Why do ppl base intelligence on IQ scores?

Page 7 of 8 [ 122 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,245

10 Dec 2007, 9:18 pm

Sinsboldly,

Why does your gender bother you so? BTW One thing that I find interesting about Autistics, Geniuses, and some regular people, is that they generally almost have the same capacity, but its application shifts. You didn't study math much, so you may have done better elsewhere.

As for the geometric shapes, there are two types of questions I know that are like that.

1. Find a sequence pattern, and pick the one that fits in.
2. Find a pattern, and find ones that are/aren't simply other ways oif illustrating it.

The first tests logic and problem solving, and the second tests spatial.

As for brian?

I don't know WHAT his problem is. There always seems to be someone trying to shoot down others. Brian, I think it is clear that everyone here REALIZES:

1. It is a TEST subject to many of the same failings.
2. It's results are not exact.
3. It doesn't indicate general success.

Still:

1. It is indicative of types of intelligence.
2. It DOES indicate some abilities that can be used to further success.

If you have an IQ of 70, you may STILL get rich, famous, respected. It isn't THAT likely, but I bet it has happened. If you have an IQ of 170, you may be somewhat poor, unknown, and hated. Again, that may well have happened.

Still, the reverse is more likely.

archdude
Raven
Raven

Joined: 2 Dec 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 117
Location: Southeasten Pennsylvania

11 Dec 2007, 12:12 pm

Brian003 wrote:

Everyone has opinions; and you most certainly do not have to agree with mine. In fact; you can totally 100% disagree with every single post I make and every single point I have ever made.

That doesn't make you dumb; it makes you human.

Well it's nice of you to say that now, but in your first post you said that if I drink, smoke weed, or do whatever else you consider unacceptable then:

Brian003 wrote:

I'm sorry but you're not smart. You're pretty much just a major tool, just like everyone else.

If you want to call me a major tool, then I don't think it's too much to ask for you justify that opinion.

Brian003 wrote:

I said in the first post that I was Neurotypical so you automatically assumed that I was incapable of processing logical applications and that the only reason I posted in the first place was to reassure that I was better than everyone else.

I've never been diagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum, so technically I am neurotypical, too, though I have many characteristics that make me identify with Aspies. Most of the people I know are NT, and I certainly don't think that NTs are incapable of logic. I was responding to your comment, "That has always been my opinion and it's not going to change." - In other words "My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts." And, I did not take the fact that you declared yourself an NT as evidence that you consider yourself better than everyone here. I got that impression from all of your other comments, which are dripping with know-it-all dismissiveness. I've given two examples of that here, do I need to give more?

i_Am_andaJoy
Supporting Member

Joined: 27 Sep 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,268
Location: Ocala, FL

11 Dec 2007, 1:34 pm

Brian003 wrote:

HAHAHAHAHA. oh look, how cute, the NT monkey, having proudly declared itself to be an NT-monkey, thinks that by the logic of default, all who are different from it must be HUMAN.

silly, silly monkey.

be silly and nonsens-ical all you like, as that is just funny to watch, but actual insults? so petty, petty.

i am inhuman.

your presumptions and illogic grow tiresome.

_________________
www.asaspiepie.blogspot.com
Even in his lowest swoop, the mountain eagle is still higher than the other birds upon the plain, even though they soar. --Herman Melville

Aquamarine_Kitty
Snowy Owl

Joined: 6 Oct 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 155
Location: Way northern California

11 Dec 2007, 9:41 pm

Witt wrote:

I never met any person on internet forums that didn't claimed IQ lower then 130,and I know for fact that they are liars,since less then 10% of people statistically have this IQ.

Much, much less than 10%.
The percentage of people who really score 130+ is closer to 2.1% of the general population.

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

Maybe the forums aren't exactly the general population, but still... I also find it very hard to believe that everyone on these forums are at this extreme.

Lonelybonesey
Velociraptor

Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 433
Location: The teddy bears picnic of course

11 Dec 2007, 9:52 pm

my IQ is only 90 but i think the test does not accurately show me. True im dismal at math and English but ask me anything about nutrition and i will have the answer.

_________________
just a little higher (puff puff puff) almost got a job

Aquamarine_Kitty
Snowy Owl

Joined: 6 Oct 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 155
Location: Way northern California

11 Dec 2007, 10:38 pm

woodsman25 wrote:

I think their is a difference between book smart and street smart, I have no common sence at all and I think that has alot to do with it. I honestly dont beleive that their is an accurate universal measure of intelligence at all

There is a huge difference between book smarts and street smarts.
Also, there is a difference between book smarts and IQ, and between street smarts and common sense.

For example:
Me=
Book Smarts- If standardized testing counts for this, I'm in the gifted range.
IQ- according to a real test, 118. Bright, but not gifted.
Street Smarts- Almost nonexistent. I'd probably be at about 72.
Common Sense- I have uncommon sense. I'd probably be at about 42.
:dwarf:

Since no test measures all of these, and people can have different amounts of each of these abilities, there is no accurate universal measure of intelligence.

LostInSpace
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,617
Location: Dixie

11 Dec 2007, 10:40 pm

Aquamarine_Kitty wrote:

Witt wrote:

I never met any person on internet forums that didn't claimed IQ lower then 130,and I know for fact that they are liars,since less then 10% of people statistically have this IQ.

Much, much less than 10%.
The percentage of people who really score 130+ is closer to 2.1% of the general population.

Yup, the top 2% is 132 (for the Wechsler tests), which is what you need to get into Mensa.

2ukenkerl
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,245

11 Dec 2007, 10:48 pm

Aquamarine_Kitty wrote:

Witt wrote:

I never met any person on internet forums that didn't claimed IQ lower then 130,and I know for fact that they are liars,since less then 10% of people statistically have this IQ.

It ALSO depends on what forums you go to. Still, it is INTERESTING that Witt said "I never met any person on internet forums that didn't claimed IQ lower then 130". Two things DO stick out there! There is poor grammar, and there is a double negative! I'm not surprised that everyone Witt met claimed they had an IQ below 130! :lol:

Liverbird
Supporting Member

Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,119
Location: My heart belongs to Anfield

11 Dec 2007, 11:06 pm

LostInSpace wrote:

Liverbird wrote:

I'm also going to add, that IQ tests are a kind of standardized test. Take enough of them, learn the pattern and even the local village idiot could do well.

Of course they are standardized tests- probably the first standardized tests to exist in fact. Otherwise you couldn't assign an IQ score. Standardized tests are those which have been "standardized" on a certain population- i.e. a mean and standard deviation has been calculated. Every formal test you would be given in a neuropsychological battery (ex. tests of visual-motor integration, language, even grip strength, etc.) are standardized tests. And of course if you take the same IQ test more than once (I'm talking about real IQ tests here by the way, not online ones), you'll do better simply because you'll have heard the questions before, will have had more time to think about them (some subtests are time dependent) and may have looked them up. There aren't enough *real* IQ tests out there for you to take enough to "learn the pattern" (e.g. practice the specific reasoning skills which are tested), however if you took a course or something designed to target specific types of reasoning skills, you could probably increase your score. That defeats the point of the IQ however. Barring certain mitigating factors, such as disability, ethnicity (in some cases), etc., IQ tests do provide a reasonable estimate of your ability to perform certain types of reasoning tasks, and have some correlation with academic potential. Not academic success necessarily, since the person may not be motivated, or may have ADHD or something like that, but the person's potential to do well in school. And if you tested the kids who seem "smart" in school, chances are they would have a high IQ. Now, how does this relate to success after school? Not so much, except in certain professions (ex. university professor perhaps).

You missed the point. Take enough of them, find the pattern and any one can ace an IQ test.

_________________
"All those things that you taught me to fear
I've got them in my garden now
And you're not welcome here" ---Poe

IMOK
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 3

11 Dec 2007, 11:14 pm

IQ is largely a measurement of pattern-matching ability.

Generally when people talk about "intelligence" they are talking about a range of mental abilities that is significantly wider than just pattern-matching ability.

I presume little about people with lower IQs, and for that matter about people with higher IQs. because I recognize that there are different dimensions to intelligence. IQ gets a lot of attention partially for historical reasons (it was one of the first dimensions tested), and partially because pattern-matching really is an important part of overall intelligence--but not the only one.

Another important dimension of intelligence is short-term memory. Although my IQ is high, my pattern-matching ability is average, and this compromises my overall performance. My wife's short-term memory is excellent. My oldest boy's is also good--he can do 3 digit arithmetic in his head.

scumsuckingdouchebag
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 521

11 Dec 2007, 11:54 pm

Quote:

My oldest boy's is also good--he can do 3 digit arithmetic in his head.

How rare is this ability, roughly?

LostInSpace
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,617
Location: Dixie

11 Dec 2007, 11:56 pm

Liverbird wrote:

LostInSpace wrote:

Liverbird wrote:

I'm also going to add, that IQ tests are a kind of standardized test. Take enough of them, learn the pattern and even the local village idiot could do well.

You missed the point. Take enough of them, find the pattern and any one can ace an IQ test.

It's not multiple choice, though (real IQ tests are not multiple choice). You'd have to actually be able to reason. It's one thing to learn strategies to narrow down your choices for the SAT and GRE, it's another thing to use strategies to answer an open-ended question like "What do a tree and a fly have in common?" Plus, real IQ tests are different from each other, and there are only a couple of them, so there's no way to "take enough of them." You've got the WISC (or the WAIS for adults), the Stanford-Binet, and Raven's Progressive Matrices- those are the main ones in the US at least. Really the Wechsler tests (WISC or WAIS) are the major ones, so how are you going to "take enough of them" to learn to ace them? Maybe you're talking about Internet tests?

Brian003
Velociraptor

Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 402
Location: University of Michigan Ann Arbor

12 Dec 2007, 9:35 am

Every type of test becomes easier as you take a test similar to it over and over again.

While many of the IQ tests may be different almost all test a combination of math/logic/memory. It's a very narrow way of measuring those three areas; let alone what people call "intelligence."

PLA
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

15 Dec 2007, 7:34 am

:lol: The established tests originated as a method for retardation-detection.

Above 100 they quickly lose meaning.

I have heard that scientists have a higher success-rate if they're above 125, but above that number there is no apparent difference.

I'm roughly 130, and I'm still like some kind of moron. By that, I rest my case. :lol:

_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."

Strapples
Supporting Member

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,861
Location: Chicago Area IL (FAR FROM AUTISM SPEAKS)

15 Dec 2007, 11:39 am

IQ is BS to me... the tests are worthless to me since i am a non-academic person...

IQ does not test knowledge of powerchairs, assistive technology, stock market, neurological diseases and disabilities, sensory integration disorders.

if i took an IQ test that just tested on those topics id come out like stephen hawking

_________________
check out my website at {redacted by admin - domain taken over and points to a porn site}

When in doubt, ask an autistic. Chances are, they're obsessed with what you need to know. :roll:

Autism Speaks will NEVER speak for me

CLASSIC AUTISM

Liverbird
Supporting Member

Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,119
Location: My heart belongs to Anfield

15 Dec 2007, 11:50 am

LostInSpace wrote:

Liverbird wrote:

LostInSpace wrote:

Liverbird wrote:

I'm also going to add, that IQ tests are a kind of standardized test. Take enough of them, learn the pattern and even the local village idiot could do well.

You missed the point. Take enough of them, find the pattern and any one can ace an IQ test.

I am specifically talking about the tests that you are stating. What you may or may not realise is that alot of AS kids who are in their 30's and up were constantly being administered those sort of tests to figure out why what their brains could do were not measuring up to what they were showing in the classroom. So, after a while of taking those tests, then you start to understand what patterns in thinking you were expected to exhibit and you actually started to be able to guage in a way what answers you were expected to give by the examiner's reactions. These tests were not always given under formal procedures. Or what was considered formal procedure at the time was actually much less formal than what we consider today. That's how lots of us fell through the cracks and just learned to assimilate in a lost sheep in the world kind of fashion.

_________________
"All those things that you taught me to fear
I've got them in my garden now
And you're not welcome here" ---Poe

Page 7 of 8 [ 122 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Jump to:

Why do ppl base intelligence on IQ scores? Post Reply New Topic

Why do ppl base intelligence on IQ scores?