What IQ differences really mean

[Siamese cat]

It most certainly is biased in the sense of assuming that pattern recognition is a decent basis for overall intelligence. I would imagine that whoever came up with the idea of IQ tests or how they would work fancied themselves as quite intelligent and came up with theories that reinforced those assumptions.

If you are referring to Mensa test as being biased in the sense of assuming that pattern recognition is a decent basis for overall intelligence, then you are wrong, because Mensa test measures only one intelligence factor, and there are many more. So being Mensa member doesn't guarantee anything more than just having extremely high score in one area.

 

[Nixie]

I believe that there are 4 aspects of being, emotional, intellectual, physical and spiritual. Overdevelopment of any of these aspects is often done at the expense of another aspect. I think you are only as well-develped by how balanced you are.

I agree that the test measures something. We commonly think of it in terms of intelligence but I think it is pretty obvious it isn't really measuring a complete skill set.

I would assume that at the most basic level that the categories have been defined by a bell curve derived from historical data sets.

 

[invisible]

i also agree with that correlation Sali and in many ways i think it is the real important and vital thing in education. but haven't you ever met someone who got their work done more quickly and easily than the rest of the class and always seemed to be able to take the information a step further? the practical meaning of the differences might be limited but it doesnt seem adaptive to pretend they don't exist.

 

[invisible]

ah well. maybe it is better that everyone just do the same gen ed. i can't say.

 

[detectivepope]

There are different types of I.Q. for different fields, however the ones most refer to are general or system based tests such as the aforementioned Mensa. High I.Q.'s in my experience really are a good thing career wise, not so much socially as the higher need for stimuli alienates such persons.

 

[NiennaLadyOfTears]

Since you play WoW, you probably would recognize the 'e-peen' social competition inherent within the game. IQ test are similar. I wouldn't say you're unintelligent, just that you are not interested in competing for a higher score. You don't take it seriously enough for it to validate.

No, it's more that they're speed tests more than anything else. If done at the speed they are supposed to be done at, I score around 75-80. If given a chance to actually work through the problems and given even just one additional hour that gets bumped up to about 130.

I have a processing speed disorder. I may play WoW but I don't do dungeons, battlegrounds, or raiding because of that.

 

[This]

i also agree with that correlation Sali and in many ways i think it is the real important and vital thing in education. but haven't you ever met someone who got their work done more quickly and easily than the rest of the class and always seemed to be able to take the information a step further? the practical meaning of the differences might be limited but it doesnt seem adaptive to pretend they don't exist.

Sure, but in general I found those were people who really enjoyed learning and put more inherent effort into the learning process. I think there are probably slight variations in how quickly people can learn things but I would be willing to bet there's no fully functioning people on this earth that couldn't catch up with just a little more effort.

I also find that timing the test puts quite a lot of unnecessary pressure on it. I know when ever I've taken one I was rushing.

 

[Norton]

No, it's more that they're speed tests more than anything else...

I think that, when it comes to testing thought, speed should be irrelevant. I advocate for slow thinking. What does speed have to do with anything? There is rarely a time in real life when you don't have enough time to think long and slow and thoroughly. So, why do so many tests in so many subjects have time limits? My greatest ideas come when I'm relaxed, under no pressure and able to afford the luxury and pleasure of mental exercise at whatever rate it requires. Quality of thought should have nothing to do with speed.

 

[magister343]

Time limits are probably the only reason why INTJs tend to test as having the highest IQs instead of INTPs.

 

[Matt3737]

A challenge is less challenging and less able to delineate minor variances in intellectual ability without a timer. The timer is a reflection on the learned, practiced ability to process and solve puzzles. The more practiced one is, then the quicker their reaction timed will be for a learned behavior.

[MENTION=1678]Norton[/MENTION]

I agree with you that those aspects are important for quality of thought, but as far as IQ tests are concerned quality isn't relevant. It's really more of a measure of speed and accuracy.

 

[Sriracha]

If you are so intelligent, and never contributed to anything ... does it even matter? Nope, it doesn't. No one will remember or know what you were capable of unless you APPLIED it.

 

[Matt3737]

Here is an example of an IQ test I took. I was in the math part and there was a symbol I didnt recognize. So I did not get the question right. The question was essentially that 4 was larger than 3 but I didnt understand the symbol and therefore scored less than I should have.

In this example, the symbol is merely there to confuse you. If left with only the numbers 4 and 3 and given choices of possible answers we have enough information to choose which answer properly applies.

 

[the]

In this example, the symbol is merely there to confuse you. If left with only the numbers 4 and 3 and given choices of possible answers we have enough information to choose which answer properly applies.

u make no sense.

 

[Matt3737]

u make no sense.

inorite!?

 

[Matt3737]

I've never taken a serious IQ test before because I'm simply not that interested in them, but I noticed several tricky questions when I took my ACT.

 

[Gaze]

IQ tests clearly give more attention or preference to mathematical/logical and spatial thinking/reasoning because mathematical and scienitific reasoning are privileged fields of study and are at the basis of finance, accounting, engineering, medicine, etc. They are the most lucrative industries and highest paid areas. Rather than continue to bash IQ testing, we should just create other reliable tests which test other types of intelligences so everyone has a chance to recognise and develop their varied intelligences rather than being told they are not capable of something because they do not have enough of a particular type of intelligence.

 

[This]

In this example, the symbol is merely there to confuse you. If left with only the numbers 4 and 3 and given choices of possible answers we have enough information to choose which answer properly applies.

No we wouldn't, the question could be "which number is smaller" "which number is bigger" "what are these two numbers added together" etc. These all have different answers.

 

[Matt3737]

No we wouldn't, the question could be "which number is smaller" "which number is bigger" "what are these two numbers added together" etc. These all have different answers.

And you could choose which one applies by examining the choices listed.

EDIT: It could very well be that every single answer is correct, unless it states that there is only one correct answer. The point then would be to cause you to overthink the problem and waste time on it instead of moving on to other questions.

 

[This]

we should just create other reliable tests which test other types of intelligences so everyone has a chance to recognise and develop their varied intelligences rather than being told they are not capable of something because they do not have enough of a particular type of intelligence.

See that's the thing though, I don't think that someone who scores low on an IQ test IS incapable of anything, it may take them slightly more time than someone with a high IQ but it doesn't rule them out of a field completely. People should go into a field they love, not necessarily one that plays to their strengths. I am a very good athlete, but I don't particularly like sports.

 

[Gaze]

See that's the thing though, I don't think that someone who scores low on an IQ test IS incapable of anything, it may take them slightly more time than someone with a high IQ but it doesn't rule them out of a field completely. People should go into a field they love, not necessarily one that plays to their strengths. I am a very good athlete, but I don't particularly like sports.

I didn't say anyone is incapable. And while you are focusing on someone's lower IQ, all along I've been saying, we need to quit doing that. And you are indirectly assuming that just because someone has an IQ, they are capable of all things. And they aren't. From what I know, people with high IQ usually struggle in at least two or more of the other types of intelligences. So, just because someone has a high IQ doesn't mean they are capable of any and everything. Many don't even know what they are capable of.

My point has been focus on what we are capable of, not what we aren't. To me, it makes more sense to play to your strengths than to constantly keep pushing at something you want to do, but yet keep struggling in. Yes, I may love the idea of being a scientist or becoming a physicist or a chemist but I know sciences are a weak spot for me. If I keep pushing to continue in those areas, and there is no real affinity, then I'm only going to become more frustrated and disappointed, thinking I'm not good at anything just because I may not be good at that thing, when I have other talents or abilities that I may have a better chance of developing.

I personally . . . and I stress personally, don't have a problem acknowledging my own limits. I am happier accepting what I can do, and what I can't. Nothing is wrong with that. On the other hand, nothing is wrong with having a dream or striving to be the best at whatever you want to do either. But, we all have varying types of strengths or intelligences. That's just a fact, not a feeling.

For example, just because I may want to be a Olympic gymnast, doesn't mean I can. There's a ton of stuff that goes into being in the profession which I'm not prepared for. Which is fine. Same thing if this was math. I like some aspects of math but I struggle with logic. Yes, I love logic, but I'm not good at it. I like the challenge of it. But unless I know I can be good at or great at something, I don't want to attempt it. But that's just me. I'm not going go in a profession where everything is a constant struggle to get or understand it when I can be in a profession which allows me to use my strengths.