Is IQ a good system for measuring intellegence?

[Mise]

It's a good way of testing how well you answer those particular questions. You could certainly define intelligence such that an IQ test is a good system for measuring it.

(edit: I guess that's another way of saying, "option 4".)

 

[vbraun]

I'll say its to broad to measure.

 

[wit>trope]

It's funny you talk about East Asians and Whites as if they had inherently different capacities related to language skills or logical skills. I'm sorry to tell you that I'm white and I'd suck in your language test... for the simple reason english isn't my first language and I've read only two books in english in my whole life. All of this is nurtured... actually intelligence could be defined that way.

The difference is present for both East Asian immigrants and East Asians living in East Asia. (same is true btw for blacks in America and blacks in Africa -- the degree of the difference changes, as it so happens -- perhaps due to the genetic dillution present among blacks in America where someone who is only slightly black is still considered "black"). The tests given to East Asians living in East Asia are not in English. Not all IQ tests are in English. I don't know how some people (not you but another person) got the idea that they are all in English.

All this is only a matter of training.

Training can realize the potential that is there, but with the inherent potential, training would realize nothing. Our brains have an inherent potential as well as an inherent receptiveness to training.

The whole brain is a matter of training. Whatever you want to specialize in you'll have to train yourself in order to be good at it. That's true for a pianist interpreting Rachmaninov as much as it's true for a football player perfectly controlling a ball after a 70-m pass. The thing is that training can be rather fun. And I guess Mozart enjoyed better to train his music skills than any other things... and this since he was really young.

The IQ of genius musicians in the study I cited above was 153 which is pretty high. The training with the ball you are referring to (do French people refer to soccer as football btw when not talking to Americans? ... just curious) involves muscle memory. It's not an intellectual activity. It's similar to a reflex.

 

[luiz]

There are strong chances a mathematician will perform better than a philosopher in an IQ test. However, does that truely mean the mathematician is smarter ?

Yes

Seriously, though, in my opinion IQ tests are crap
(though I always score pretty high on them, so maybe I should re-think my opinion )

 

[Tomoyo]

I remember I took an IQ test when I was 5. At the time, I could barely speak English (actually, I don't think I could, other than things like "thank you", "please", etc), and the test, IIRC had one part where you put together a few tiles to make patterns shown to you, which I did really well on, but then for some reason, I remember there being a part where the examiner held up a card with a word on it, and I had to say it.

 

[Marla_Singer]

The difference is present for both East Asian immigrants and East Asians living in East Asia. (same is true btw for blacks in America and blacks in Africa -- the degree of the difference changes, as it so happens -- perhaps due to the genetic dillution present among blacks in America where someone who is only slightly black is still considered "black"). The tests given to East Asians living in East Asia are not in English. Not all IQ tests are in English. I don't know how some people (not you but another person) got the idea that they are all in English.

So you conclude that's about genes ? You fool !

Cierdan, you who praises IQ tests should think rationally.
The thing is that language skills are heavily dependent on cultural education. If you're American-born but from South East Asian parents, you won't get the same cultural education as if you were American-born from White Anglo-Saxon Protestant parents. However, an adopted South-Asian kid who would be raised with WASP parents would get the same language skills as a WASP kids. I mean, that seems so obvious that actually I fail to see how you couldn't see it.

Education in general is heavily intertwined with wealth. The richer your parents are the better are your chances to get a good education. That's not simply about money, that also depend on the background your parents are bringing you. For instance, those who succeed the best in studies are generally wealthy kids and teachers kids. Why ? Because those parents have the best academic knowledge and will bring more support to their kids education. It's not something necessarily deliberated, it depends on tons of things : discussions at home, pressures from the parents on kids about maintaining the level of life they've been raised in, parents knowledge about the educational system, etc... All informations surrounding us.

Training can realize the potential that is there, but with the inherent potential, training would realize nothing. Our brains have an inherent potential as well as an inherent receptiveness to training.

Have you ever observed a new-born baby ?

My sister had a baby, Julie, last year and I've observed her. She was pretty dumb you know. When she was 1-week old, she couldn't see anything and she couldn't feel anything. That's not because her eyes or arms didn't work, that's because her brain wasn't able to interpret the information. Today, Julie is one year-old. She needed a tough time to learn how to walk but she's now doing fine mostly. She has learned equilibrium. If I tell you all this, it's simply to make you understand how much learning is important in the human being. Learning faster or not depends on the context in which you've been trained to learn. Physically speaking, that's only about neurons connecting to each others. However, there's no genes determining neurons connections. That's only made through experiment.

If the human race became smarter with time, it's simply because, as the brain was getting bigger, the number of neurons has increased, and the number of connections has been multiplied. So physically speaking, what could make a difference would be the size of our brain. However, all our brains have the same size, the differences are too marginal to make a guy with a small head necessarily dumber than a guy with a big head.

The IQ of genius musicians in the study I cited above was 153 which is pretty high. The training with the ball you are referring to (do French people refer to soccer as football btw when not talking to Americans? ... just curious) involves muscle memory. It's not an intellectual activity. It's similar to a reflex.

There's only one sport called football... the one which is played with feet. That's not about French people, that's about the Brits.

All memory, physical or intellectual is a matter of reflex. When you type on your keyboard, do you check your fingers or do you stare at the screen ? That's about the subconscious memory. When you're at an exam and you're in front of a problem, it's your memory which is trying to find connections which would lead you to the solution.

And finally, that's the same when you're in front of a question at an IQ test. When you will see those colour circles and you'd have to pick which one is the good one to finish the serie, you're not creating a solution, you try to find connections... and those connections are in your memory, you don't invent anything. Physical intelligence is no different than intellectual intelligence... all this is a matter of training.

 

[Yom]

The difference is present for both East Asian immigrants and East Asians living in East Asia. (same is true btw for blacks in America and blacks in Africa -- the degree of the difference changes, as it so happens -- perhaps due to the genetic dillution present among blacks in America where someone who is only slightly black is still considered "black"). The tests given to East Asians living in East Asia are not in English. Not all IQ tests are in English. I don't know how some people (not you but another person) got the idea that they are all in English.

We've been over this in the IQ and Racism thread. You made claims but offered no evidence. Unless you have some evidence to back up your racist views, then you won't be believed.

 

[M37]

I don't exactly how the original system was desinged but I remember asking about the clasical 100 points system when I had an IQ test. Aperently the old 100 pts sytem was discontinued some years ago. The new system is more or less similer to the original but has attempted to determine how strong you are in any one area of knowlage, Language, mathamatics, arts, history, pop culture ect...
I remember I was never told any numbers but in most skill sets I fell within the medium. Language usage and general knowlage were my storong suits.
I rember they asked me to talk as long as I could on about 100 difrenet topics and asswer some questions similer to the one's you would hear on Jepordy.


I have often wondered if the new test results should be based on some as yet underimined formula that rates everone's inteligince in a dozen or so areas based on skills and knowlage. The person would then recive two numbers as thier result. The first number would be similer to the original 100 point schale and the second could be based on the value of how round a person's knowlage is.
This is important since thier are a lot of people out thier who could run circles around the rest of us in a particular field but would be clueless when it comes to topics outside thier area of specialty.
On the other hand thier are some people out thier who may not be great at any one area of knowlage but know something about practicaly anything.

Both are important to our society and any further refinements of the IQ test system should take this into account.

 

[wit>trope]

The 100 point system is ideally, originally meant to capture this percentage ratio:

The age at which the average of that age have that result/ Your chronological age.

So for example, if you are 12 years old and the your result is the average for 15 year olds then your IQ would be:

15/12 as a percentage or exactly 125.

I don't think this is how the system always works though because once you get to a certain age there will be people who have results that are not the average for any age (because their result is so high).

@Yom,

The evidence is in The Bell Curve and in various wikipedia articles, but I'm not going to discuss anything with you if you are going to mischaracterize my views and not discuss things civilly.

P.S. IIRC you erroneously claimed in that thread that the IQ of blacks in Africa was higher than the IQ of blacks in America. That is just false (from a general section that doesn't discuss any special view)

Blacks in Africa score much lower than Blacks in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

Also to back up my specific claim that the differences between East Asians and whites occurs both with respect to American East Asians and East Asian East Asians from the same article (in a section that discusses the partially genetic view)

Using Lakatos's classification of research programmes they claim that the culture-only hypothesis is not "progressive" but "degenerating" (Rushton and Jensen 2005). To support these claims, they most often cite: (1) worldwide Black–White–East Asian differences in IQ, reaction time, and brain size, with Black-White IQ differences observable at age 3 in the U.S.; (2) race differences are most pronounced on tests that are the best measures of g, which also show the highest heritability (see Spearman's hypothesis); and (3) the rising heritability of IQ with age (within races) and the disappearance by adulthood of shared environmental effects on IQ (e.g., family income, education, and home environment). Rushton and Jensen (2005) have concluded that the differences are at least 50% genetic.

 

[wit>trope]

Education in general is heavily intertwined with wealth. The richer your parents are the better are your chances to get a good education. That's not simply about money, that also depend on the background your parents are bringing you. For instance, those who succeed the best in studies are generally wealthy kids and teachers kids. Why ? Because those parents have the best academic knowledge and will bring more support to their kids education. It's not something necessarily deliberated, it depends on tons of things : discussions at home, pressures from the parents on kids about maintaining the level of life they've been raised in, parents knowledge about the educational system, etc... All informations surrounding us.

IQ is indeed correlated with wealth but in the Bell Curve they make the necessary statistical adjustments for that and there was still a difference among the races when it came to IQ. (IOW when comparing, for example, blacks and whites of like socioeconomic background, the difference still persisted -- they may have been less though). Furthermore, it is contended that it is IQ that influences wealth and not so much the other way around (if you have higher IQ you will be able to make more money, basically).

Also the differences are there from as early as age 3!

Using Lakatos's classification of research programmes they claim that the culture-only hypothesis is not "progressive" but "degenerating" (Rushton and Jensen 2005). To support these claims, they most often cite: (1) worldwide Black–White–East Asian differences in IQ, reaction time, and brain size, with Black-White IQ differences observable at age 3 in the U.S.; (2) race differences are most pronounced on tests that are the best measures of g, which also show the highest heritability (see Spearman's hypothesis); and (3) the rising heritability of IQ with age (within races) and the disappearance by adulthood of shared environmental effects on IQ (e.g., family income, education, and home environment). Rushton and Jensen (2005) have concluded that the differences are at least 50% genetic.

My sister had a baby, Julie, last year and I've observed her. She was pretty dumb you know. When she was 1-week old, she couldn't see anything and she couldn't feel anything. That's not because her eyes or arms didn't work, that's because her brain wasn't able to interpret the information. Today, Julie is one year-old. She needed a tough time to learn how to walk but she's now doing fine mostly. She has learned equilibrium. If I tell you all this, it's simply to make you understand how much learning is important in the human being. Learning faster or not depends on the context in which you've been trained to learn. Physically speaking, that's only about neurons connecting to each others. However, there's no genes determining neurons connections. That's only made through experiment.

Well there are genes which determine the physical structure of the brain. For example, with regard to sex:

In 1861, Paul Pierre Broca examined 432 human brains and found that the brains of males had an average weight of 1,325 grams, while the brains of females had an average weight of 1,144 grams. A 1992 study of 6,325 Army personnel found that men's brains had an average volume of 1,442 cm³, while the women averaged 1,332 cm³. (Ankney 1992). The differences are smaller when adjusted for body size, but still persist.

In 2005, Haier et al. reported that compared to men, women show more white matter and fewer gray matter areas related to intelligence. They also report that the brain areas correlated with IQ differ between the sexes. They conclude that men and women apparently achieve similar IQ results with different brain regions.

So in all the above regards, genes determine brain structure and influence how the brain operates. How many and what form of neural connections are made is certainly influenced by the environment like you say, but if one person has less neurons than the other, the potential for connections is just lower -- just as an example. Just as there are physical structural differences in the brains of men versus women, there are also physical structural differences in the brains of certain races versus certain other races -- one difference is brain size -- and note that wikipedia presents this factoid as a "FACT" (my emphasis)

The fact that there are differences in the brain sizes and brain structures of different racial and ethnic groups was well known and widely studied during the 19th century and early 20th century

So physically speaking, what could make a difference would be the size of our brain. However, all our brains have the same size, the differences are too marginal to make a guy with a small head necessarily dumber than a guy with a big head.

Well I just proved you wrong above! All our brains do not have the same size and in fact cranial size is correlated with intelligence. This does not mean that someone with a smaller brain size is NECESSARILY dumber but it does mean that he is more likely than not to be dumber ceteris paribus (all other things being equal).

Larger brains do not necessarily imply higher intelligence. This means that someone with a larger brain may be less intelligent than someone with a smaller brain. However, larger brains do correlate with higher intelligence, particularly between different species. This means that larger brains tend to be more intelligent. The sheer size of the brain is relevant for two reasons. Most obviously, a small brain simply cannot hold as many brain cells as a large one. Less obvious, but more important, is that the true quality of a brain must be measured by the complexity of linkages between cells.

All memory, physical or intellectual is a matter of reflex. When you type on your keyboard, do you check your fingers or do you stare at the screen ? That's about the subconscious memory. When you're at an exam and you're in front of a problem, it's your memory which is trying to find connections which would lead you to the solution.

Well when you are just remembering something you are not really using intelligence. The intelligence would come in when you are seeing connections among the things that you happen to remember. Tow people can remember the same exact things but one person can see the connections while another not see them at all. So I think that if an IQ test emphasizes testing of memory then it would be flawed since it is a primitive function and not one that requires any active understanding.

And finally, that's the same when you're in front of a question at an IQ test. When you will see those colour circles and you'd have to pick which one is the good one to finish the serie, you're not creating a solution, you try to find connections... and those connections are in your memory, you don't invent anything. Physical intelligence is no different than intellectual intelligence... all this is a matter of training.

The connections aren't necessarily in your memory. What scientists have found actually is that high IQ persons tend to solve those questions QUICKLY and not spend much time analyzing them where as lower IQ persons tend to spend a lot of effort analyzing them. So for very high IQ persons the connections just seem to "pop" into their heads.

Just as an example of a connection which would not be remembered. There could be a question where there are these numbers:

1, 2, 6, 42

And the next number would be 1806. The pattern is that the square of the number is added to itself to produce the next number. Now as far as I remember, this is a pattern that I have NEVER seen before. But if it were to come on a test, I (or someone smarter than me), could very well have seen the pattern and found the next number even without having ever encountered the pattern.

 

[sanabas]

Just as an example of a connection which would not be remembered. There could be a question where there are these numbers:

1, 2, 5, 30

And the next number would be 930. The pattern is that the square of the number is added to itself to produce the next number. Now as far as I remember, this is a pattern that I have NEVER seen before. But if it were to come on a test, I (or someone smarter than me), could very well have seen the pattern and found the next number even without having ever encountered the pattern.

If 2^2+2 actually equalled 5, then yeah, someone smarter than you might have got it. I continue to be in awe of both your math & logic skills. I'll say the next numbers are 373, 6934. Or 373, 15014. Depends which pattern I use.

As for the question, I don't think IQ tests are particularly useful. The thing they're best at is feeding egos.

 

[punkbass2000]

Went with option 4, though any except the first sounds reasonable.

 

[frekk]

IQ is indeed correlated with wealth

The Bell Curve has been thoroughly debunked by academics ...

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bellcurvescience.htm

Though a popular paperback, it flunked peer review.

 

[bad_ronald]

IQ is indeed correlated with wealth

The Bell Curve has been thoroughly debunked by academics ...

Though I cannot speak for cierdan, I'll note that IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen is also applicable to this topic.

Though a popular paperback, it flunked peer review.

I would describe the link that you provided as dubious for the following reasons:

1. It says this about Rushton:

"And then there is J. Philippe Rushton, who has received at least $770,000 from the Pioneer Fund. Throughout his career, Rushton has been obsessed with the alleged negative correlation between IQ and the size of sexual organs like penises, breasts and buttocks. "It's a trade-off: More brain or more penis. You can't have everything," he told Rolling Stone magazine. (24) Of course, the stereotype that black men have large penises figures prominently in Rushton's theories about why they have such low IQs."

This is a gross mischaracterization of his R-K Theory. The author of this synopsis just took the most scandalous element that he used in defense of his theory while ignoring the twenty odd other proofs he provided, like: the percentage of dual egg twinning, measured cranial capacity, relative muscle mass, etc. Of course he is going to make the most shocking comment he can, because the audience of this magazine is not confined to peers, or even intellectuals.

Whenever those egalitarians who attempt to write off his work as "fraudulent", "racist" or whatever other buzzword they choose review his papers, he reviews those reviews, so lumping him in with Murray and the (deceased) Hernstein as existing in a protected conservative environment is disingenuous (Gould, who I don't doubt for a second would be lauded by whoever wrote this, absolutely never responds to Rushton's thrashings of "The Mismeasure of Man" - and don't claim it's too old, he released a "revised" version where he ignores all of the criticisms set forth against him).

2. It is a subpage of Steve Kangas' Liberal FAQ. It includes such topics as:

-Myths about Affirmative Action: We should compensate specific individuals for specific wrongs, not entire groups.
-Myths about Affirmative Action: Affirmative action is reverse discrimination.
-Myths about Crime: Guns don't kill people; people do.

3. He says this about Jensen:

Arthur Jensen, who once said, "Eugenics isn't a crime," has received over $1 million from the Pioneer Fund. (20) Jensen's name became synonymous with racism in the 70s, after he blamed lower black performance in Head Start on lower black IQs.

This should not pass a valid criticism. Many social policies can have a eugenic or dysgenic effect, and at a personal level selecting a mate always has a eugenic effect. Most of the things that a person can do that are eugenic are not in any way criminal; similarly, most of the things that a government can do with eugenic effects, e.g., welfare for low income families, free day care for women in graduate school, etc. are not criminal; it is only genocide, ethnic "cleansing", etc. that are illegal, and rightfully so.

4. He misapplies the Flynn Effect:

Another problem the task force found was the authors' handling of the "Flynn Effect," a world-wide phenomenon which is raising average IQs about three points per decade. That is much too fast to be genetic; therefore, social factors must play a large role in raising IQs.

The Flynn Effect does not suggest that the Black-White IQ disparity is similarly environmental; it is too technical to explain without a huge reply, but luckily Rushton (a "pseudo-scientist" who allegedly ignores left-leaning publications) authored a response to it: Secular Gains in IQ Not Related to the g Factor and Inbreeding Depression Unlike Black-White Differences: A Reply to Flynn.

 

[Truronian]

So, the consencus is that IQ tests are flawed for one reason or another. I agree. It is also interesting that this opinion appears to come from people of higher than average IQ.

On race:
I don't think a wikipedia article that is under dispute is a particularly good source.

 

[The_Unforgiven]

Can Einstein keep a crowd laughing?.

Maybe. Some of his quotes are rather funny, so he may have! But I agree with your comment, nicely illustrated as well.

Somehow technical students have an advantage, mainly because of the logics and primarily the number sequences, like fibonacchi (1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21, etc) and stuff like that. I tend to see those immediately, which shaves quite a lot of time off the test...

 

[frekk]

I would describe the link that you provided as dubious for the following reasons:

It doesn't really matter ... it was discredited through the peer review process by the top academic organizations in the country (not the author of that particular website). Its success as a paperback is irrelevant. It holds no claim to academic or scientific validity, and it would never find itself in the pages of any peer reviewed journal. It's a nonfiction bestseller, not a scientific paper.

IQ and the Wealth of Nations

Same story, except the author was too scared to even submit the work for peer review ... although it has been incidentally debunked in at least two papers published in scientific journals.

 

[bad_ronald]

It doesn't really matter ... it was discredited through the peer review process by the top academic organizations in the country (not the author of that particular website). Its success as a paperback is irrelevant. It holds no claim to academic or scientific validity, and it would never find itself in the pages of any peer reviewed journal. It's a nonfiction bestseller, not a scientific paper.

Saying that it was discreted by "top academic organizations" without providing links to the studies and the names of the organizations is meaningless (this applies to you and the author of your linked article). As an example, his claim that the American Psychological Association "debunked" The Bell Curve without a link leaves much to be desired. Primarily because they agreed with the vast majority of what was in the book. In addition, Murray cannot be expected to defend the book, since (in all likelihood) Hernstein provided much of what is being attacked (and obviously, he will not be responding). Those who have responded to the criticisms are not the authors of the book but the very men that this author attacks (most notably: Rushton and Jensen).

Having something "peer" reviewed is a problem if the majority of your peers are egalitarians and you are not. Not necessarily because you are wrong, but because they will substitute "population" for "race" and remove anything that is unflattering towards any of their favored races/ethnicities. If a book/article is not peer reviewed by the "leading" academic organizations, it is not necessarily incorrect or un-scientific. Many of the conclusions of these shunned authors are now being used by egalitarians in watered down forms (these of course, are much loved by the peer reviewers). The fact is: these scientists could refuse to submit their works to these egalitarian organizations simply becuase they value the content of their work, and that is enough of a reason to do so.

The only way that their conclusions can be disproven is to provide conflicting evidence; slapping an Egalitarian Seal of Quality on a paper (or not) is not enough.

 

[frekk]

Having something "peer" reviewed is a problem if the majority of your peers are egalitarians and you are not.

Isn't that a Von Daniken quote?

If you don't like the peer review process, then you don't like scientific authority - so don't bother to be claiming it.

If a book/article is not peer reviewed by the "leading" academic organizations, it is not necessarily incorrect or un-scientific.

If it fails peer review, it is. If it purports to be scientific but refuses to submit to peer review and instead heads for the paperback shelf at the Wal-Mart ... it is simple literary demagoguery. Peer review is a process that has been developed over centuries of scientific thought to be as objective as possible.

Many of the conclusions of these shunned authors are now being used by egalitarians in watered down forms (these of course, are much loved by the peer reviewers). The fact is: these scientists could refuse to submit their works to these egalitarian organizations simply becuase they value the content of their work, and that is enough of a reason to do so.

The only way that their conclusions can be disproven is to provide conflicting evidence; slapping an Egalitarian Seal of Quality on a paper (or not) is not enough.

Do you think you've said "egalitarian" enough times? Obviously you have zero comprehension of what the peer review process is. It's similar to the difference between publishing something on a Geocity page and publishing it in a national newspaper. There are simply too many peer-reviewed journals for your "vast egalitarian elite conspiracy" to control them all - in fact it would have to be able to control every single reviewer, because they are anonymous and do not communicate with one another during the review (it is not like a jury or other body that deliberates, it is totally individualized). When someone can't find a single journal in which to publish their research or have it reviewed, it's usually because it's has zero scientific merit.

 

[bad_ronald]

Do you think you've said "egalitarian" enough times? Obviously you have zero comprehension of what the peer review process is. It's similar to the difference between publishing something on a Geocity page and publishing it in a national newspaper. There are simply too many peer-reviewed journals for your "vast egalitarian elite conspiracy" to control them all. When someone can't find a single journal in which to publish their research or have it reviewed, it's usually because it's has zero scientific merit.

I wasn't speaking of the Bell Curve in particular (I agree that it is not the best source); however, the majority of authors that I've referenced do have their works published in peer reviewed journals (just not Murray, who isn't really a member of this field). And, I can never stress the egalitarian slant in academia enough . However, my point stands that if you cannot refute the claims made in a book or article, whether or not it was peer reviewed is nowhere near as important as that inability.

Your edit:

There are simply too many peer-reviewed journals for your "vast egalitarian elite conspiracy" to control them all - in fact it would have to be able to control every single reviewer, because they are anonymous and do not communicate with one another during the review (it is not like a jury or other body that deliberates, it is totally individualized).

It does not have to be a conspiracy, just a field that is literally dominated by one ideology. If a reviewer accepts a manuscript, but only conditionally, the original author could decide that it is not acceptable, and move on.