I have never had an IQ test done. I can't say that I know much about them, but I have been doing a little thinking.
I would suggest that an IQ test says more about those who write it than those who take it. By this, I mean that the creators of an IQ test have certain beliefs about what constitutes "intelligence". Let us consider a body of individuals we call "P" who are responsible for designing these things. Those of class "P" quite probably share a similar cultural background, although there will inevitably be sub-classes of "P". That said, they are all share either the desire to measure intelligence or are perceived (by those that want to measure intelligence) to have the right skill set to undertake this work. In any case, the make-up of "P" is determined by those who focus on comparative classification and analysis.
Before measuring something, it is necessary to define what is being measured and then formulate a method of measuring it. Let's briefly consider these two properties: definition and method, but in reverse order.
Based on my limited understanding, IQ tests purely measure one person against another using statistical methods. It is relative rather than absolute. What happens if average intelligence increases over time? Imagine I have an IQ of 100. If I traveled forwards in time by 1000 years and am measured again I might be given an IQ score of 70. Has my actual intelligence changed? Am I "dumber" now that I have changed my situation in time? Hold that thought.
Now consider, what happens if I jump on a plane and am taken to the Amazonian jungle and plopped into a pre-contact society. Imagine I gave them a written IQ test in English, how would they go? OK, now assume that ten years have passed and I have a significant percentage how to speak, read and write and administered an IQ test designed by "P" for a western population. How would they go now? Hmm... that depends on who they are compared to. Others in their own culture, or Westerners. I would speculate that the two scores would be vastly different. So then, is the average Amazonian tribesman dumber than the average Westerner? Again, hold that thought.
Another point I just thought of is that in the act of measuring you are possibly effecting the object of your measurement and skewing the results. For instance, when I was school I usually did better at assignments than exams. Exams made me really nervous and I found it hard to remember stuff. What are we measuring by tests? How well you know the material or how well you can do tests? In the same way, perhaps IQ tests not only measure how intelligent you are (whatever that means), but also how well you do at IQ tests, your capacity to deal with pressure, how you felt on the day etc.....
In short, the method used by IQ tests for intelligence is:
1. Relative in nature
2. Contextually determined
3. Potentially distorting of its own results
As soon as the context changes, the results of the test are questionable. While it is possible to say that an individual has IQ of 120, this figure only has meaning if the context by which the results were measured are very precisely defined. Moreover, one needs to consider the homogeneity of the context in respect to age and cultural background. To get a useful measurement the context needs to be more and more carefully defined.
Let's move from my simple understanding of the methods of IQ testing to the definition of "intelligence" itself. We carried out two thought experiments to illustrate that intelligence is relative. This forms the first part of "Intelligence" as defined by "P". If this is the case, it is not really possible to say that someone is intelligent. They can only be said to be "more intelligent than that guy over there".
I understand that in a general sense "intelligence" considers cognitive functioning in reference to a problem or pattern. There are many types, or "domains" of problems and patters. Consequently, the definition of intelligence should also consider the "domain", the aspect of human functioning that is valued and compared. This is where we learn about the group "P". IQ tests tell us about the people "P" who create them. What do they value as important in relation to cognitive function? The ability to predict the next shape in a sequence? How to interpret a question written using standard English? The ability to store information in the short term memory?
An IQ test designed by our Amazonian tribesmen would probably look quite different, having different domains. How to catch a fish in different settings. How to determine the right time of year to go hunting for a particular animal. I am sure you get the idea.
So what is being measured in an IQ test? I would suggest that it measures the comparative ability of an individual to function well in the society of the people who designed the test. Let me return to one of my earlier ideas: An IQ test tells us as much about the people who designed it as the people who created it.
An IQ test is only useful if the person interpreting the results is aware of the method of measurement and the aspects of functioning that are being measured. An IQ is dangerous in the wrong hands. It can make you unjustifiably arrogant or unjustifiably despondent. It can lead others to think that you are not suitable for a particular job, when in reality your skill set might be perfect.
An IQ test creates a setting, assumes a cultural background and then compares the result to the results obtain by people in the same setting but not necessarily of the same background. If the setting changes, the results are less useful in predicting comparative function.
So what am I saying? This: IQ tests are useful at predicting how well you can complete IQ tests, but only in relation to other people.
05 Jul 2015, 3:16 pm
