Do you think IQ test are a fraud???

Post Reply New Topic

you seem much brighter than that score would indicate. some folk are less expert at taking tests than others, or have some issues with taking tests for whatever reason [mental, physical, psychological]. i have tested all the way from mentally-retarded range up to 140. on the days when i felt like yesterday's doodoo, i scored terribly poorly. on the days when i felt on top of my game [so to speak] i did a lot better. i was in the dshs system for many years so i got tested a fair amount.
the late william shockley supposedly had invented a brain-wave monitor iq test [he foolishly used it merely as a parlor game] which required no active input from the subject, but i haven't heard about it in ages. this technique, combined with ensuring the proper conditioning of the subject [no emotional issues presently stewing, proper nutrition, plenty of sleep before the test] has the potential for more uniform and accurate assessment of intelligence/cognitive potential than does the current system of testing, IMO.

It's impossible to measure intelligence because no one can agree on what the hell intelligence even is. IQ tests were originally created to detect students with learning problems, they were never meant to measure intelligence. Even every IQ test you will see today cannot measure intelligence, in fact I believe the person who made the first IQ test as we know them today admitted that, too.

The last one I did (a few months ago) said 101. Am I smarter or less smart than that? No idea, I don't even know what smart actually is.

People with AS have IQ subscores which go all over the map. It's an earmark of AS. I don't think AS scores are valid for this reason. Most NT's have ranges within 50-10 points of each other on the subtests. The tests are designed for people who fit neatly into the curb. Yes, the bell curve the tests are based on is valid.. for NT's..

When you have performance scores of 100, verbal scores of 140 and mechanical reasoning scores of 75, this is obviously a person who breaks the mold.

I don't think all the tests are frauds, but I do consider them pointless.

Yes, this thread includes some reasons why I think so: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt119757.html

I don't think IQ tests are a fraud, but as they found a way to more accurately test IQ in mentally handicapped people via non-traditional tests which gauge cognitive function in a more universal way, I think the IQ test is handicapped (no pun intended) by the fact that they are usually geared towards the majority of the population.

Just as a person can be "book smart" but lack "street smarts," IQ testing only focuses on "book smart" when both elements are equally important in overall intelligence.

I think that IQ exams are a fraud in every sense with the exception of informing another person what your intelligence level is above. Unless it is a mere fluke provoked by an impeccable guessing routine then you’re always sure to be at least as intelligent as the exam indicates; however, in every other sense they are fraudulent because intelligence is simply immeasurable.

It is my opinion that everyone is equal in intelligence, yet many people fail to recognize their own potential which leaves such intelligence hidden in the shadows. There is of course a small portion who might be exempt from this theory due to extraordinary circumstances, but even they may have something much greater running through their minds than we would ever choose to admit as no person can ever truly decipher what goes on in the inner mindset of an individual.

Some people break through the barriers of social and self limitations to be recognized as genius, but these are the people who have discovered the key to unlock such a thing.

The universe is said to be infinite, but surely it must be encased within something greater than it because that which has no beginning and no end is incomprehensible; much like our minds. I believe our minds to be infinite; eternal; and in a sense metaphysical, yet at the same time they seem to be enclosed within our brains. If you explore far enough into your mind it’s easy to get lost.

Of course we have a limitation on what we can and can not do in a physical world, but inside of our minds we can do the impossible. At times we are able to reflect on this imagination and bring it to life. The only stoppers that people encounter to genius are characteristics of apathy/procrastination and/or self doubt, so you’re absolutely right in stating that the numerical result on an IQ exam should be considered only to be a number and nothing of importance.

It’s been said that there is a fine line between genius and insanity. This is true in several regards. One, of a more literal translation which recognizes insanity as defined by Einstein, is that many geniuses try the same thing over and over again with subtle changes until they have accomplished what they wish for. Another, which is my favorite, is that geniuses walk the line between common reality and imagination where they decide what they can bring across the barrier to utilize in the real world while those insane accidentally step completely over the line and get lost in imagination.

yes, the returns do diminish.
I know anecdotaly of few(one a female) who were at the 2' sigma' mark (132 i.q.) and comparing themselves with a 150/160 i.q group (3 and 4 S.D.'s) ;grasp things (academically) at a little slower pace and they just had to work a little harder to keep up .

Gotta say, that isn't exactly true with the guessing routine/IQ tests show you must be at least that smart.

I'm sure I'm accurate in some categories, but I know my weak points because I can see the parts of tests that I am just relying on visualization cheats to overlap the answers in my mind.

Imagine laying a bunch of transparent slides on top of each other and looking through them, then slide the ones that don't match out.

If the question and b match, that's the answer, whether I knew what it actually was.


Incidentally, that without beginning, and that without boundaries, they are quite possible to grasp, with lots of practice, and at the risk of your sanity.

I am a mote inside of a jewel of a multi-dimensional mathematical structure, twinkling against a background of grey light which illuminates all that is not self-contradictory as possible.

There is no end to that sea of potentialities, it is infinitely deep whichever way I look, and it contains the concepts of origin and terminus within itself, it encompasses those concepts, but is not bound by them.

Why would anybody want to assign a number, that purports to be a measure of their general mental ability, to another person? The only reason I can think of is that it would seem to justify an unequal society...the high scorers "deserve" more pay and status than the low scorers.

I don't believe in IQ. I only believe in specific aptitudes, because they're objective. My aptitude for any specified task can be measured. But "general mental ability" depends on what tasks you consider worthwhile, and that is the great problem with IQ. So let's stick to what we know, and treat IQ with the contempt it deserves.

Why? The original developer of the IQ test, Alfred Binet, had an understandable motivation. He was asked by the French government in the early 1900's to develop a screening test that would allow teachers to see which incoming students would need extra help with particular school subjects. That is actually a very good use for the test and if it had stayed like that, all would be well. Unfortunately it morphed into the monster we see today.

Wow! A social system that actually tried to help the low-flyers instead of earmarking them as potential toilet cleaners Did they have a left-wing government at the time?

Still, I'd have thought that an estimate of general mental ability would have been less useful than testing their aptitudes in the particular subjects. My point is that a person can be objectively shown to be good or poor at (e.g.) mathematics, but their overall "mental muscle power" is a pretty meaningless concept.

Aren't the block design and object assembly subtests on the WAIS performance section supposed to measure mechanical reasoning?

yep, in some ways. I do lots better on them when I am in school than when I'm not. I do better when I've been studying math like when I had to to pass the exam to get into nursing school. If I took it now that I've not been studying for a year I'd do poorer. When I get back in school, hopefully by next fall, I will suddenly be 'smarter' again.

I've heard of that happening on the Spectrum--skills changing, dropping out of your repertoire only to be picked up later or even needing to be re-learned; other skills learned at a ridiculously quick rate. It's no question we learn and retain information in odd ways!

That French guy who invented the concept of IQ back something like 100 years ago meant it to be used, as you say, for detecting kids with intellectual impairments. He was enraged by the racialists and eugenicists who hijacked it.