| Sometimes people say there is no prerequisite knowledge required in an IQ test, but as a testtaker what do you think? Also please share your score along with your opinion. https://www.123test.com/iq-test/#classical-intelligence-test https://test.mensa.no/ I got a 10/10, but I was being a silly baka and lost a decent chunk of time on the number sequence. The test is timed so you got 10 minutes. I think prerequisite knowledge could help a lot, of course on the verbal parts but also things like programmers probably having it easier to spot that something is an xor problem and things like that. Disclaimer, online tests can't really accurately encompass a complete IQ test in real life. I got 135 on the second one but I only got to do 32 questions since I lost track of time so I doubt it's the cap on the test, sad day. You got 25 minutes for the 2nd test. |
| An IQ test is pretty much just a pattern recognizing test, a large part of intelligence is how to recognize patterns but also other stuff that can barely be tested. It should never require prerequisite knowledge and a child should get about the same results as an adult. There is however optimized tests for children but that's a different story. I took a look at your linked tests and the first one is absolute garbage, half of the questions require you to be good at English. I guess someone who isn't native just can't be intelligent then? Second test looks better but I still wouldn't trust an online test. Not to mention mensa is a bunch of elitist assholes but that's also a different story. |
This test requires a €9.99 payment to get your results. |
IceySongstress said: I mean there's a lot of easier ones. Here's the answers I picked. I don't even know how you can manage to score 135 on the second test, considering at least 1/3 of the questions are of a difficulty that are not easily solvable in a few minutes without prior practice. I only got 118 on that second test and it's already at 88 percentile. 1 percentile = 1.34 100 percentile = 134 You are literally saying you can do these types of hard questions which consists of multiple patterns in a few minutes. 25 minutes when it's so much harder than this site. https://international-iq-test.com/en/ which I took last year if I remember accurately. And so many of the harder questions. I don't really know what a good IQ test looks like, never took one irl. Just did some prior reading on what kind of things may be included, but no idea on what's supposed to be included I guess. |
808gppJun 20, 2022 12:44 PM
| Phew! Sorry, I did not have the patience to finish the second test... I only reply to reply to this humble brag thread (you like to create a lot of them!) to reply due to the interesting question, and I believe that indeed, between an old man who did not see a geometric figure in a few decades and someone who thinks about shapes all day, the latter definitely has an edge. There were also basic first-order logic questions, and all adults are normally able to solve them even if they have never heard of Gödel's theorems, though familiarity with set theory helps. |
| yeah i just scored 240 on the first and 230 on the second. this seems pretty accurate as I read at least a single book every year, soaking in knowledge like a sponge. although with an iq so high (like me) it can get pretty burdensome, i'm always the smartest in the room yk? i can't learn from other people, they can only learn for me. haha ig that's just a me issue tho since you all are dumber than me, oh well 😔 |
   i love gambling!! i can stop at anytime!! genshin and hsr are not good games and i do not play them, or spend money on them. wooo 🐝 |
Lexunius said: >Another MAL IQ thread where somehow 90% of MAL users score in the top 10% of the IQ distribution Well to be fair it's not hard to score a high iq in some online test and people having a low result probably won't post it here. |
 This is an IQ world map. I've tested, around 110-120. |
Letting slide the fact that the thread is not at all about IQ as broken apart by nations, would you care to tell us about your source for this map? Seeing as without any backing, this is just an image and nothing more. And, while you're at it, what did you want to convey with this image? Would you be attributing this seeming disparity to any such factors such as, availability/commonplaceness (or lack thereof) of standardized tests, education system, health, nutrition, or a stimulating environment to challenge oneself in? Or would you perhaps like to do the most rudimentary room temperature IQ (ironically enough) "analysis" (using the term rather loosely here) of this image that one could feasibly manage? I'd like to not load the question any further, and pass it to you. |
 |
| yayyy i got a 100 percentile in the test.mensa im so intelligent UwU if i didnt get nervous in the last two i would be a geniusss IceySongstress said: This test is at least 1.5-2 sd harder than most tests. And the questions it pose are the type where anyone can't differentiate the different multiple patterns easily. fr tho the last two are too misleading to be done in such time because the first 33 are just applying usual operations |
| Going out now, but i'll save this thread to do the test later 😁 |
Auron_ said: Letting slide the fact that the thread is not at all about IQ as broken apart by nations, would you care to tell us about your source for this map? Seeing as without any backing, this is just an image and nothing more. Well first of all, this is the most commonly used IQ map, by Lynn, but there is a thousand more by other researchers to back up these findings. And, while you're at it, what did you want to convey with this image? Would you be attributing this seeming disparity to any such factors such as, availability/commonplaceness (or lack thereof) of standardized tests, education system, health, nutrition, or a stimulating environment to challenge oneself in? Arguably it's the IQ that causes the lack of standardized tests, education quality, health, nutritional awareness. Or would you perhaps like to do the most rudimentary room temperature IQ (ironically enough) "analysis" (using the term rather loosely here) of this image that one could feasibly manage? I'd like to not load the question any further, and pass it to you. Just felt like expanding people's horizons. |
RuneRem said: Well first of all, this is the most commonly used IQ map, by Lynn, but there is a thousand more by other researchers to back up these findings. @Milzol I figured that might be it, but it actually isn't, interestingly enough. There are some differences between the image you posted and Lynn & Vanhanen's 2006 IQ map, notable ones I can see are China, North Korea, Japan, Turkey, but there are a couple more fluctuations.  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2006_Richard_Lynn_and_Tatu_Vanhanen_IQ_Data.png Perhaps someone at /pol/ or /sci/ simply took Lynn and Vanhanen's already highly suspect and shaky "findings" and re-colored some of the nations that are not white that they do not like to a lower one. Just an educated guess of mine. And particularly, the change of North Korea is the most peculiar to me, seeing as it would go counter to your race realist view, as NK and SK are both people of the same ethnicity. Perhaps you shouldn't have used the 4chan-modified map after all.. It is, I'd assume, also just complete coincidence to you that the first thing showing up in his Wikipedia page is countless discrediting and contentions of his 2006 work for lacking in scientific rigor and equally many indications of the guy being guided by his political agenda. Wikipedia said: Many scientists have criticised Lynn's work on racial and national differences in intelligence for lacking scientific rigour, misrepresenting data, and for promoting a racialist political agenda.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] A number of scholars and intellectuals have said that Lynn is associated with a network of academics and organisations that promote scientific racism.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] In the late 1970s, Lynn wrote that he found that East Asians have a higher average intelligence quotient (IQ) than Europeans and Europeans have a higher average IQ than sub-Saharan Africans. In 1990, he proposed that the Flynn effect – the gradual increase in IQ scores observed around the world since the 1930s – could possibly be explained by improved nutrition. In two books co-written with Tatu Vanhanen, Lynn and Vanhanen argued that differences in developmental indexes among various nations are partially caused by the average IQ of their citizens. Earl Hunt and Werner Wittmann (2008) questioned the validity of their research methods and the highly inconsistent quality of the available data points that Lynn and Vanhanen used in their analysis.[9] Lynn has also argued that the high fertility rate among individuals of low IQ constitutes a major threat to Western civilisation, as he believes people with low IQ scores will eventually outnumber high-IQ individuals. He has argued in favour of political measures to prevent this, including anti-immigration and eugenics policies, provoking heavy criticism internationally.[10][25][11] Lynn's work was among the main sources cited in the book The Bell Curve, and he was one of 52 scientists who signed an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence",[26] which endorsed a number of the views presented in the book RuneRem said: Arguably it's the IQ that causes the lack of standardized tests, education quality, health, nutritional awareness. I'm well aware that you think the environmental reasons are downstream from IQ, as opposed to IQ scores being downstream from such factors, but can you instantiate that claim and not just assert it? Did you isolate such factors to see if the difference persists? There would need to be analyzed case studies wherein the only difference between groups is the factor that you're insinuating, with everything else kept as constant as it can be. Only then you could make scientific inferences, without it these are just mean-spirited and pure guesses. And lastly, there aren't "a thousand more". Searching for it for a couple of pages gives me this one consistently, and not others, meaning the data on this isn't all that plentiful. |
AuronJun 24, 2022 9:17 AM
|
Auron_ said: RuneRem said: Well first of all, this is the most commonly used IQ map, by Lynn, but there is a thousand more by other researchers to back up these findings. etc Aside from wiki being an illegitimate source, none of that discredits the research. And there is other sources regarding national IQ. I'm well aware that you think the environmental reasons are downstream from IQ, as opposed to IQ scores being downstream from such factors, but can you instantiate that claim and not just assert it? Did you isolate such factors to see if the difference persists? There would need to be analyzed case studies wherein the only difference between groups is the factor that you're insinuating, with everything else kept as constant as it can be. Only then you could make scientific inferences, without it these are just mean-spirited and pure guesses. And lastly, there aren't "a thousand more". Searching for it for a couple of pages gives me this one consistently, and not others, meaning the data on this isn't all that plentiful. Minnesota study, shows that even with environmental factors taken into account, the disparity continues. "meaning the data on this isn't all that plentiful." There is if you spent more time. But what does that say about academia, refusing to study the subject more.... |
| Knowing your IQ score won't make you any smarter. |
No, this isn't my signature. |
| IQ tests are basically - almost entirely objectively - worthless. This is the first thing you'll learn in any higher education even tangentially related to psychology. They're no more accurate than a personality test - although even the Meyer's Briggs has *some* (VERY minor) application in that it generalises some of your behaviours into a somewhat easy-to-understand-at-a-glance codified designation. |
Supreme Seireitei - Captain of the 10th Court Guard Squad  |
RuneRem said: Minnesota study, shows that even with environmental factors taken into account, the disparity continues. "meaning the data on this isn't all that plentiful." There is if you spent more time. But what does that say about academia, refusing to study the subject more.... The Minnesota study had a higher attrition rate for white adoptees than black adoptees which favored the white adoptees. The age 7 IQ of the white adoptees was about 111, but the age 7 IQs of the white adoptees who returned for testing was 117, so a 6 point increase just from drop outs. The black adoptees who returned had the same IQ as the initial group tested. White adoptees were also adopted earlier, on average by about a year earlier. Black adoptees who were adopted within a year had a 7 point higher IQ than black adoptees adopted later. Lastly not all environmental factors would have been accounted for. E.g. since the study was conducted in the 70s, black children would have had higher rates of elevated lead in the blood. The 1976–1980 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that about 12.2% of black children had elevated blood lead levels while 2% of white children did. Some studies that find results more supportive of environmental factors are the Eyferth study that found that the IQs of children of black US servicemen and German women had roughly the same IQs as children of white US servicemen and German pairings, a similar study with a similar result comparing the children of US white servicemen-Japanese female and the children of US black servicemen-Japanese female pairings that found only a 1 point gap, Willerman et al. finding a 9 point increase in IQ for biracial white/black children with white mothers rather than black mothers, and the Moore et al. study finding a standard deviation IQ difference between black children adopted by white families versus black families. |
FreshellYesterday, 10:18 PM
| an IQ test can measure intelligence like a polygraph test can measure truthfulness |
LifelineByNature said: IQ tests are basically - almost entirely objectively - worthless. This is the first thing you'll learn in any higher education even tangentially related to psychology IQ is predictive of earnings, occupation, job performance especially in complex roles, academic achievement, and even health. Its one of the best psychometric predictors available. Which isn't to say it determines everything. Other things like work ethic, planning, sound thought processes, etc. also matter, but IQ explains some of the variation in life outcomes. |
| Strangely, I got an IQ of 120 on both tests (@_@) Ngl I wanted it to be higher but maybe YT Shorts has fried my brain completely. |
 |
Reply to Freshell
LifelineByNature said:
IQ tests are basically - almost entirely objectively - worthless. This is the first thing you'll learn in any higher education even tangentially related to psychology
IQ tests are basically - almost entirely objectively - worthless. This is the first thing you'll learn in any higher education even tangentially related to psychology
IQ is predictive of earnings, occupation, job performance especially in complex roles, academic achievement, and even health. Its one of the best psychometric predictors available.
Which isn't to say it determines everything. Other things like work ethic, planning, sound thought processes, etc. also matter, but IQ explains some of the variation in life outcomes.
| @Freshell It really, really isn't though. It's been debunked so many times - by both longitudinal studies and expansive literature reviews - as a measure of anything other than a very specific measure of a very specific skill which in no way applies broadly to intellect. This is just the first one I remember, but there's a plethora of data out there: Adam Hampshire, Roger R. Highfield, Beth L. Parkin, Adrian M. Owen. Fractionating Human Intelligence. Neuron, 2012; 76 (6): 1225 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.06.022 |
Supreme Seireitei - Captain of the 10th Court Guard Squad |
LifelineByNature said: It really, really isn't though. It's been debunked so many times - by both longitudinal studies and expansive literature reviews - as a measure of anything other than a very specific measure of a very specific skill which in no way applies broadly to intellect. This is just the first one I remember, but there's a plethora of data out there: Adam Hampshire, Roger R. Highfield, Beth L. Parkin, Adrian M. Owen. Fractionating Human Intelligence. Neuron, 2012; 76 (6): 1225 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.06.022 Your study does not seem pertinent to the question of whether IQ is a useful predictor? It seems to be a paper on the topic of whether there is actually such a thing as generalized intelligence quotient of g. That is distinct from the question of whether IQ tests themselves are predictive of useful things like: educational attainment: Intelligence and educational achievement job performance: A contemporary look at the relationship between general cognitive ability and job performance earnings: The relation between childhood IQ and income in middle age lifespan: Higher IQ in childhood is linked to a longer life |
Reply to Freshell
LifelineByNature said:
It really, really isn't though. It's been debunked so many times - by both longitudinal studies and expansive literature reviews - as a measure of anything other than a very specific measure of a very specific skill which in no way applies broadly to intellect.
This is just the first one I remember, but there's a plethora of data out there:
Adam Hampshire, Roger R. Highfield, Beth L. Parkin, Adrian M. Owen. Fractionating Human Intelligence. Neuron, 2012; 76 (6): 1225 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.06.022
It really, really isn't though. It's been debunked so many times - by both longitudinal studies and expansive literature reviews - as a measure of anything other than a very specific measure of a very specific skill which in no way applies broadly to intellect.
This is just the first one I remember, but there's a plethora of data out there:
Adam Hampshire, Roger R. Highfield, Beth L. Parkin, Adrian M. Owen. Fractionating Human Intelligence. Neuron, 2012; 76 (6): 1225 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.06.022
Your study does not seem pertinent to the question of whether IQ is a useful predictor? It seems to be a paper on the topic of whether there is actually such a thing as generalized intelligence quotient of g. That is distinct from the question of whether IQ tests themselves are predictive of useful things like:
educational attainment:
Intelligence and educational achievement
job performance:
A contemporary look at the relationship between general cognitive ability and job performance
earnings:
The relation between childhood IQ and income in middle age
lifespan:
Higher IQ in childhood is linked to a longer life
| @Freshell The study concluded there is no such thing as IQ - by extension, you can't test someone's aptitude in something that doesn't exist. Your first article posits that while intelligence plays a role, it isn't necessarily designated by the IQ *tests* themselves as part of the results determined. The second one doesn't bring IQ testing into it at all. The third and fourth have no publicly available dataset to discuss. |
Supreme Seireitei - Captain of the 10th Court Guard Squad |
LifelineByNature said: The study concluded there is no such thing as IQ - by extension, you can't test someone's aptitude in something that doesn't exist. Your first article posits that while intelligence plays a role, it isn't necessarily designated by the IQ *tests* themselves as part of the results determined. The second one doesn't bring IQ testing into it at all. The third and fourth have no publicly available dataset to discuss. We know IQ tests exist, because you can take one as administered by a psychologists. We should differentiate the test itself from ways the test gets interpreted. Namely, through the lens of IQ as an attempt to measure the g-factor, which is supposed to be a measure of generalized intelligence. Conceptually, the following are all possibilities: (1) IQ is a valid measure of generalized intelligence and the test results predict useful life outcomes. (2) IQ is an invalid measure of generalized intelligence (in your case because you hold it doesn't exist) and test results predict useful life outcomes. (3) IQ is a valid measure of generalized intelligence and test results do not predict useful life outcomes. (4) IQ is an invalid measure of generalized intelligence and the results do not predict useful life outcomes. That is to say, all the possible combinations are possible. So IQ being an invalid measure of generalized intelligence does not yield the conclusion that test results do not predict important life outcomes. As a matter of fact, I do think there is such a thing as generalized intelligence, but that's orthogonal to what I originally said, which is that IQ is predictive of important life outcomes. I never held that IQ was completely determinative of life outcomes. I said it is a predictor that explains some of the variation and that other factors also matter. The second study used a metric for generalized cognitive ability, which you held does not exist. Most peer reviewed studies do not have publicly available data sets. You'd typically have to request the data from the researchers. |
Reply to Freshell
LifelineByNature said:
The study concluded there is no such thing as IQ - by extension, you can't test someone's aptitude in something that doesn't exist.
Your first article posits that while intelligence plays a role, it isn't necessarily designated by the IQ *tests* themselves as part of the results determined.
The second one doesn't bring IQ testing into it at all.
The third and fourth have no publicly available dataset to discuss.
The study concluded there is no such thing as IQ - by extension, you can't test someone's aptitude in something that doesn't exist.
Your first article posits that while intelligence plays a role, it isn't necessarily designated by the IQ *tests* themselves as part of the results determined.
The second one doesn't bring IQ testing into it at all.
The third and fourth have no publicly available dataset to discuss.
We know IQ tests exist, because you can take one as administered by a psychologists. We should differentiate the test itself from ways the test gets interpreted. Namely, through the lens of IQ as an attempt to measure the g-factor, which is supposed to be a measure of generalized intelligence.
Conceptually, the following are all possibilities:
(1) IQ is a valid measure of generalized intelligence and the test results predict useful life outcomes.
(2) IQ is an invalid measure of generalized intelligence (in your case because you hold it doesn't exist) and test results predict useful life outcomes.
(3) IQ is a valid measure of generalized intelligence and test results do not predict useful life outcomes.
(4) IQ is an invalid measure of generalized intelligence and the results do not predict useful life outcomes.
That is to say, all the possible combinations are possible. So IQ being an invalid measure of generalized intelligence does not yield the conclusion that test results do not predict important life outcomes.
As a matter of fact, I do think there is such a thing as generalized intelligence, but that's orthogonal to what I originally said, which is that IQ is predictive of important life outcomes.
I never held that IQ was completely determinative of life outcomes. I said it is a predictor that explains some of the variation and that other factors also matter.
The second study used a metric for generalized cognitive ability, which you held does not exist.
Most peer reviewed studies do not have publicly available data sets. You'd typically have to request the data from the researchers.
| @Freshell Sorry, I wasn't clear on what I was looking for - in most academic journal articles, you're able at the very least to view their results and methodology. I consider this to be relevant data, not just the raw data itself. I think ultimately we're saying the same things but from vastly different perspectives. My point mainly is that IQ tests (and the "IQ" of an individual) doesn't really give us any real information. IQ tests can be utilised in very specific ways to measure very specific outcomes (and do require some level of pre-existing knowledge to give any accurate reading) - but the post we're replying to is discussing IQ tests in the sense of generalised testing and the ascription of a numerical value to a person's achievable intellect. In that context, IQ tests are a worthless and unreliable measure of intellect because they aren't being utilised in a context where their output would have any meaningful correlation. |
Supreme Seireitei - Captain of the 10th Court Guard Squad |
| @LifelineByNature IQ is an examination that is meant to help diagnose intellectual and developmental disabilities for children. I do agree with the sense that it is worthless in the sense that knowing or not knowing your IQ is not going to make most people's lives better. It is not a certification of competency that a degree from an accredited university would be. But the whole point of an IQ test is that it is normalized, that we can compare people relative to their peers. If a child is lagging behind, an IQ examination may help determine whether or not it is due to a possible intellectual disability or something else entirely. Because of that utility, I do not think it is worthless, even if I do agree that its measure of intelligence is rather limited. You know what else is limited? An exam asking children the letters of the alphabet. Yet, if your children does not know the alphabet or their native language at 12 that a vast majority of children learn by 6, then I do think that requires some examination that measures them relative to their peers. Being limited does not mean bad as long as it is responsibly used within proper contexts. I don't think intelligence can be measured like this, but I argue that is besides the point. But because of its utility in this regard, IQ tests are no more worthless than tests for ADHD or dementia. Some people would prefer a chemical test for this, but quite frankly observing and measuring observable behavior is more practical and easier than trying to make a blood test test for ADHD. There's a reason why psychologists still use them. IQ tests are basically - almost entirely objectively - worthless. This is the first thing you'll learn in any higher education even tangentially related to psychology. Psychology electives make you no more an expert in psychology than a high school trigonometry class means you are good at math. Hell, I have taken all the calculus and linear algebra I need for engineering and I know for a fact any math major would kick my ass on Riemann sums or whatever. |
PeripheralVisionYesterday, 1:44 AM
"Have we not eaten while another starved? Will you punish us for that? Will you reward us for the virtue of starving while others ate? No man earns punishment, no man earns reward. Free your mind of the idea of deserving, the idea of earning, and you will begin to be able to think.” |
Reply to PeripheralVision
@LifelineByNature
IQ is an examination that is meant to help diagnose intellectual and developmental disabilities for children. I do agree with the sense that it is worthless in the sense that knowing or not knowing your IQ is not going to make most people's lives better. It is not a certification of competency that a degree from an accredited university would be.
But the whole point of an IQ test is that it is normalized, that we can compare people relative to their peers. If a child is lagging behind, an IQ examination may help determine whether or not it is due to a possible intellectual disability or something else entirely. Because of that utility, I do not think it is worthless, even if I do agree that its measure of intelligence is rather limited.
You know what else is limited? An exam asking children the letters of the alphabet. Yet, if your children does not know the alphabet or their native language at 12 that a vast majority of children learn by 6, then I do think that requires some examination that measures them relative to their peers. Being limited does not mean bad as long as it is responsibly used within proper contexts. I don't think intelligence can be measured like this, but I argue that is besides the point.
But because of its utility in this regard, IQ tests are no more worthless than tests for ADHD or dementia. Some people would prefer a chemical test for this, but quite frankly observing and measuring observable behavior is more practical and easier than trying to make a blood test test for ADHD.
There's a reason why psychologists still use them.
Psychology electives make you no more an expert in psychology than a high school trigonometry class means you are good at math. Hell, I have taken all the calculus and linear algebra I need for engineering and I know for a fact any math major would kick my ass on Riemann sums or whatever.
IQ is an examination that is meant to help diagnose intellectual and developmental disabilities for children. I do agree with the sense that it is worthless in the sense that knowing or not knowing your IQ is not going to make most people's lives better. It is not a certification of competency that a degree from an accredited university would be.
But the whole point of an IQ test is that it is normalized, that we can compare people relative to their peers. If a child is lagging behind, an IQ examination may help determine whether or not it is due to a possible intellectual disability or something else entirely. Because of that utility, I do not think it is worthless, even if I do agree that its measure of intelligence is rather limited.
You know what else is limited? An exam asking children the letters of the alphabet. Yet, if your children does not know the alphabet or their native language at 12 that a vast majority of children learn by 6, then I do think that requires some examination that measures them relative to their peers. Being limited does not mean bad as long as it is responsibly used within proper contexts. I don't think intelligence can be measured like this, but I argue that is besides the point.
But because of its utility in this regard, IQ tests are no more worthless than tests for ADHD or dementia. Some people would prefer a chemical test for this, but quite frankly observing and measuring observable behavior is more practical and easier than trying to make a blood test test for ADHD.
There's a reason why psychologists still use them.
IQ tests are basically - almost entirely objectively - worthless. This is the first thing you'll learn in any higher education even tangentially related to psychology.
Psychology electives make you no more an expert in psychology than a high school trigonometry class means you are good at math. Hell, I have taken all the calculus and linear algebra I need for engineering and I know for a fact any math major would kick my ass on Riemann sums or whatever.
| @PeripheralVision I can agree with you on that. It does work a bit better for kids than for adults - although I'd use different methods of testing over the traditional IQ test. You can argue that would be more comprehensive and thus take more time, but realistically these are the tests you'd be doing after the "low scoring" IQ test anyway (and even a "normal" IQ test score might miss certain deficiencies). If you already have a concern about the child's development, then you already have an idea of which areas you would want to test, so the IQ doesn't really do much. What it *does* do, is offer a convenient cut-off point for intellectual disability classification. |
Supreme Seireitei - Captain of the 10th Court Guard Squad |
Reply to LifelineByNature
@PeripheralVision I can agree with you on that. It does work a bit better for kids than for adults - although I'd use different methods of testing over the traditional IQ test. You can argue that would be more comprehensive and thus take more time, but realistically these are the tests you'd be doing after the "low scoring" IQ test anyway (and even a "normal" IQ test score might miss certain deficiencies).
If you already have a concern about the child's development, then you already have an idea of which areas you would want to test, so the IQ doesn't really do much.
What it *does* do, is offer a convenient cut-off point for intellectual disability classification.
If you already have a concern about the child's development, then you already have an idea of which areas you would want to test, so the IQ doesn't really do much.
What it *does* do, is offer a convenient cut-off point for intellectual disability classification.
| @LifelineByNature It is one of many tools, and there is a reason why the exam must be done face to face, as it is for both versions of the Weschler's exam, the most given IQ examination in the world. If you are working with children, you have to ferret out why they may have gotten a certain score. An IQ test can rule out intellectual disabilities. That in itself is potentially life-changing. Those who are qualified to give IQ tests are doctors who did their studies and their rotations, and part of this is understanding the why of a child, why did a child fail this test, is it due to an intellectual disability?  IQ is best suited for this because it is normalized with respect to the age and development of a child in their age cohort. (After other tests of course) "What can the average child at this age do and what can they not do" on certain tasks is among the most basic ways to help diagnose developmental issues. That is the fundamental basis of an IQ test, as it is for a QB test for ADHD. It is not unusual for a child of say, two to lack a concept of object permanence versus one of six years old. It is not unusual for children at six to not understand the nature of mass conservation versus those at twelve. I myself do not like how we as a culture here approach IQ as if it were important, but IQ tests are themselves a tool. Children lacking a concept of mass conservation is not a concern at six years old as it would be for a teenager. I don't even think you know what you are talking about, as you have been awfully vague about these alternatives in this response. What alternative could replace an IQ test? I am sure there are many other tools of course, but much of them run on the same intuitive concept. What should a child be able to do at this age? |
PeripheralVisionYesterday, 2:05 AM
"Have we not eaten while another starved? Will you punish us for that? Will you reward us for the virtue of starving while others ate? No man earns punishment, no man earns reward. Free your mind of the idea of deserving, the idea of earning, and you will begin to be able to think.” |
Reply to PeripheralVision
@LifelineByNature
It is one of many tools, and there is a reason why the exam must be done face to face, as it is for both versions of the Weschler's exam, the most given IQ examination in the world.
If you are working with children, you have to ferret out why they may have gotten a certain score. An IQ test can rule out intellectual disabilities. That in itself is potentially life-changing. Those who are qualified to give IQ tests are doctors who did their studies and their rotations, and part of this is understanding the why of a child, why did a child fail this test, is it due to an intellectual disability?
IQ is best suited for this because it is normalized with respect to the age and development of a child in their age cohort. (After other tests of course) "What can the average child at this age do and what can they not do" on certain tasks is among the most basic ways to help diagnose developmental issues. That is the fundamental basis of an IQ test, as it is for a QB test for ADHD.
It is not unusual for a child of say, two to lack a concept of object permanence versus one of six years old. It is not unusual for children at six to not understand the nature of mass conservation versus those at twelve. I myself do not like how we as a culture here approach IQ as if it were important, but IQ tests are themselves a tool. Children lacking a concept of mass conservation is not a concern at six years old as it would be for a teenager.
I don't even think you know what you are talking about, as you have been awfully vague about these alternatives in this response. What alternative could replace an IQ test? I am sure there are many other tools of course, but much of them run on the same intuitive concept. What should a child be able to do at this age?
It is one of many tools, and there is a reason why the exam must be done face to face, as it is for both versions of the Weschler's exam, the most given IQ examination in the world.
If you are working with children, you have to ferret out why they may have gotten a certain score. An IQ test can rule out intellectual disabilities. That in itself is potentially life-changing. Those who are qualified to give IQ tests are doctors who did their studies and their rotations, and part of this is understanding the why of a child, why did a child fail this test, is it due to an intellectual disability?
IQ is best suited for this because it is normalized with respect to the age and development of a child in their age cohort. (After other tests of course) "What can the average child at this age do and what can they not do" on certain tasks is among the most basic ways to help diagnose developmental issues. That is the fundamental basis of an IQ test, as it is for a QB test for ADHD.
It is not unusual for a child of say, two to lack a concept of object permanence versus one of six years old. It is not unusual for children at six to not understand the nature of mass conservation versus those at twelve. I myself do not like how we as a culture here approach IQ as if it were important, but IQ tests are themselves a tool. Children lacking a concept of mass conservation is not a concern at six years old as it would be for a teenager.
I don't even think you know what you are talking about, as you have been awfully vague about these alternatives in this response. What alternative could replace an IQ test? I am sure there are many other tools of course, but much of them run on the same intuitive concept. What should a child be able to do at this age?
| @PeripheralVision Yet this discussion focuses - not on psychiatrist-aided IQ tests - but on the general concept of IQ tests and IQ in general which mostly have zero input from any kind of professional. IQ is somewhat normalised, but it still has cultural blindspots and doesn't work particularly well on the neurodiverse (who may score abnormally higher or lower as a result of their specific issues). What do you mean, vague? I didn't offer any alternatives, so there's nothing to be vague about. I said rather broadly that I'd use different types of test, but it wasn't intended to be any kind of display of approaches or deeper discussion - simply "I wouldn't use IQ". The tests I would use are specific to my health board, so naming them wouldn't help you (nor do I recall if it'd breach the social media guidelines to do so - which is why I didn't even go down that path at all). For the record, I have a Master's in this field and one of my jobs previously was in diagnosing mental and developmental disorders in children and adolescents. For lack of a better term, this is my bread and butter. On the flip side, can I ask what your expertise is in relation to this discussion, since we're suddenly concerned with that? |
Supreme Seireitei - Captain of the 10th Court Guard Squad |
LifelineByNature said: Sorry, I wasn't clear on what I was looking for - in most academic journal articles, you're able at the very least to view their results and methodology. I consider this to be relevant data, not just the raw data itself. Thanks for the clarification. It's fair to want to have the full paper just so you can see if there are important caveats to the conclusions of the authors. Just so you know these findings are not strange: Do you have to be smart to be rich? The impact of IQ on wealth, income and financial distress Intelligence and life expectancy in late adulthood: A meta-analysis LifelineByNature said: I think ultimately we're saying the same things but from vastly different perspectives. My point mainly is that IQ tests (and the "IQ" of an individual) doesn't really give us any real information. IQ tests can be utilised in very specific ways to measure very specific outcomes (and do require some level of pre-existing knowledge to give any accurate reading) - but the post we're replying to is discussing IQ tests in the sense of generalised testing and the ascription of a numerical value to a person's achievable intellect. For points of agreement, I think we both agree that IQ does not explain 100% of the variance between individuals. It also seems like we're both acknowledging that IQ tests, independent of whether they're actually measuring generalized intelligence or not, can be used to make some predictions that explains some of the variance in some outcomes. I think it was first important to establish the point that they do predict things like income, job performance, etc. before moving on to whether there's such a thing as general intelligence, but I think we can move on from that point. Where we seem to drastically differ is that I consider generalized intelligence to be real but part of a multiplicity of factors of which it is one important factor in explaining the variance in outcomes between individuals. With other factors being things like work ethic or ability to plan. You don't seem to think it's real. The reason I hold that generalized intelligence is real is the empirical failure of being able to come up with alternative cognitive tests that do not significantly correlate with IQ. That is, someone's ability to perform in the Raven's Progressive Matrices is heavily correlated with how they perform on digit span tests, both are heavily correlated with their spatial reasoning, these are correlated with things like "emotional intelligence," etc. Fyi I also hold that intelligence is not fixed. This is known based on the Flynn effect and research finding that education causally increases IQ. So I don't take IQ tests to be the final say on someone's cognitive potential. LifelineByNature said: What it *does* do, is offer a convenient cut-off point for intellectual disability classification. This is a quite common thought, but intelligence does seem to continue to predict higher achievement even on the right tail of the bell curve. Beyond the Threshold Hypothesis: Even Among the Gifted and Top Math/Science Graduate Students, Cognitive Abilities, Vocational Interests, and Lifestyle Preferences Matter for Career Choice, Performance, and Persistence |
Reply to Freshell
LifelineByNature said:
Sorry, I wasn't clear on what I was looking for - in most academic journal articles, you're able at the very least to view their results and methodology. I consider this to be relevant data, not just the raw data itself.
Sorry, I wasn't clear on what I was looking for - in most academic journal articles, you're able at the very least to view their results and methodology. I consider this to be relevant data, not just the raw data itself.
Thanks for the clarification. It's fair to want to have the full paper just so you can see if there are important caveats to the conclusions of the authors.
Just so you know these findings are not strange:
Do you have to be smart to be rich? The impact of IQ on wealth, income and financial distress
Intelligence and life expectancy in late adulthood: A meta-analysis
LifelineByNature said:
I think ultimately we're saying the same things but from vastly different perspectives. My point mainly is that IQ tests (and the "IQ" of an individual) doesn't really give us any real information. IQ tests can be utilised in very specific ways to measure very specific outcomes (and do require some level of pre-existing knowledge to give any accurate reading) - but the post we're replying to is discussing IQ tests in the sense of generalised testing and the ascription of a numerical value to a person's achievable intellect.
I think ultimately we're saying the same things but from vastly different perspectives. My point mainly is that IQ tests (and the "IQ" of an individual) doesn't really give us any real information. IQ tests can be utilised in very specific ways to measure very specific outcomes (and do require some level of pre-existing knowledge to give any accurate reading) - but the post we're replying to is discussing IQ tests in the sense of generalised testing and the ascription of a numerical value to a person's achievable intellect.
For points of agreement, I think we both agree that IQ does not explain 100% of the variance between individuals. It also seems like we're both acknowledging that IQ tests, independent of whether they're actually measuring generalized intelligence or not, can be used to make some predictions that explains some of the variance in some outcomes. I think it was first important to establish the point that they do predict things like income, job performance, etc. before moving on to whether there's such a thing as general intelligence, but I think we can move on from that point.
Where we seem to drastically differ is that I consider generalized intelligence to be real but part of a multiplicity of factors of which it is one important factor in explaining the variance in outcomes between individuals. With other factors being things like work ethic or ability to plan. You don't seem to think it's real.
The reason I hold that generalized intelligence is real is the empirical failure of being able to come up with alternative cognitive tests that do not significantly correlate with IQ. That is, someone's ability to perform in the Raven's Progressive Matrices is heavily correlated with how they perform on digit span tests, both are heavily correlated with their spatial reasoning, these are correlated with things like "emotional intelligence," etc.
Fyi I also hold that intelligence is not fixed. This is known based on the Flynn effect and research finding that education causally increases IQ. So I don't take IQ tests to be the final say on someone's cognitive potential.
LifelineByNature said:
What it *does* do, is offer a convenient cut-off point for intellectual disability classification.
What it *does* do, is offer a convenient cut-off point for intellectual disability classification.
This is a quite common thought, but intelligence does seem to continue to predict higher achievement even on the right tail of the bell curve.
Beyond the Threshold Hypothesis: Even Among the Gifted and Top Math/Science Graduate Students, Cognitive Abilities, Vocational Interests, and Lifestyle Preferences Matter for Career Choice, Performance, and Persistence
| @Freshell I think the issue with predictors of academic achievement is that it implies "IQ high = smarter" but academic achievement is also largely down to effort and motivation as well. I've met people with Master's degrees whom I would judge as less intelligent from talking to them than people who haven't gone to university at all (less capable of critical or rational thinking, less capable of problem solving, etc). I have no idea what my IQ is, because I've never taken a test. But I'm Master's educated and looking toward a PhD in the near future. That's because I'm interested and motivated in achieving that level of education. But people with higher IQs than me may not be. The most important caveat is that higher education takes a long time, also takes a lot of money (depending on country) and requires you to have a specialised interest or need for it to begin with. Even in HS, it comes down to being motivated to begin with. I guess what I'm saying is the conclusion that IQ really shows intellect based on, say, academic achievement would only be an accurate statement if every child in the study was trying their hardest the entire way through their education. And that's never the case. |
Supreme Seireitei - Captain of the 10th Court Guard Squad |
LifelineByNature said: I think the issue with predictors of academic achievement is that it implies "IQ high = smarter" but academic achievement is also largely down to effort and motivation as well. I've met people with Master's degrees whom I would judge as less intelligent from talking to them than people who haven't gone to university at all (less capable of critical or rational thinking, less capable of problem solving, etc). Of course someone who is not motivated towards academia will not go far. You want motivation and ability. But if both are necessary in some proportion, it means you'll find more high ability people than is the population average. So this would be why IQ only explains a good chunk of the variation in academic achievement but not all. Also people who have high IQs but do not go far in school will still have different outcomes. They will on average make more money than other people of their education level and on average perform better at their jobs. IQ and critical/rational thinking are not necessarily the same thing. IQ will definitely help with someone having more complex thoughts, which helps with critical thinking, but people with high IQs are still susceptible to biases and other rationality pitfalls. One fun example is myside bias. A study by Kahan et al. for example found that people who are more numerate do very well with interpreting quantitative causal evidence on topics that are not politically charged than less numerate people, but when the topic was about gun control, more numerate people didn't fair better if the presented information went against their political bias. So we should be clear on what IQ does tell us. It doesn't necessarily tell us how rational a person is, especially when they have heavy personal biases on a topic, but it does tell us something about how fast someone is at learning things, their ability to pattern recognize, how much information they can hold in their head at once, etc. and that all winds up having a lot of general transfer and practical benefit, but it doesn't tell us everything. |
More topics from this board
» What is the biggest amount of money you've ever owned SOMEONE?Zakatsuki_ - Sep 17 |
8 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
17 seconds ago |
|
» What is the biggest amount of money you've spent on something you've regretted buying after.Zakatsuki_ - Sep 17 |
25 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» More than companies, do you feel that customers want enshittification of media?thewiru - 2 hours ago |
5 |
by SmugSatoko
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» Were you scared the first time you slept alone in an house?Zakatsuki_ - Sep 17 |
9 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» Do you think people actually know the difference between having a type and being a disgusting fetishist?Zakatsuki_ - Sep 17 |
33 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
4 minutes ago |