Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'Pop Culture' started by infoterror, Mar 22, 2006.
the concept of IQ isnt perfect in any sense nor determine the real person to begin with.
Allow me to try...
An IQ test is simply a bunch of questions about various topics ranging from history, math, english science etc. In calculating your IQ, your raw score (score obtained from the actually test) is divided by your age (or the other way around. I cant remember) which gives you an IQ.
Now, suppose an IQ test has a range of questions, and you sit it knowing full well that you suck arse at maths, but are a whiz when it comes to English. The IQ test won't reflect that. It will simply say that your IQ is 100 and that you are of average intelligence, which is quite insulting when you know you could win spelling bees or whatever.
A highly g-loaded IQ test, such as the RAPM, does not test your knowledge in any of those specific fields(math, science, english, history, etc.). It tests fluid g, not crystallized intelligence.
I'd say that a highly g-based IQ test would be nearly as inadequate for measuring any overall kind of "intelligence" as any other. There are too many mediating factors outside of the person's ability to perform on a test. Here are a few:
- Social/culturual limitations
- Influences/opportunities/access to information
- Family/other social conditions
Furthermore, simple things like being tired, stressed, having other personal problems going on, etc. could have a huge influence on the results of such tests. All of these things reduce their validity and applicability, in my eyes.
One good thing about highly g-loaded tests such as the RAPM(the most g loaded) is that they minimize the influence of social/cultural limitations.
The test does not measure the information you have accumulated.
The easy solution is to not take an IQ test while suffering from a high fever or being in the midst of a nervous breakdown.
I meant that access to information as well as life opportunities, etc. have a powerful influence on both how people will approach these tests and how they perform on them. Another pertinent issue is that of anxiety and difficulty performing under stress.
Just like what I was getting into above with anxiety in test situations, it is not always realistic/feasible to expect people to be aware of everything that is influencing their ability to perform on a test like this. Essentially, it would be very difficult to accurately quantify and stratify the influences upon people's ability to complete an IQ test. There are far too many factors involve, and all of these reduce the extent to which IQ tests measure intelligence and increase the extent to which they measure a quagmire of inseperable factors which go beyond the easily or realitsically discernable, making it rather difficult to approach the subject of the efficacy of IQ testing regardless of the presence of g.
I do not follow. If a test doesn't measure the information that one has amassed, how does lack of access to information hinder one's ability to score well on the test? I do not know what "life opportunities" are(I can guess, but it's too vague for me comment on).
I am sceptical that individuals are under much stress when taking an IQ test. Whether one scores well or not is, in general(except if a person is trying to gain entry into a high IQ club for whatever reason), impertinent to one's standing. The level of stress that people are under, for example, on the SAT is quite different. If they do not score well, they won't get into the university of their choice, therefore, they will have greater difficulty finding employment, and so forth. While I will allow that a small percentage of people have anxiety problems and will panic in any test situation, I have no reason to believe that they're so numerous as to render the results invalid.
It appears that the myriad factors are, in fact, singular and I have addressed it.
I don't think you've addressed the full range of factors I mentioned, because you didn't even seem to be aware of what they were until I explained them.
As for access to information, etc. maybe I'm using the wrong words. What I meant was that access to specific discourse regarding how to approach these tests, including knowledge of the concept of g, advance knowledge of the types of questions asked on these tests, etc.
All of these things jive with why they say that the most accurate IQ testing is done between the ages of 6 and 9. I can still remember my IQ testing, it was done by a shrink at or around the same time I was diagnosed with ADHD (they called me 'hyperkinetic' back then..this was in the late 60s/early 70s). I was 6 or so and it was a pleasant situation, there were toys and such in the room (I remember a dollhouse I enjoyed particularly because I never had one at home) & it alternated between testing and me being able to play, and was a very low stress environment.
g-loaded tests are fine and all, but they don't necessairily measure how you will perform in the real world. They really point out potential intellegence and adaptability. So if Kid A is a 1st grader with really high non-crystallized intellegence, and Mr. B is a mathematician with a phd but somewhat low non crystallized intellegence, who is smarter? THen regular IQs are fraught with problems as well. So, yes, IQ based discrimination is somewhat unfair. To truly measure someones smartness is like measuring someones health. It can't just be reduced to a number, because it is too nuanced.
This, to me, sounds like a great argument against intelligence based discrimination. If you can't reliably smeasure intelligence in a way that is both accurate and practical, it is infeasible to stream children as North American education systems do. I know several people who are perfectly capable, even highly intelligent, who were put into remedial programs for years due to the effects stress & difficult family lives had on their performance. These children, socially inept and often depressed due to unstable home situations, are held back, put into special programs, trained towards different futures, based not on their intelligence, but on faulty analysis.
I do not agree with the thing about intelligence based discrimination in the hiring process for professions/jobs/etc. Many jobs out there require not only intelligence, but particular ability in specific fields, disciplines of academic study, etc. It wouldn't be practical to open up highly specialized positions to anyone who comes along simply as affirmative action.
IQ tests are predictive of scholastic success and job performance. They are equally predictive across cultures(the IQ of a South African predicts his scholastic success as well as it does for a non-African). Whatever it is that they measure is quite useful.