IQ is 143. In school I was separated from the other kids and put into a closet and paddled every morning. They sent me to a gifted school which was fun, but in the 6th grade they did away with the school and we had computer classes. When it became apparent I was becoming a hacker they took away the computers from me and banned me from them for life.

They did everything they could to desocialise me at an early age. I became an outcast, a freak. They took all of that potential and shunted it away from anything productive. My life has been hell ever since.

Welome to social leprosy-- where the gifted yet unmanageable
are treated as enemies of the state... because we're aware of
the game and of no "use" to them. Nothing in the world irks
them more than defiance. Tough.

Dunno what the hell "bankers" have to do with education, or IQ's.

Fact is education has been reduced to by how many billions thrown at a student, and indoctrination.

Sample IQ test:

True or False:

Man is responsible for global warming : True

Rich people are evil, and have to share the wealth: True

Banks are evil, and have to be vilified, and destroyed: True

Government is going to give me everything I want: True

Anyone who answered True to that would be labeled a :Genius

Of course the reality is quite different.

Meh

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Then they're doing a really miserable job of it.

My family all have high IQ's (I was in Mensa, my brother certainly qualifies, so does my nephew, my husband, and both my kids) -- and nobody weeded us out or reduced our fertility. The men in the family went on to achieve notable professional success.

And I teach. I mentor kids. I'm old as dirt, too -- was born back when people WERE doing eugenics.

If anything, modern first world societies tend to foster high IQ people. It's no longer a "mark of shame" if a woman is a genius, and the high IQ men don't seem to care if their woman outscores them on an IQ test. As one Mensan (whose wife has a much higher IQ than his) put it to me, "being married to an ordinary woman is like walking down a path leading a cow. The scenery's nice, the cow occasionally balks, and you get where you're going. Being married to a (woman who's a genius) is like riding down that same path on top of a firey, fast racehorse. You're not always sure who's in control, but it's a heck of a ride and you go much further than you would walking along with a cow."

Now, China -- the culture is endowed with the strong notion that the man MUST be more intelligent than the woman. Intelligent Chinese women aren't getting married to Chinese men, and it's starting to concern the Chinese government.

If there was a deliberate manifesto such as is proposed here, the Chinese government wouldn't worry, and first world societies would have that same belief -- that the man must always be smarter than the woman and it's a shame if he marries someone brighter than he is.

(For the record, my IQ is about 5 points higher than my husband's. Since he's also a genius, he loves having a wife who can understand his obscure puns and mathematical banter.)

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Then they're doing a really miserable job of it.

My family all have high IQ's (I was in Mensa, my brother certainly qualifies, so does my nephew, my husband, and both my kids) -- and nobody weeded us out or reduced our fertility. The men in the family went on to achieve notable professional success.

And I teach. I mentor kids. I'm old as dirt, too -- was born back when people WERE doing eugenics.

If anything, modern first world societies tend to foster high IQ people. It's no longer a "mark of shame" if a woman is a genius, and the high IQ men don't seem to care if their woman outscores them on an IQ test. As one Mensan (whose wife has a much higher IQ than his) put it to me, "being married to an ordinary woman is like walking down a path leading a cow. The scenery's nice, the cow occasionally balks, and you get where you're going. Being married to a (woman who's a genius) is like riding down that same path on top of a firey, fast racehorse. You're not always sure who's in control, but it's a heck of a ride and you go much further than you would walking along with a cow."

Now, China -- the culture is endowed with the strong notion that the man MUST be more intelligent than the woman. Intelligent Chinese women aren't getting married to Chinese men, and it's starting to concern the Chinese government.

If there was a deliberate manifesto such as is proposed here, the Chinese government wouldn't worry, and first world societies would have that same belief -- that the man must always be smarter than the woman and it's a shame if he marries someone brighter than he is.

(For the record, my IQ is about 5 points higher than my husband's. Since he's also a genius, he loves having a wife who can understand his obscure puns and mathematical banter.)

reply to post by neo96


Well, more specifically... They are trying to re-define "Intelligence" from:

The ability to understand the complex plans that the Global Bankers use to manipulate us into slavery.....


Into


Playing Football, Being emotional, being "Socially Normal", obeying authority, and never questioning the government.


I'm having an argument with someone right now who is trying to get "Rap Music" be labeld as an act of Newtonian Genius.

reply to post by Byrd

Then they're doing a really miserable job of it.

That sure is a lot of data points there.... what you got? 4 people?

It's a BROAD social eugenics program carried out through mass media manipulation... the point IS that it's not 100% effective... only like... 50-80% effective.

This still means that the population is less intelligent every year, but hardly means that ALL HIGH IQ PEOPLE WILL BE MURDERED BEFORE THEIR 18th BIRTHDAY.

All in all, nice personal anecdote.... but disprove my supposition, it does not.

I would have thought that a MENSA level intelligence would know better than to posit such a worn out logical fallacy as "Proof"

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Stephen Jay Gould

Howard Gardner

Reuven Feuerstein

They have different ideas and opinions on the nature of intelligence.

How would these animals be labels intelligent, if they lack all of the qualifications of intelligence?

Because they do not lack all the qualifications of intelligence, they however do lack certain forms of intelligence.

Mirror test

For example insects are not considered self aware, however they do posses problem solving abilities and communication skills.

Would you like to explain why what I posted was not music?

Then why does music pre-date mathematics?

I would argue that music does not predate mathematics, patterns are inherently mathematical. While nature may have some musical qualities it lacks the combination of the below subjects which can only be achieved through an intelligent agent...

Rythym Tempo Meter

The more our understanding of mathematics increased the more complex music has gotten.

reply to post by Openeye

Stephen Jay Gould

Howard Gardner

Reuven Feuerstein

They have very ideas and opinions on the nature of intelligence.

Oh please... these people think that being a football player is an act of genius.

Try again.

Because they do not lack all the qualifications of intelligence, they however do lack certain forms of intelligence.

What? the qualifications that the people who think that playing football is an act of genius made up?

For example insects are not considered self aware, however they do posses problem solving abilities and communication skills.

Trees posess communication skills, would you consider them intelligent?

And no... ants do not have problem solving skills... you are misinterpreting the meaning of "Problem solving Skills"

I would argue that music does not predate mathematics, patterns are inherently mathematical.

So is sunrise and sunset..... would you state that the earth is intelligent, because of the mathematical pattern of day and night?

While nature may have some musical qualities it lacks the combination of the below subjects which can only be achieved through an intelligent agent...

Bah... a specious argument.

being able to make music is not a form of intelligence, it is an application of intelligence.

That you do not comprehend the difference is the problem.

The more our understanding of mathematics increased the more complex music has gotten.

SOME music... yes...

But not ALL music... As my previous example illustrates, Musical ability is not an indicator of "High Intelligence"

reply to post by Robonakka

In school I was separated from the other kids and put into a closet and paddled every morning.

uhhh, that's just creepy