IQ tests shouldnt be referenced here by users

Post Reply New Topic

I see a lot of comments weighing up intelligence via IQ tests. I have to express that I don't find IQ tests accurate at all and certainly should never be used to interpret or weigh up ones intelligence. An IQ score is nothing to brag about or define yourself with.

All they show is that "on the day of the test" you are were good at calculating such and such. Certainly it's legit to measure certain functions to an approximate "measurement" but it doesn't mean much. You could be really slow in the head, really lack with speech and mathematics but you might also have the abilities of Nikola Tesla or a master painter with photographic memory.
Also to note that when these tests are taken, the scores would vary from test to test and day to day depending on your condition at the time of taking the test (tiredness, comfort, etc). Definitely some day I might be good at mathematics more than other days so you can already see how results would vary and how they can't measure my experiences or memories.

All I'm saying is that they are inaccurate and should never be used to define intelligence or function.

As far as I know, we don't use IQ tests here in New Zealand at all. People do take the tests for fun and interest but it's nothing literal here. By the sounds of it, other countries adopt these things and it's a little unnerving considering that there is a lot more factors to consider.

IQ tests are too selective in their measure of intelligence and can be very culturally biased.

I read a story a while ago of a psychology professor who made his students take an IQ test on the first day. They all scored in the high 60's-low 70's, making them "barely educable." The catch? The IQ test was designed for Japanese schoolchildren. IQ tests can be quite culturally biased.

The problem with IQ tests is that it encourages organisations such as Mensa to discriminate on the basis of a number. Now, I've done a "proper" IQ test and did well enough to be invited in to this elitist group, but I didn't hang around. I know some people with "low" IQ's who have done incredibly well.

Also, I believe that 95% of the population honestly believe they are of above average intelligence. If that's the case, how dumb are the other 5%?

I'm cool with IQ tests...one got me into advanced science classes as a kid. We took annual trips to Kennedy Space Center, and it was AWESOME. (just a bit of silliness for what looks like a serious thread)

well my traditional IQ score and my nonverbal IQ score differ by more than 60 pts when I was a kid, The first one, I scored in the moderately MR range, the second one I scored in the gifted range taken less than a year apart. Go figure.

A factoid of the history of the IQ test:
The test was first created to limit the number of immigrants coming into the US. The test was very culturally biased back then and it was created that way for a reason. People entering the US had to take an IQ test, and if they scored low then they were not allowed citizenship and were also not allowed in the US. The origional purpose of the test was not a meausure of intelegence but to maintain the status quo.

Now days it is used to determine placement in education but is still very culturally biased. For those who were in gifted classes, how many of the students in those classes were not caucasian or asian?

I got my IQ tested when I was getting diagnosed (at 7) and there was a big difference between my verbal IQ and my performance IQ. Is that common with people who have aspergers?

As far as I know, "serious" IQ testing isn't common in the UK any more. I've never been asked to do such a test. For jobs I think they're more interested in specific aptitudes and qualifications. A high IQ could scare employers off, because they might fear that you could outwit them in a conflict.

Anyone who mentions their IQ score is egotistical and is compensating for something imo

I "present" as being very intelligent, so I've sometimes had people ask me what my IQ is. I always say something like, "Well, every time I've been tested it comes back pretty high. But, really, it's meaningless outside of an academic environment. High IQ has no relationship to how well someone does in the real world."

So, yeah. If someone asks, I tell them - but I also make it clear that I don't think it's important. I NEVER start a conversation about IQ, and if I'm asked first, I don't ask the other person what theirs is - mine are high scores and it's unlikely the other person is in that range. I don't want them to feel like I'm trying to embarrass them over something that doesn't matter a tinker's damn.

Assuming we are not, ya know, trolling with our first couple of posts....

IQ and human intelligence is a fascinating topic. How would you recommend we measure it?

IQ tests are broadly based on a concept called g-factor, or general factor intelligence. People with ASD, almost by definition, violate the core assumption of g-factor testing because intellectual capacity in people with ASD is not highly correlated. In other words, in NT's, a person with a high logical ability typically also has a high verbal ability and to the chagrin of nerds the world over, will also have a high emotional/social ability. It's true, study after study shows IQ has a strong correlation with social awareness and even social grace.

However ASD's typically have low emotional/social abilities even when we have high intuitive/logical/verbal skills. Those of us who take the time to adapt our social skills do so by using our other intelligence, primarily logic and or verbal, to construct a system of if/then rules that tell us how to act in social situations. NT's do not use a logical system, instead the intuitively understand how to read people and behave around them.

True intelligence can not be measured because science does not understand what causes it. Instead of measuring intelligence, we sample knowledge and rank-order the results of the people who have taken the tests. That is what an IQ shows, your rank-order compared to your peers. This is a accurate way of measuring intelligence, although it is subject to sampling and experiment bias. These biases have been shown to be very small. For example, overall African American’s perform 8 points lower than Caucasians on IQ tests. When a “culturally proper” IQ test is used for African Americans, it provides the same rank-order results, but now has a higher scale by 8 points. In other words, if African Americans Tim and John had scores of 111 and 115, they will tend to have scores of 119 and 123 on the “adjusted” tests, in the same rank-order, but now 8 points higher.

IQ tests are imperfect, but they are also accurate. To understand how IQ tests work, you must understand the difference between accuracy and precision. Non-analytical people have a very difficult time with these two concepts. Properly administered IQ tests are very accurate tests of rank-order, they are not very precise tests of absolute skill. Results of g-factor tests do show cultural bias, but they also highly predict both academic and workplace performance. The only testing I've seen that better predicted workplace success than IQ tests are 5-factors Conscientiousness scores. A caveat though. I’m an econometrician who frequently works with consumer behavior that delves strongly into both psychology and sociology. I am not a psychometrician, who would be a person more likely to have expertise in what types of intellectual testing are most effective at predicting performance.

Many people don’t like IQ tests, but I’ve observed the reason they don’t is because they observe the tests as unfair. Nobody argues when I tell them I’m 6’3”, 190 pounds and bald. You can see that by looking at me. But if I quip, I have an IQ of 135. Now all of a sudden it’s like I’ve grown a third eye and spit on you. It’s the same standard deviation, 6’3” is top 3%, IQ over 130 is top 3%. Because people can’t observe IQ and both Anglophone and Francophone countries have a social bias that “we don’t talk about how smart we are.”