I would tend to believe that a standardized IQ test would yeild more of a suggestion about how intelligent you are. Many tests out there today named "IQ Tests" seem to test knowledge instead of intelligence. I personally think that some forms of genius cannot rated through a test.
Do you believe in IQ tests?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
w1z4rd
Valued Senior Member
I dont believe in any of the stuff you said above.. mostly.. but I do believe in IQ tests.
as compared to the kid who has the perfect mommy and daddy and the one who's parents are alcoholic etc, etc. it is great for the one with the perfect parents, great for him to pat himself on the back and delude himself.
Last edited:
IQ tests once provided a very general point of reference.
They are increasingly becoming outdated as modern psychological testing takes over. Its our ability to adapt to continuous change that puts us all in much better stead in employment etc than rote learning.
I completed two different IQ tests in University some time ago and it differed by 20 points, the second was much higher as I knew how to answer better after being exposed to the first.
As per the OP I believe less in them as time goes by. Give me Myers-Briggs or Belbin, rather than IQ.
They are increasingly becoming outdated as modern psychological testing takes over. Its our ability to adapt to continuous change that puts us all in much better stead in employment etc than rote learning.
I completed two different IQ tests in University some time ago and it differed by 20 points, the second was much higher as I knew how to answer better after being exposed to the first.
As per the OP I believe less in them as time goes by. Give me Myers-Briggs or Belbin, rather than IQ.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
I, to a degree, agree with what you are saying but think the gap in the test is rather large, rather than merely around social skills. You did not assert the latter, but reading your post it might come off as, Sure, IQ tests miss out on social skills, but they do test intelligence.
Social skills are an example of intelligence in situations where the array of variables is not simply high in number but often in many different forms, sometimes fields of knowledge. One needs to put together patterns mixing memory, body language, psychology, group dynamics etc. The kinds of pattern recognition are radically different from those picking out patterns in sequences of numbers. Perhaps we will find that this kind of intuition breaks down into highly complicated deductive and inductive processes we can track and lay out on paper. Perhaps not. But a wide variety of professions out there require similar diverse kinds of intelligence.
There are some jobs where the guy or gal sits at a desk and carves their way through data or designs test protocols or whatever, where such intelligence IQ tests test is more on the mark. But most jobs require the kinds of intelligence that are harder to measure.
Further the IQ test creates a bias in society, where the kind of linear within one discipline thinking required by IQ tests becomes the norm both for eductation and many jobs.
To the point where it now seems like this kind of autism is lacking only in social skills or some other minor hole, but really is a good test.
One can point to the success of those who do well on IQ tests, as if the sample is not biased by the way education and intelligence are biased in general, not just on IQ tests which are just one set of symptoms.
You're right. Most jobs do require social intelligence, but not in the same way as they do general intelligence. Most jobs require interaction among people, but usually average people skills are good enough. On the other hand, the more general intelligence you have, the better, especially with more complex jobs like programming, as says the Fraggle. Nearly all jobs, down to shoveling dirt, benefit from general intelligence. Being super socially adept will help you climb the ladder and make you better at motivating and manipulating people, but it won't make you do tasks better, like general intelligence will. Most jobs require merely acceptable people skills. That's good enough.
General intelligence, like street smarts?
I like to use the d20 model of brains:
intelligence
wisdom
charisma
Each pertain to different actions. IQ measures intelligence.
Wisdom is insight, intuition, and noticing things. Charisma is getting people to do what you want them to do.
I think being able to work well with other people is just as important as having a high IQ. If you have an acceptable IQ, and great people skills, you can organize all sorts of events that wouldn't occur without your influence. The explosion of biotech is a direct result of charismatic people working with intelligent people.
Oh. I should've specified the type of programmer. I had a mechanical engineering type of programmer in my head when I said that, but the actual name eludes me as of now.
I get tired of people who, when confronted with a test result they don't like, immediately attack the test. Blacks have, on average, darker skin color than whites. They also tend to have kinkier hair. No controversy there. Why is it immediately racist and evidence of a biased test if mental characteristics are also found to vary among the races? What's the big deal? It doesn't mean all blacks are stupid, it just means that the average is lower.
They're two completely different things which would show how such a test may be regarded as inefficient. You could be a brilliant artist of your time, though a test may show you have a low IQ.
IQ tests are not designed or intended to measure artistic ability.
IQ tests only measure how well you do in IQ tests. They probably also measure your likelihood of being schizophrenic.
Did you even read your own article? It says that, not only is schizophrenia associated with high IQ, it's associated with the likelyhood of having graduated from college, with the likelyhood of having a first degree relative in Who's Who?, and that the offspring of schizo mom's raised by someone else are more prone to enter creative jobs. It also includes data on school performance that shows that males in the top category had over three times the risk of developing schizophrenia (but not females) So the study hardly indicated that an IQ test was the best measure of one's risk for schizophrenia. In fact, the article also said that in twin studies in which one twin was schizo, it was the one with the lower IQ!
Males have higher IQ. So they are more likely to be schizophrenic. Makes sense:shrug:
Twin studies don't have enough power for comparison. You'd have to measure the IQ pre-onset of Schizo.
Besides, that guy was wrong about one thing:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=88684
A well functioning brain yeilds higher intelligence, a well functioning set of balls yeilds better sperm. What they were detecting is simply that overall better health causes all organs to function at peak efficiency.
So the world has a preponderance of intelligent atheist Asian men with schizophrenia.
Exactly, you can still be a genius without the test saying you are. Though I was only using artistic ability as a single example.