The Forum's IQ

[Gaze]

Just to clarify my question, how do you measure innate ability if someone's ability is not always evident in the early stages. Isn't it an unquestioned assumption that when you test someone when they are young, that you're testing their ultimate possible cognitive and developmental capabilities before they've even had the time to fully develop? How can a IQ number at 12 test how far someone can go before they've even had the chance to learn and exercise their abilities fully? or simply, why is it being casually accepted that someone's complete abilities are always manifest when they're young? Is testing really about someone's actual or potential iQ? Sounds like its potential IQ since supposedly, the IQ range in which someone tests as a youth isn't really supposed to change once you get older, meaning that your potential is seen as determined by your IQ once you take it early on. It becomes a given about what you can do or not do essentially by concretely setting IQ as the final decision maker. Besides, it assumes someone always puts in their best effort on an IQ test.

 

[sprinkles]

Hmm, interesting. So, it's not really measuring IQ relative to everyone else in a particular age group anymore? Wouldn't that change how we interpret the entire concept of IQ?

In other words, is 100 at 12 the same as 100 at 25? This has always confused me because as we get older, our brain develops and as someone said, some people are late bloomers. So, if someone is tested young and gets 100, they could test higher when they're older because of course, they're older and developed their cognitive ability especially if they continue to higher education. When I take IQ tests today, there are clearly some questions I can answer better today because I've taken courses in college math and have better developed reasoning skills. So, does the IQ test correctly evaluate someone's IQ for all time or just where they are mentally at the time they are evaluated? If someone doesn't develop their cognitive skills over a period of time, wouldn't that lower their IQ score if they are not essentially exercising their mental regularly?

It's still for an age group. Now they determine a normalizing group for an age range. They still match tests for children to children, and tests for adults to adults.

However, if you're average, and stay average as you get older, then yes you're still average. If you're answering a few more questions as you get older, but the norming group also answered a few more questions as they got older, then your IQ stays put.

Your IQ is framed up by the performance of the normalizing group, the control group which they have take the test and record their average performance as the 100 marker.

Anyway, no. IQ is not for all time because it only measures you against your surroundings. If they designed better tests, your IQ could change. If a younger generation comes along and they renorm new tests, your IQ could drop on the new test, or if they do worse, yours could go up, even if your actual intelligence has not changed at all.

 

[Gaze]

Anyway, no. IQ is not for all time because it only measures you against your surroundings. If they designed better tests, your IQ could change. If a younger generation comes along and they renorm new tests, your IQ could drop on the new test, or if they do worse, yours could go up, even if your actual intelligence has not changed at all.

So, the IQ number is a relative value which could change depending on the group you're being tested against. It's ironic since IQ is valued because it supposedly defines intelligence as a final and concrete value which represents someone's finite intelligence at a given point in time when it's more realistically significant depending on comparisons to contemporaries in your age group and social age at a particular point in history.

 

[Sriracha]

Haters B Hatin'. It's nice to know where you stand sometimes. A fool that knows he's a fool is still smarter than the fool who thinks he's brilliant.

Is this the reason why forums seem to be overpopulated with Special Snowflakes?

 

[sprinkles]

So, the IQ number is a relative value which could change depending on the group you're being tested against. It's ironic since IQ is valued because it supposedly defines intelligence as a final and concrete value which represents someone's finite intelligence at a given point in time when it's more realistically significant depending on comparisons to contemporaries in your age group and social age at a particular point in history.

Well this is why they try to connect it with g factor and calculate using matrices. They are trying to balance it out so that cultural differences, or items that are not g loaded, cancel each other out and don't have an effect on the overall score.

However the problem still remains that a norming factor is always necessary, since intelligence is assigned relative quantifiers. It's like if your oven gets hot, then what is the sun? Your oven can burn you. It is very hot. The surface of the sun would cause your oven to turn into vapor though. Your oven will cook a turkey, the sun will boil iron.

 

[Snowman219]

Is this the reason why forums seem to be overpopulated with Special Snowflakes?

I don't like to brag, but...yep I'm freakin' awesome!

 

[Sinji]

IQ is so stupid. When I tried out for the Army I did a ton of free ones on line to prepare for the test. I got better at learning how the questions were asked and how best to answer them. In the end I was scoring in 170's Not because I'm smart but because I knew how to answer the questions. If anyone ever says that I'm smart or stupid I reply by saying. No I'm not either I'm just a natural at Critical Thinking and I have the ability see the world around me as an all you can eat buffet or endless possibilities. That's when I get the side ways head tilt look with glazed over eyes filled with pure confusion that only an ENTP would understand.

 

[invisible]

amongst animals human have a unique potential to consider their actions and to take actions. its a little bit what youve got, but mainly how you use it that really counts.

 

[say what]

I prefer to define my intelligence in awesomeness, rather than IQ.

On the scale of awesomeness, my intelligence rates "5000 sparkles, 2 confetti rainbows, 300 unicorn farts, and a partridge in an avocado tree".

 

[Gaze]

I prefer to define my intelligence in awesomeness, rather than IQ.

On the scale of awesomeness, my intelligence rates "5000 sparkles, 2 confetti rainbows, 300 unicorn farts, and a partridge in an avocado tree".

I prefer to define them in skittles!

 

[Love_Conquers_All]

I think the W.A.I.S. is pretty accurate. I took it in 10th grade my mom paid for it. I have taken non language non culture based tests and got around the same score.

 

[say what]

I think the W.A.I.S. is pretty accurate. I took it in 10th grade my mom paid for it. I have taken non language non culture based tests and got around the same score.

It's a much broader interpretation of intelligence than an IQ test...but the problem is that all these psychometrics are measuring something which is subjective and ever evolving. An IQ test suggests that if you were to give the same test to someone 300 years ago, it would be an accurate measure of their intelligence. It's highly likely that brilliant people then wouldn't score to the standards of "brilliance" today. Moreover, different dimensions and context of intelligence emerges through historical, cultural, and societal contexts!

Measures of intelligence, when used with an understanding of these limitations, can be useful...but I'm one of those people that think they're poop <--- that's a term to highlight my amazingness!! Two extra unicorn farts for me!

 

[Love_Conquers_All]

It's a much broader interpretation of intelligence than an IQ test...but the problem is that all these psychometrics are measuring something which is subjective and ever evolving. An IQ test suggests that if you were to give the same test to someone 300 years ago, it would be an accurate measure of their intelligence. It's highly likely that brilliant people then wouldn't score to the standards of "brilliance" today. Moreover, different dimensions and context of intelligence emerges through historical, cultural, and societal contexts!

Measures of intelligence, when used with an understanding of these limitations, can be useful...but I'm one of those people that think they're poop <--- that's a term to highlight my amazingness!! Two extra unicorn farts for me!

I meant to edit that earlier, I got busy though anyways to further flesh it out. I think Intelligence tests in general are stupid. The only decent ones can only measure someone's processing ability, pattern recognition, and critical thinking skills. There is no quantitative way of measuring human intelligence. It is too vast for that. There are so many types of intelligence it would be a waste of time to truly measure someone's intelligence in fullness. While it would show a very interesting perspective into humans in general, to embark on such a study would be ludicrous and potentially take up an entire life. Also as you already stated intelligence is in flux constantly. It changes day to day, year to year etc. In essence I believe there is potential for genius in everyone regardless if others are able to perceive it or not or you even choose to use it. I have experienced genius from an adult with the mind of a child. It's all based on perspective.

 

[Rift Zone]

There are so many types of intelligence it would be a waste of time to truly measure someone's intelligence in fullness.

So very true. Put Einstein, Mozart and Frank Lloyd Wright in the same room, who is the smart one? Capacity isn't something you can plot on a scale. All of these men were brilliant.


Even the science geeks of the world differ greatly. Take Einstein for instance. He had the gift of "seeing" structures. He was great with conceptional understanding. Committing it to paper was his challenge: “Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater.” -Albert Einstein


Consider Mandelbrot and Fermat. They were both exceptionally brilliant but they didn't operate like Einstein. They had a different type of brilliance. Both of these men "saw" numbers. They could manipulate equations in their minds. Seeing where their equations applied to real world phenomena would be more their challenge.


Capacity isn't something that can be clearly defined, much less quantified.

I prefer to define my intelligence in awesomeness, rather than IQ.


On the scale of awesomeness, my intelligence rates "5000 sparkles, 2 confetti rainbows, 300 unicorn farts, and a partridge in an avocado tree".

My awesomeness quotient is about the same as my IQ: 67... sparkles.

 

[Gaze]

I especially agree that many people have different types of smarts or brilliance which are too specific to plot on an intelligence test. However, I don't think intelligence tests are invalid. I think the issue is the value we give to them, and recognizing what they actually measure compared to what we assume they measure. Not all all tests measure the same thing. If the test mostly measures logical or mathematical intelligence, then that's how it should be interpreted. The problem is, IQ tests are presented as a measure of generalized intelligence rather than differences in types of intelligence. So, I think the issue is sometimes, our interpretation or how we use the test to judge intelligence.

It reminds me of how many employers are using personality tests (which are really tests for professional or personal use to classify not evaluate people) as emotional/social intelligence tests. They ask questions about what you think or feel as if they are simply asking your opinion, when the test is really judging whether you know what you should do or not do.

So, we need to quit misrepresenting the purpose of intelligence tests and instead recognizing them for the thing they actually are measuring and maybe develop other ways to develop other intelligences which are not being recognized and represented.

 

[Tin Man]

The biggest problem I have with IQ tests is that they're just so boring. There are usually the same four or five questions, repeated in different forms. I find that if you're in a position where you need to take an IQ test, it's easier to look at the underlying pattern in the questions and extrapolate from that data. This turns a 40 minute test into a 15 minute one and you'll still receive an acceptable score.

 

[technics]

I also would like to open a discussion on IQ.

IQ doesn't really matter. I know a few INTPs with super-high IQ. And they do such things as emptying their cereal in the sink, thus blocking the whole drain. Or cutting tiles on a newspaper and wondering why the tiles broke. Just makes you facepalm.

 

[DonTaushMe]

Every time I do the IQ test -which I do a lot because the idea is intriguing- or a similar puzzle I get more answers right when I don't think, it's really weird... Like I'm drawing a blank in my head but that one card is sticking out to me more so than the others, like its brighter. Is that... what is that? Is that intuition? Does anyone else get that?

 

[sprinkles]

Every time I do the IQ test -which I do a lot because the idea is intriguing- or a similar puzzle I get more answers right when I don't think, it's really weird... Like I'm drawing a blank in my head but that one card is sticking out to me more so than the others, like its brighter. Is that... what is that? Is that intuition? Does anyone else get that?

Well yeah. I solve Rubik's cubes better when I don't think about it. Especially slotting the corner and edge pairs for the first two layers - I can just pick any edge and find the corner that belongs to it and I just immediately know the move I have to do to put them together. There's not even an order or pattern to it, it's intuitive.

 

[the]

I don't remember, somewhere over 9000.