Is IQ a good system for measuring intellegence?

[Truronian]

I have serious doubts about this system. I have many friends that are IMO intellegent and informed people, yet have low IQs, while I know several high IQers that are dull and dumb.

Do people think the system is a good one?

 

[farting bob]

Its the best system possible, short of interviewing everyone personally, and that wouldnt be very standardised. At least this system judges average intelliegence of someone, and in general, smarter people will always have a higher than average IQ.

 

[King Alexander]

I voted for the 4th option.

 

[Marla_Singer]

It's a good system to measure capacities related to logic. However intelligence isn't simply about logic. Furthermore, at the opposite of what the wide majority believes, most of our logic capacities are nurtured, not natural. As such, a level of IQ is never fixed, but can either be improved or be deteriorated. IQ is mainly a measure of maths training. 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 ?

It's bit as if football skills were considered as sport skills and we would say Michael Jordan sucks in sport skills because he performed lousy in football game.

Anyway, that debate has been made millions of times already.

 

[Bluemofia]

Far too broad to test. Can Einstein keep a crowd laughing? Can Michelangelo manage a country? Can Bill Gates paint a masterpiece? Intelligence is too broad to measure.

 

[Japanrocks12]

IQ tests your logical capabilities. There are other ways to prove that you are intelligent.

 

[searcheagle]

Voted for: Intelligence is far to broad an idea to test
Belief: Until someone comes up with a better system, its the only one that works.

There are many different types of intelligence. To get a true feel for

The Seven Types of Intelligence

Psychologist Howard Gardner identified the following distinct types of intelligence. They are listed here with respect to gifted / talented children.

1. Linguistic
Enjoy writing, reading, telling stories or doing crossword puzzles.

2. Logical-Mathematical
Interested in patterns, categories and relationships. Drawn to arithmetic problems, strategy games and experiments.

3. Bodily-kinesthetic
Process knowledge through bodily sensations. Often athletic, dancers or good at crafts such as sewing or woodworking

4. Spatial
Think in images and pictures. May be fascinated with mazes or jigsaw puzzles, or spend free time drawing, building things or daydreaming.

5. Musical
Often singing or drumming to themselves. Usually quite aware of sounds others may miss. Often discriminating listeners.

6. Interpersonal
Leaders among their peers, who are good at communicating and who seem to understand others' feelings and motives.

7. Intrapersonal
May be shy, but are very aware of their own feelings and are self motivated.

http://www.physics.utoledo.edu/~ljc/smarts.htm

If intelligence were divided into these catergories it would be much more accurate.

 

[Elrohir]

I think intelligence is too broad of an idea to test. There are many different forms of intelligence and knowledge, and making a test on one idea of intelligence and then saying "Score high on this and you are intelligent, do badly and you're stupid" seems very arrogant to me.

And no, I don't have a low IQ.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Voted for: Intelligence is far to broad an idea to test
Belief: Until someone comes up with a better system, its the only one that works.

There are many different types of intelligence. To get a true feel for

The Seven Types of Intelligence

Psychologist Howard Gardner identified the following distinct types of intelligence. They are listed here with respect to gifted / talented children.



http://www.physics.utoledo.edu/~ljc/smarts.htm

If intelligence were divided into these catergories it would be much more accurate.

Precisely.

 

[wit>trope]

It's a good system to measure capacities related to logic.

IQ tests actually contain not just logical problems but also verbal problems. One potential problem with the structure of IQ tests is how much a certain skill is to be weighted. So for example, if the logical part of the test is given a much greater weight than the verbal part of the test then East Asians do considerably better than whites. However if the verbal part of the test is given a much greater weight than whites would do substantially better than East Asians. With present tests, East Asians end up doing slightly better than whites -- but this is a little misleading due to the weighting problem I've illustrated.

However intelligence isn't simply about logic. Furthermore, at the opposite of what the wide majority believes, most of our logic capacities are nurtured, not natural. As such, a level of IQ is never fixed, but can either be improved or be deteriorated. IQ is mainly a measure of maths training. 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 ?

Actually logic makes up the bulk of philosophy, at least what is known as "analytic" philosophy. There's another school of philosophy known as "continental" philosophy which doesn't have much logic (as in Nietsche, Kierkegard, etc.). It is known as "continental" because it tends to be more popular in continental Europe (like France), though there are some countries which are exceptions whereas "analytic" philosophy tends to be more popular in the United Kingdom and America. Much of analytic philosophy actually includes a fair amount of math. Logicians can practice in either a math department or a philosophy department.

The study of law is another place where logic is important. LSAT tests (needed to get into law school in America) feature many "logic" problems.

I would wager that mathematicians probably would score higher than philosophers, but that is probably true of any field when compared with mathematics. For instance, I am fairly sure that mathematicians would score higher than biologists or chemists.

But you bring up a good general point and googling I found this info

http://www.cse.emory.edu/sciencenet/mismeasure/genius/research04.html

Cox also found that different fields have quite widely varying average IQs for their acknowledged leading geniuses. She gives the following figures (the number in brackets is the number in the sample considered): Philosophers (22) average IQ 173; Scientists (39) 164; Fiction writers (53) 163; Statesmen (43) 159; Musicians (11) 153; Artists (13) 150; Soldiers (27) 133.

I am surprised at how high fiction writers scored -- but that shows that contrary to your belief the ability to write superb fiction is well represented by IQ. Apparently the ability to fight good wars is not as well represented but that is to be expected since high intelligence people are more attracted to fields outside of being a soldier and fighting a good war doesn't require much intelligence. I think I played Risk and games like that and did well when I was very very young.

Anyway, IQ clearly is a valuable measure. Could it become better? Of course it could. Everything can become better. Thermometers measure temperature but not with perfect accuracy -- we could make better thermometers just like we could make better watches (the best ones are atomic clocks and stuff like that) -- but that doesn't mean the imperfect thermometers and imperfect watches are useless or bad. IQ is a good but not 100% perfect measure. It measures something called g which is an attribute which is correlated with ALL intellectual activities, not just a few.

 

[GenMarshall]

I beleve that the IQ test is a bit flawed.

 

[Renata]

I put other. I think it's an excellent measure of analytical intelligence, with a few caveats. (For example, people who have more exposure to tests and puzzles in general will do a bit better than normal, while people who are malnourished or overtired will do a bit worse.) However, I also believe that there are types of intelligence (including highly-respected ones, like the ability to write well; and subtle but essential ones, like a talent for getting along with other people), that the IQ test doesn't really touch.

Renata

 

[wit>trope]

I put other. I think it's an excellent measure of analytical intelligence, with a few caveats. (For example, people who have more exposure to tests and puzzles in general will do a bit better than normal, while people who are malnourished or overtired will do a bit worse.) However, I also believe that there are types of intelligence (including highly-respected ones, like the ability to write well; and subtle but essential ones, like a talent for getting along with other people), that the IQ test doesn't really touch.

Renata

Ability to write well is touched by IQ tests:

Cox also found that different fields have quite widely varying average IQs for their acknowledged leading geniuses. She gives the following figures (the number in brackets is the number in the sample considered): Philosophers (22) average IQ 173; Scientists (39) 164; Fiction writers (53) 163; Statesmen (43) 159; Musicians (11) 153; Artists (13) 150; Soldiers (27) 133.

Link above. Getting along with other people isn't really an intellectual activity. It can be affected by non-intellectual things like how big your breasts are

 

[h4ppy]

Its a great system becuase I have a great score!!

 

[bad_ronald]

An excellent topic .

IQ is the best quantification of the psychometric variable g (general mental ability), a measurement of a person's general intelligence, no more and no less.

I have many friends that are IMO intelligent and informed people, yet have low IQs...

Being informed plays no role in general intelligence.

Its the best system possible, short of interviewing everyone personally...

I disagree. A personal interview can never be as objective a measure as an IQ test can. Intelligence is special in this regard in that it can be measured much more effectively than most other beneficial traits (e.g. conscientiousness - where a person could simply lie on the questions to produce the desired result). An IQ test, however, demands that the person solves the analogy/puzzle; there is no possibility of cheating.

It's a good system to measure capacities related to logic. However intelligence isn't simply about logic.

The variable g was hypothesized when statisticians noticed that all measures of intelligence are correlated. To date, not even the most skeptical of egalitarian psychologists (quite common) have denied its existence. It does not measure logic exclusively, it measures cognitive ability in the general sense (that is how it was defined).

IQ is mainly a measure of maths training. 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 ?

I'll grant that many so-called IQ tests are too strongly biased in either visuo-spatial or verbal measures of IQ, but the best ones are either not or average the scores of two or more tests.

There are many different types of intelligence.

Note that IQ is a measure of general mental ability, so none of the examples that you cite play any role in refuting the validity of IQ as a measure of intelligence (saying general isn't necessary, since it underlies all other mental abilities). I would certainly not call the things you listed types of intelligence; they are skills.

Far too broad to test. Can Einstein keep a crowd laughing? Can Michelangelo manage a country? Can Bill Gates paint a masterpiece? Intelligence is too broad to measure.

Keeping a crowd laughing is not a valid measure of general intelligence, neither is managing a country (necessarily), nor painting a masterpiece. These are skills which a person could have, any person, while those with a high level of general intelligence will oftentimes be the most prominent members of their fields (though other traits play a role).

 

[Renata]

The roll-eyes smilie is a bit uncalled-for, don't you think?

I'm not sure an anecdotal sample of 50-odd people proves anything. Anyway, good writers may have a high level of analytical intelligence or they may have a low level: sort of depends on the person. I've known both types. My point, which I could have clarified better, is that writing creatively is not dependent on a high IQ (high analytical intelligence), while being a good mathematician or philosopher is.

And I probably shouldn't even dignify the comment on breast size with an answer, but I'm sure you're aware that some people have a gift for connecting with others that most people lack.

I like the seven types of intelligence idea. Traditional IQ tests measure the first and second types; hence why mathematicians and most (but not all) talented writers do well. I've took one "intelligence" exam back in elementary school that also tested spatial reasoning, but it wasn't an "IQ test", per se. The other things never get tested.

Just to make it clear, I'm not devaluing the concept of IQ because my own is low; it isn't. Those first two aspects of intelligence are my strongest. (I think I'm average at the third, above average at the fourth and fifth, and pitiful at the last two.)

Renata

 

[Yom]

Option 4.

 

[greekguy]

i think it's a good system for measuring logic, and if you do poorly you probably wouldn't do good in the academic world. that doesn't mean your dumb, it just means that you should be in a different field. kinda of like those 7 types of intelligence thing.

btw, do any of you remember that thing FOX did called "Test the Nation"? i do and my town was in the top ten in America.

 

[Marla_Singer]

IQ tests actually contain not just logical problems but also verbal problems. One potential problem with the structure of IQ tests is how much a certain skill is to be weighted. So for example, if the logical part of the test is given a much greater weight than the verbal part of the test then East Asians do considerably better than whites. However if the verbal part of the test is given a much greater weight than whites would do substantially better than East Asians. With present tests, East Asians end up doing slightly better than whites -- but this is a little misleading due to the weighting problem I've illustrated.

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.

Actually logic makes up the bulk of philosophy, at least what is known as "analytic" philosophy. There's another school of philosophy known as "continental" philosophy which doesn't have much logic (as in Nietsche, Kierkegard, etc.). It is known as "continental" because it tends to be more popular in continental Europe (like France), though there are some countries which are exceptions whereas "analytic" philosophy tends to be more popular in the United Kingdom and America. Much of analytic philosophy actually includes a fair amount of math. Logicians can practice in either a math department or a philosophy department.

Of course philosophy includes logic otherwise there wouldn't be cartesianism (who was "continental" by the way). However, it's only a part of philosophy, and it would be a severe mistake to say that philosophy is only about that. On the other side, mathematics are only about logic.

The IQ reveals nothing in your job skills. The best evidence of this is that I perform rather good in IQ tests generally, and despite that I'm good in nothing. The fact is only that I've made a lot of probabilities during my studies and as such I've trained my brain to solve logical issues.

All this is only a matter of 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.

 

[stormbind]

IQ is supposed to measure one's ability to compute, not one's general knowledge or cultural background. Asking how many nickels or dimes remain after a specific purchase is not very clever: obviously vocabulary differs and non-Americans may be clueless.

Asking questions based on language is equally if not more biased, yet most American IQ tests emphasise knowledge of the English language.

To sum up my thoughts: IQ is valuable, but most tests were written by bigots or morons