Do you think IQ tests are an accurate measure of intelligence?

Ever noticed that over half the internet population have an IQ in the top 1%, and no one has an IQ below 100?

It's probable that people who have access and reliable usage of the internet have a higher IQ than those who don't, although this is mostly do to the relative affluence of those who do have it allowing them to be better educated than those without access to the internet.

Although the people who claim to be in the top 1% probably just want attention and praise.

The problem with IQ tests is that people act as if its a measure of 'natural' intelligence, when the intelligence it measures is just as learned as the intelligence any other test measures. Not to mention that it will only check certain areas of intelligence depending on when and how you are tested.

I was tested age 7 and have a pretty high IQ, however if I had been tested at age 12 I would have a much lower IQ, why? Because at age 7 the tests of reading and writing were rather limited, as such my Dyslexia did not show up, which it would if I was tested now.

IQ tests have the exact same problem that every test ever has had, it only tests the things it tests, and unless you're going to spend a year doing a test you're never going to properly test all the different areas that could be counted to make up 'intelligence'.

Other tests don't pretend to be a a tester for everything ever, IQ tests are often treated as being able to test all your intelligence in every different form, when they can't.

I've never taken an IQ test, so for all I know my IQ could be over 200.

Ever noticed that over half the internet population have an IQ in the top 1%, and no one has an IQ below 100?

I imagine they would have trouble operating a computer

Oh and why is your avatar hitler? >_>

edited 22nd Dec '13 5:50:40 PM by joeyjojo

Shows what you know. -_-

Seriously, an IQ of 90 does not inhibit computer use (although it might mean falling for a few more phishing scams — or, not: some of those work really well on people who think they're very bright and have the tests to prove it ). Thus declareth somebody who did psychology at university (the course covered psychometric testing, before you ask) and whose mother was a psychiatrist (and had patients on her books with far lower IQs than that who I occasionally met: don't underestimate 'em, that's my advice).

Hard to tell. :|

edited 22nd Dec '13 4:30:52 PM by Euodiachloris

I'm pretty sure that guy was just joking.

100 is "average", Joey. Almost 50% of everyone everywhere has a double-digit IQ. It's hardly debilitating. EDIT: Ninja'd, twice.

There's probably a selection bias here: people with a higher IQ like to flaunt it, but those with a below-average IQ understandably don't tend to bring it up.

At least, I'd like to believe nobody here lies about themselves; that's a totally foreign concept on the internet.

edited 22nd Dec '13 4:32:01 PM by Muramasan13

Yeah, the only people you'll generally see telling everyone about their IQ would be people with good scores.

^^^/^^ yeah sorry. Thought it was obvious.

On top of that realistically you're going to get some selective bias. Since IQ tests are not part of the standard curriculum (despite the attempts for many) the only people who are going to go to trouble of getting them done are either clearly the cream of the crop or so dramatically behind the curve it they might classify for special needs. Why find out otherwise?

edited 23rd Dec '13 3:55:43 AM by joeyjojo

Last IQ test I took was in 1974, prior to going on to Secondary School so they could determine which learning "stream" to put me in.

Much of the test seemed to be based on how much general knowledge I had retained with some maths thrown in, but part of the test entailed plonking six cubes, each with part of a picture of a horse on one face, on the table and pulling out a stop-watch and timing how long it took me to arrange the cubes to form a picture of a horse.

Of course, having the guy sitting there with the stop-watch going, while expecting me to manipulate smallish objects in the shortest time possible, resulted in me fumbling badly and nearly hitting the guy with one of the blocks.

Consequently, they put me in the stream where they put all the ones who cannot safely manipulate objects while under pressure...

You go back a bit, eh?

Technically, that test sounds like it wasnt an IQ test proper, but something like the Wechsler.

Thanks for that. Could well have been a variant of the Wechsler Test I underwent.

They never told us the actual results of it, but I was put in the middle stream - average. Did exceptionally well at some subjects (top of the form, including the "bright" stream, at science and, later, chemistry), OK in most and poorly at others (maths).

That sounds like most people, and that's also why many researchers think that "intelligence" shouldn't be reduced to a single score.

Did your relatively lower performance in math pose a challenge in pursuing chemistry?

Is someone's 200-meter dash time an accurate measure of athleticism? The former correlates pretty well with the latter: if you've got a sky-high dash time, you're almost certainly a fine athlete of a certain sub-type.

It doesn't work the other way, however—plenty of people would come in a distant last in the 200, but that tells us nothing about whether or not they're athletic. This is because "athleticism" is an incredibly broad thing that can manifest in countless ways. In fact, it's tough to think of even a grueling, multi-factor test that would give you a solidly quantifiable idea of how "athletic" any individual is, or let you compare individual athletes to each other. Is the world's best marathon runner more or less athletic than the world's best gymnast, and by how much exactly? Precisely how more/less athletic are they than the world's greatest tennis player?

As with athleticism, so with intelligence: both are real, and both are too fungible, fugitive, and express themselves in too many forms to quantify with even the finest, most exhaustive tools, much less an IQ test. How would we weigh the respective intellects of Coleridge, Bagehot, and Bohr?

edited 23rd Dec '13 8:07:52 AM by Jhimmibhob

Yeah, I think the most succinct way of putting it is that a high score on an IQ test probably means that you're intelligent, but a low score doesn't mean that you aren't.

Precisely. Come to think of it, I'd probably have put it that way if I were more intelligent.

edited 23rd Dec '13 8:17:30 AM by Jhimmibhob

Likewise a high score is no guarantor that you're good at a particular field. There are plenty of people with high I Qs who are terrible at certain things.

@ demarquis: Nah, we were allowed to use calculators. It did, however, put me off the idea of physics and factored into my decision to choose chemistry as my science track for the later forms.

N.B. "Form" as in "Form 1", "Form 2" etc - in those days our schooling system used "Primers", "Standards" and "Forms" to denote what year of schooling you were in. "Primary School" was "new entrant", Primers 1 & 2, Standards 1 - 4 and, at many schools, Forms 1 & 2 (though in some areas, Forms 1 & 2 are handled by separate "Intermediate" schools) and "Secondary School" (a.k.a "High School" or "College") is Forms 3 - 7.

These days they go by "Year" - with "Year 1" being the old "Primer 1" and Secondary School starting at "Year 9".

At Form 5 (or Year 11 in the new nomenclature) you had to choose which of the three main science disciplines - Biology, Chemistry or Physics - you want to pursue.

I could do maths given time or a calculator and I used it to great advantage around exam time - I'd find out what the pass mark was and if there was any scaling likely and then aim for a score that would guaranteee a pass with minimal effort.

On all subjects except Science/Chemistry - it was less effort to just ace those exams than fuck about working out how many questions I had to take extra care on to ensure a pass.

edited 23rd Dec '13 11:28:45 AM by Wolf1066