First, I've said this many times, "intelligence" is an ill-defined term. We do not have a comprehensive definition for it, much less a consensus. So it cannot be objectively tested. In psychology, when you test for "aggression", you have to objectively define it. Kids that become "more aggressive" from watching violence, what exactly does that mean? They fight more? Use bad language? Becoming greedy with toys? Likewise with "intelligence". In this discussion we've never defined it fully and as I've said, IQ test doesn't test for whatever it is anyway.
IQ tests became more popular due to the US Army when they began to use it during WWI. Decades of study have shown its consistency and number of correlations. Sure, correlation does not mean causation, but it sure as heck does tell you something!
You're right, someone who is autistic or with another such trait would score below average on a test. And if they're a savant, they would be highly capable at one field but score poorly on this test. But as I said before, the exceptions to the rule does not invalidate value for the test.
Sidhe said:
Think you missed the point obviously the indian kid learnt to read and write, even on the streets of Bangalore people learn that, what I mean is he lacked education not literacy when the test was taken.
In the developed world, where you don't have to worry about malnutrition or other factors stunting mental development, environment shows little influence on IQ scores. Using twins, adoptions and the like in studies, IQ scores have a heritablity score of .5 and .75 after adulthood. Which means that it's HIGHLY influenced by genetic factors. By adulthood, environmental factors disappear in correlation studies in regards to influence.
Sidhe said:
IQ tests suck which still doesn't explain why people still use them, because there as indicative of intelligence as you yourself mentioned? What use are they then?
A minor use of IQ tests is for mental retardation. Scoring below 70 means you cannot be put under the death penalty. The SCOTUS determined that would fall under cruel and unusual punishment. Scoring below 70 would require being in the bottom of the 0.5% of IQ scores. It may be an indication of mental retardation (the test itself doesn't claim one way or the other) but the SCOTUS felt it was sufficient evidence for the case.
But the test is often done not to judge individuals. I'm not an expert on this so I don't know, but I don't know of many places doing IQ tests to determine someone's quality of acceptance or anything.
In academic use, most often use is to test correlations. People use the IQ test because it's been consistent and reliable. It's shown high correlation with other tests devised to test intelligence. So while it doesn't capture the general term, most who study it probably believe there is some correlation with the test score and certain factors it does test (which I've already mentioned, visual-spatial and logic intelligence. both very symbolic types of intelligence).
Sidhe said:
And yes I'm a troll obviously, I just like righting long paragraphs to wind people up
Then why didn't you take the time to read what I wrote instead of attacking one point of the whole thing? It seems like you take the "hard atheist" view (by your definition) on this topic and then seem ignorant on the topic itself.
Me mentioning
IQ tests was just one example. You can use
personality tests that have been devised. You can study them up on
Wikipedia. There's even an article on the
Myers-Briggs !