IQ Tests - Are they pointless?

[Lesser Tile]

If you bore easily, you may skip this first section:
IQ tests seems like an awesome way for me to tell other people what a genius I am, but I can't, because first off there's different scales, second of all they categorize into vague categories such as "superior" and "very superior". Third of all, there's no "benchmarks". There was this old rumour that 10-20 IQ is required to figure out how to open a door, and there's some set limit for legal retardation, but other than that, you can't really compare the measurements with anything.

For example, how would we measure the following:
- How many IQ does it take to understand that pictures aren't real?
- How many IQ does it take to understand that reflections aren't actual copys of you?
- How many IQ does it take to be able to begin every sentence with a capital letter?
- How many IQ does it take to use proper punctuation?
- How many IQ does it take to understand the difference between something real, and hypothetical scenarios?

If we can't measure these things accurately, then what good is the whole deal with IQ?

[dxnobodyx]

The best way ive heard it described is an indicator of modernity .

[Lesser Tile]

DXnobodyX

The best way ive heard it described is an indicator of modernity .

That's completely wrong.

[ColtynPhD]

An age old question. However neuroscience is coming up with an answer for this IQ problem we're having. The one of many things wrong with current IQ tests is that it measure the output or behavior of a certain task regardless of the mental processing that has to go on.

In current Electroencephalographs (EEGs) studies, we have found modulation of cognitive function in brain waves of theta and gamma/beta. In these studies, theta waves in the excitory stage or crest is either increased or decreased in wavelength depending on the difficulty of the task. And then the gamma/beta waves would be modulated to fit under the theta waves. The harder the task the greater the theta waves would have to be increased in wavelength to fit more information for the gamma/beta wave activity.

By this method, we can hypothetically measure intelligence with a biological basis regardless of the behavior associated with the task.

Don't worry, just give us a few years and intelligence shouldn't be so much of a mystery to us anymore.

[Pipe Private]

You also have to consider musical intelligence, bodily intelligence, spatial intelligence, and emotional intelligence as well, all of which are not measured in IQ tests, but still are representative of human intelligence. Measuring brainwaves, though, sounds pretty interesting. xD

[ColtynPhD]

Pipe Private

You also have to consider musical intelligence, bodily intelligence, spatial intelligence, and emotional intelligence as well, all of which are not measured in IQ tests, but still are representative of human intelligence. Measuring brainwaves, though, sounds pretty interesting. xD

That's one of the great things happening with EEG studies, they are discovering the biological basis for intelligence by measuring the concerts of APs in the brain i.e. brainwaves. So there would be no need to operationally define what it means to be musically intelligent or spatial. It would all have a biological basis to the output rather than having tests supposedly based on certain types of intelligence.

[Dorinkingu]

IQ tests are good, but they could be much better. All the same, I still want a higher IQ XD

[Mecill]

do you guys believe IQ can vary based on time of day?

[little_boy_luke]

I likes dem. cool

[FearlessDictator]

Mecill

do you guys believe IQ can vary based on time of day?

Is that true?

So would the IQ tests be best said to measure how quickly and accurately the brain processes information?

[ColtynPhD]

FearlessDictator

Mecill

do you guys believe IQ can vary based on time of day?

Is that true?

So would the IQ tests be best said to measure how quickly and accurately the brain processes information?

Of course it is a correlational study, it has been shown that time of day and temperature affect IQ scores with an indirect relationship. So we don't know exactly why this relationship is seen.

That's the problem with IQ tests, there is no plausible way to measure brain processes as of yet. We're working on it.

[Truocpal8176]

Lesser Tile

DXnobodyX

The best way ive heard it described is an indicator of modernity .

That's completely wrong.

It's really not. People who have been trained to think abstractly and conceptually enjoy IQ tests and do well on them, people who have been trained to think pragmatically and concretely find IQ tests irritatingly pointless and do poorly on them.

And they've been honing the IQ test to be more modernist all the time. The first iterations of IQ test had questions of the form "Which one doesn't fit: W, X, Y, or Z?" Say the four choices are Pig, chicken, cow, zebra. Country kids, who in general did poorly on IQ tests, would get the answer "right" - zebra doesn't fit, because it's not a barnyard animal. The city kids, on the other hand, would tend to choose the "wrong" answer - chicken doesn't fit, because it's not a mammal.

You can see here an example of how you can throw a question at someone that relies on the practical realities of their life, and which therefore they can get right, but for that exact reason that question will eventually be disqualified, as "barnyard animals" is transparently an arbitrary and vague concept that gets its force from spending your life around a specific set of barnyards.

[dxnobodyx]

Truocpal8176

Lesser Tile

DXnobodyX

The best way ive heard it described is an indicator of modernity .

That's completely wrong.

It's really not. People who have been trained to think abstractly and conceptually enjoy IQ tests and do well on them, people who have been trained to think pragmatically and concretely find IQ tests irritatingly pointless and do poorly on them.

And they've been honing the IQ test to be more modernist all the time. The first iterations of IQ test had questions of the form "Which one doesn't fit: W, X, Y, or Z?" Say the four choices are Pig, chicken, cow, zebra. Country kids, who in general did poorly on IQ tests, would get the answer "right" - zebra doesn't fit, because it's not a barnyard animal. The city kids, on the other hand, would tend to choose the "wrong" answer - chicken doesn't fit, because it's not a mammal.

You can see here an example of how you can throw a question at someone that relies on the practical realities of their life, and which therefore they can get right, but for that exact reason that question will eventually be disqualified, as "barnyard animals" is transparently an arbitrary and vague concept that gets its force from spending your life around a specific set of barnyards.

Thank you for pointing out the basics of an IQ test.

[Physiqual]

The IQ system is based upon things taught by man.
What should really be tested, is what percentage of your brain you can use at once.

[Prof Jackson]

Originally the idea behind IQ was to understand where someone was intellectually for their age.

[(your score on a standardized test) / (average score on standardized test of someone YOUR AGE)] x 100 = IQ

That said, most IQ tests I've seen are logic based. Although I have seen some "physical IQ" tests that involve puzzles and eye-hand coordination. There was even a show recently that focused on this type of "intelligence". It was called Canada's Smartest Person, and the title was taken away by a CFL football player.

I'm pretty sure the idea of IQ is still kept in our society for the sake of being able to label someone a 'genius' or 'mentally handicapped'. Apart from that It's mostly egostrocking.