Whats your IQ?

[LAwLz]

IQ tests are stupid and useless and show nothing of actual intelligence.

They do show intelligence, well a real one does at least. You're probably confusing intelligence with knowledge.

[MiracleMan]

Real IQ tests are about analytical and logical thinking and seeing the relationship between different things, so i'd say it clearly tells your ability to understand and learn and therefore your intelligence. 

But a real IQ test is mostly done by psychologists

[Bicko96]

We are now offically IQ Bros!

And no, sadly you are first a genius with 130, so we are dumb :(

aww damn....but i just looked it up and we are above average so yay for that

[Canoas]

They do show intelligence, well a real one does at least. You're probably confusing intelligence with knowledge.

I doubt most literary geniuses would get a decent score in an IQ test, are you claiming they're not intelligent?

[LAwLz]

I doubt most literary geniuses would get a decent score in an IQ test, are you claiming they're not intelligent?

What I am saying is that intelligence and knowledge are not the same thing. If they don't score more than your average person on an intelligence test then chances are they aren't that intelligent. Not being intelligent does not mean you can't have great knowledge in certain areas though. You aren't a genius if you don't have high intelligence though.

Genius = high intelligence

Knows a lot != High intelligence

 

Also, it goes both ways. Just because you have a high IQ does not mean you know a lot. You might have a very high IQ and be very stupid when it comes to common knowledge.

[Eric1024]

They do show intelligence, well a real one does at least. You're probably confusing intelligence with knowledge.

Intelligence, as defined by the Oxford English dictionary: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

Knowledge, as defined by the Oxford English dictionary: facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

 

So IQ tests are designed to assess intelligence, fine. Yet some of the questions on IQ tests (a fair few in fact) require knowledge, which will vary wildly from person to person based on environment and exposure, rather than one's natural abilities. Thus why I think IQ tests are a crock of shit: they don't do what they say they're doing.

[eoso]

What I am saying is that intelligence and knowledge are not the same thing. If they don't score more than your average person on an intelligence test then chances are they aren't that intelligent. Not being intelligent does not mean you can't have great knowledge in certain areas though. You aren't a genius if you don't have high intelligence though.

Genius = high intelligence

Knows a lot != High intelligence

 

Also, it goes both ways. Just because you have a high IQ does not mean you know a lot. You might have a very high IQ and be very stupid when it comes to common knowledge.

 

 

http://www.cse.emory.edu/sciencenet/mismeasure/genius/research02.html

 

Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences. 

 

/endthread

 

Genius doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

Edit: going over some of your posts, you've got the right idea about knowledge not signifying genius. After all, any idiot that can read can recite facts. But intelligence comes in many forms, and therefore cannot be measured accurately by an IQ test- and that's where you're somewhat mistaken.

[LAwLz]

So IQ tests are designed to assess intelligence, fine. Yet some of the questions on IQ tests (a fair few in fact) require knowledge, which will vary wildly from person to person based on environment and exposure, rather than one's natural abilities. Thus why I think IQ tests are a crock of shit: they don't do what they say they're doing.

I am not sure what kind of "IQ tests" you've taken, but the real ones I have taken requires next to no knowledge. The test OP linked is not a real IQ test since it has questions like "the difference between a twig and a branch" (hint: there isn't a scientific difference).

 

 

Genius doesn't mean what you think it does.

But it does...

gen·ius: noun:

1) an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.

2) A person who has an exceptionally high intelligence quotient, typically above 140.

 

The definition of a genius that you have high intelligence. You can criticize IQ tests if you want, but that still doesn't make anything I said less true. Gardner's theory is not necessarily correct, and there is a lot of different ways you can define IQ (some say it's rigid, some say it changes and so on). Even if Gardner is correct and we do have several different IQs, my post is still correct since you would need a high IQ to be considered a genius which was my whole point.

Don't have high IQ (if you believe Gardner's theory, replace high IQ with "high math IQ") then you are not a genius at math, you're just very knowledgeable about math.

 

I never said IQ tests were super accurate by the way. If you do a few proper ones which all use the same scale then you should get roughly the same results, and that should give you a decent idea of how high your IQ is (but like I pointed out before, the IQ scale changes so if you got 100 IQ 30 years ago, you will only get about 91 IQ in a new test since it decreases by about 3 each decade).

[eoso]

I am not sure what kind of "IQ tests" you've taken, but the real ones I have taken requires next to no knowledge. The test OP linked is not a real IQ test since it has questions like "the difference between a twig and a branch" (hint: there isn't a scientific difference).

 

 

But it does...

gen·ius: noun:

1) an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.

2) A person who has an exceptionally high intelligence quotient, typically above 140.

 

The definition of a genius that you have high intelligence. You can criticize IQ tests if you want, but that still doesn't make anything I said less true. Gardner's theory is not necessarily correct, and there is a lot of different ways you can define IQ (some say it's rigid, some say it changes and so on). Even if Gardner is correct and we do have several different IQs, my post is still correct since you would need a high IQ to be considered a genius which was my whole point.

Don't have high IQ (if you believe Gardner's theory, replace high IQ with "high math IQ") then you are not a genius at math, you're just very knowledgeable about math.

 

I never said IQ tests were super accurate by the way. If you do a few proper ones which all use the same scale then you should get roughly the same results, and that should give you a decent idea of how high your IQ is (but like I pointed out before, the IQ scale changes so if you got 100 IQ 30 years ago, you will only get about 91 IQ in a new test since it decreases by about 3 each decade).

 

Whoa, you're all over the place in your post. Let's clear some things up.

 

The problem is that IQ tests cannot measure for every type of genius- which there clearly is. There is no "if you believe" about Gardner's Theory- it is the only definition of genius that can account for every type of exceptional talent(s). Any other definition of genius is just as broad (such as high intelligence- well, what types of intelligence?) and thus cannot be measured any more than morality can. 

 

The problem with your statements is that you seem to suggest that the lack of some types of intelligence make people not a genius, while I am suggesting the converse- that when someone does exhibit extraordinary intelligence in whatever field it may be, then they are subsequently a genius. Now, it seems to me that you might be confusing a polymath and a genius.

 

Musical genius, mathematical genius, literary genius- these all exist. John Rawls- one of the leaders of philosophical thought- is a genius. The lack of his ability to do calculus properly does not make him not a genius. Einstein, the most famous and well regarded genius of all time, failed the geography, language, and history portions of his university exam. He was a genius of math and science, but not of the other subjects.

 

And so- the main reason I dislike IQ tests is the fact that you cannot measure different types of intelligence. Einstein no doubt would have gotten a -as you so aptly put it- "a high math IQ," but he most certainly wouldn't have gotten a high musical or linguistic IQ.

[fracking4oil]

I don't have one... :P

 

To be honest, I don't know because I couldn't care enough to take the tests. Although I do know I'm smarter than the average Joe, on the other hand the average Bob, I'm not too sure of. ;)

[Eric1024]

I am not sure what kind of "IQ tests" you've taken, but the real ones I have taken requires next to no knowledge. The test OP linked is not a real IQ test since it has questions like "the difference between a twig and a branch" (hint: there isn't a scientific difference).

I know OP's test was shit, but my point is that it's impossible for an IQ test to not have any kind of knowledge bias, weather intentional or not.

[mr moose]

I know OP's test was shit, but my point is that it's impossible for an IQ test to not have any kind of knowledge bias, weather intentional or not.

 

No, there is no knowledge bias in a real IQ test.  They are very stringently laid out and standardised to avoid a bias of any description.  The only real variation between tests would be for varying developmental levels. For example an adult would blitz the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children.  So there are separate tests depending on age.

[LAwLz]

The problem is that IQ tests cannot measure for every type of genius- which there clearly is. There is no "if you believe" about Gardner's Theory- it is the only definition of genius that can account for every type of exceptional talent(s).

Except that's not true. Even on the regular IQ scale, which only takes one IQ into consideration, you can still see that musicians such as Mozart scores (estimated) the same as Einstein, even thought they were working in completely different fields.

 

 

Any other definition of genius is just as broad (such as high intelligence- well, what types of intelligence?) and thus cannot be measured any more than morality can. 

That's circular logic.

1) "Gardner is the only one that is correct about IQ!"

Why?

2) "Because he is the only one that talks about different kinds of geniuses"

Yes, but that does not mean his theory is correct. You can put different kinds of geniuses on the same scale, and we have done so for all this time and it seems to work very well.

3) "Yes but those scales do not count because they don't take multiple IQs into consideration"

But why do they need to do that, and what makes you think Gardner is the only correct one about IQ?

3) "Because he is the only one that talks about different kinds of geniuses"

 

Do you see how statement 2 and 3 relies on circular logic? It's the same kind of argument as:

Why is the Bible correct?

Because it's the word of God.

But how can you know it's the word of God?

Because it's written in the Bible.

 

 

The problem with your statements is that you seem to suggest that the lack of some types of intelligence make people not a genius, while I am suggesting the converse- that when someone does exhibit extraordinary intelligence in whatever field it may be, then they are subsequently a genius. Now, it seems to me that you might be confusing a polymath and a genius.

What makes you think I am confusing polymath and genius? I am simply going by the real definition of a genius, which is someone with very high intelligence. That is the true definition of a genius. Look it up in a dictionary if you don't believe me (I have actually cited a dictionary in this thread already).

And yes, if you are not intelligence then you are not a genius. You can be very knowledgeable in a subject, but that does not make you a genius.

 

 

Musical genius, mathematical genius, literary genius- these all exist. John Rawls- one of the leaders of philosophical thought- is a genius. The lack of his ability to do calculus properly does not make him not a genius. Einstein, the most famous and well regarded genius of all time, failed the geography, language, and history portions of his university exam. He was a genius of math and science, but not of the other subjects.

If they are geniuses (in the true and correct sense) then they have a high IQ. Even people in different fields fit very well on the standard IQ scale like I've already explained over and over again. Seriously, it's like talking to a religious person here. All your arguments are based on the idea that we have multiple IQs, which is not proven and contracts the waste majority of scientific statistics, tests and studies. I am going to quote some of the criticism the multiple intelligences theory have received at the end of the post. And no, a real IQ test does not require you to do calculus, nor does it require you to play an instrument. If you score high on a IQ test then you might have an easier time learning to play an instrument, or learn math, or learn something else. And before you strawman, no that does not mean a genius is good at everything, just that they got a high IQ. High IQ does not mean you are a jack of all trades, that's not what I am saying at all.

 

 

And so- the main reason I dislike IQ tests is the fact that you cannot measure different types of intelligence. Einstein no doubt would have gotten a -as you so aptly put it- "a high math IQ," but he most certainly wouldn't have gotten a high musical or linguistic IQ.

Einstein got a high IQ, not just "high math IQ", if you go by the standard IQ model and scale. Again, this whole argument is based on an unproven and heavily criticized theory.

 

Willingham, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, has been one of Gardner’s most vocal critics in his field of psychology. Willingham (2004) contends that Gardner makes three distinct claims through his MI theory regarding intelligence. First, Gardner offers a new definition of intelligence (as previously discussed). Second, Gardner claims to have identified some of many types of intelligence. Third, he claims these identified intelligences operate independent from each other.

 

Willingham (2004) states that Gardner has incorrectly claimed psychometricians believe in intelligence as a unitary trait (g directly relating to all performance), which was widely accepted in the early 20th century.

Willingham then discusses that Gardner’s MI theory is an adoption of the multifaceted view of intelligence (there is no g, only independent intelligences that relate to performance) which emerged in the 1930s. More importantly, Willingham discusses the fact that a massive review, by the late University of North Carolina scholar John Carroll, published data collected over the course of 60 years from 130,000 people around the world, supports a hierarchical model (g is directly related or at the head of separate cognitive processes that lead to performance). This hierarchical view of intelligence is actually today’s dominant view by psyschometricians, which also notes Willingham, is not theory, but patterned by the data.

Willingham also discusses another problem with Gardner’s MI theory is that it does not fit within the pattern of the data. Therefore, it can not be a valid theory of intelligence. Willingham further points out that the past 100 years of data consistently shows that performances on intellectual tests are correlated. Therefore, if g doesn’t exist then Gardner needs to, in some way, account for performances on intellectual tasks being correlated.

 

Willingham also dissects Gardner’s criteria for intelligence identification. Willingham’s main complaint concerning Gardner’s criteria is that many of the separate intelligences share many of the same cognitive processes, which by Gardner’s criteria, are often considered separate intelligences. Moreover, Willingham states that by using Gardner’s identification process, argument could be made that there is humor intelligence, memory intelligence, an olfactory intelligence, a spelling intelligence, and Gardner’s spatial intelligence could be broken further down into near-space intelligence and far-space intelligence.

 

According to a 2006 study many of Gardner's "intelligences" correlate with the g factor, supporting the idea of a single dominant type of intelligence. According to the study, each of the domains proposed by Gardner involved a blend of g, of cognitive abilities other than g, and, in some cases, of non-cognitive abilities or of personality characteristics.

Linda Gottfredson (2006) has argued that thousands of studies support the importance of intelligence quotient (IQ) in predicting school and job performance, and numerous other life outcomes. In contrast, empirical support for non-g intelligences is lacking or very poor. She argued that despite this the ideas of multiple non-g intelligences are very attractive to many due to the suggestion that everyone can be smart in some way.

A critical review of MI theory argues that there is little empirical evidence to support it:

To date there have been no published studies that offer evidence of the validity of the multiple intelligences. In 1994 Sternberg reported finding no empirical studies. In 2000 Allix reported finding no empirical validating studies, and at that time Gardner and Connell conceded that there was "little hard evidence for MI theory" (2000, p. 292). In 2004 Sternberg and Grigerenko stated that there were no validating studies for multiple intelligences, and in 2004 Gardner asserted that he would be "delighted were such evidence to accrue", and admitted that "MI theory has few enthusiasts among psychometricians or others of a traditional psychological background" because they require "psychometric or experimental evidence that allows one to prove the existence of the several intelligences."

The same review presents evidence to demonstrate that cognitive neuroscience research does not support the theory of multiple intelligences:

... the human brain is unlikely to function via Gardner’s multiple intelligences. Taken together the evidence for the intercorrelations of subskills of IQ measures, the evidence for a shared set of genes associated with mathematics, reading, and g, and the evidence for shared and overlapping "what is it?" and "where is it?" neural processing pathways, and shared neural pathways for language, music, motor skills, and emotions suggest that it is unlikely that each of Gardner’s intelligences could operate "via a different set of neural mechanisms" (1999, p. 99). Equally important, the evidence for the "what is it?" and "where is it?" processing pathways, for Kahneman’s two decision-making systems, and for adapted cognition modules suggests that these cognitive brain specializations have evolved to address very specific problems in our environment. Because Gardner claimed that the intelligences are innate potentialities related to a general content area, MI theory lacks a rationale for the phylogenetic emergence of the intelligences.

Several articles have surveyed the use of Gardner's ideas and conclude that there is little to no academically substantiated evidence that his ideas work in practice. Steven A. Stahl found that most of the previous studies which claimed to show positive results had major flaws:

Among others, Marie Carbo claims that her learning styles work is based on research. (I discuss Carbo because she publishes extensively on her model and is very prominent in the workshop circuit ...) But given the overwhelmingly negative findings in the published research, I wondered what she was citing, and about a decade ago, I thought it would be interesting to take a look. Reviewing her articles, I found that out of 17 studies she had cited, only one was published. Fifteen were doctoral dissertations and 13 of these came out of one university—St. John’s University in New York, Carbo’s alma mater. None of these had been in a peer-refereed journal. When I looked closely at the dissertations and other materials, I found that 13 of the 17 studies that supposedly support her claim had to do with learning styles based on something other than modality.

The theory of multiple intelligences has been widely used as an example of pseudoscience, because it lacks empirical evidence or falsifiability.

 

Collins (1998) points out that some of the strongest doubts of Gardner’s MI theory is Gardner himself. Gardner States, “The most I can hope to accomplish here is to provide a feeling for each specific intelligence.” Gardner goes on, “I am painfully aware that a convincing case for each candidate intelligence remains the task of other days and other volumes.” (as cited in Collins) Collins goes on to discuss how Gardner states that work needs to be conducted and tested in the fields of biology and cognitive science before it is put into practice. Collins then states, “...in the 15 [now over 20] years since Frames of Mind was published, those other volumes have never appeared.”

 

Gardner (2003) continues to cast further doubt in MI when he discusses how he came to name his theory, “I decided to call these faculties ‘multiple intelligence’ rather than abilities or gifts. This seemingly minor lexical substitution proved very important; I am quite confident that if I had written a book called ‘Seven Talents’ it would not have received the attention that Frames of Mind received.” (p. 3)

 

Sources:

Theory of multiple intelligences on Wikipedia

Multiple Intelligences or Multiply Misleading

Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom, 3rd Edition

 

I could go on but I think you get the point. MI theory is currently nothing more than wishful thinking that we are all geniuses, and it has not been proven whatsoever (unlike the normal view of intelligence).

[LAwLz]

I know OP's test was shit, but my point is that it's impossible for an IQ test to not have any kind of knowledge bias, weather intentional or not.

Like mr moose said, there is no knowledge bias in a real IQ test. A real IQ test only consists of things like pattern recognition and other questions which requires logical thinking. IQ tests aren't "what's the difference between a branch and a twig" or complex math problems (there can be math problems, but they should be about things like pattern recognition and only require very basic math knowledge) and things like that. If you've done a test and it requires a bit of advanced/trivial knowledge, then it's not an IQ test.

[Canoas]

What I am saying is that intelligence and knowledge are not the same thing. If they don't score more than your average person on an intelligence test then chances are they aren't that intelligent. Not being intelligent does not mean you can't have great knowledge in certain areas though. You aren't a genius if you don't have high intelligence though.

Knowledge and intelligence are obviously not the same thing, but literary genius do not, in any way, need to be good with logic which is what the IQ tests measure. They're globaly renowned for their ability to write, if that's not enough to be considered a genius then I don't think you know what the word genius means.

[Vitalius]

Like mr moose said, there is no knowledge bias in a real IQ test. A real IQ test only consists of things like pattern recognition and other questions which requires logical thinking. IQ tests aren't "what's the difference between a branch and a twig" or complex math problems (there can be math problems, but they should be about things like pattern recognition and only require very basic math knowledge) and things like that. If you've done a test and it requires a bit of advanced/trivial knowledge, then it's not an IQ test.

Actually, I personally disagree with this. All IQ tests are biased. Even professional ones, simply because they cannot be unbiased. 

Which is why using IQ to measure anything against someone else's IQ is pointless, in every sense of the word.

[LAwLz]

Knowledge and intelligence are obviously not the same thing, but literary genius do not, in any way, need to be good with logic which is what the IQ tests measure. They're globaly renowned for their ability to write, if that's not enough to be considered a genius then I don't think you know what the word genius means.

Again, you're not using the correct definition of a genius. A genius is someone with high intelligence. If they don't have that then they are not a genius. It's as simple as that. I have already explained and posted proof that the whole "multiple intelligence" theory is nonsense as well. No proof whatsoever and even the person who wrote it thinks that he shouldn't have called it "multiple intelligence" but rather have called it "multiple talents" theory, because it's not really related to intelligence. If a "literally genius" is very good at writing, but has a low IQ, then he is "merely" a good author, not a literally genius. It's as simple as that. Go look up the definition of genius if you don't believe me (I've already posted it in this thread).

 

 

Actually, I personally disagree with this. All IQ tests are biased. Even professional ones, simply because they cannot be unbiased. 

Which is why using IQ to measure anything against someone else's IQ is pointless, in every sense of the word.

But your IQ is dependent on other people, so you have to compare it. The median is adjusted to always be 100, so if everyone becomes more intelligence except you, then your IQ will be lower. If you don't take any other person into consideration, then your IQ is 100, no matter if it's actually 70 or 130 or whatever.

I don't really see how it can be biased if everyone gets the same kind of test, and it tests the same thing.

[Canoas]

A genius is someone with high intelligence.

Yep, and here's the definition of intelligence:

 

From Google:

The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

 

From Oxford Dictionary:

The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

 

From thefreedictionary:

a. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.

b. The faculty of thought and reason.

c. Superior powers of mind.

 

From Merriam-Webster:

(1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason

(2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

 

From Dictionary.com:

1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.

 

 

 

See? Having higher intelligence does not mean you'll have higher IQ.

 

 

 

 

 

Which is why using IQ to measure anything against someone else's IQ is pointless, in every sense of the word.

IQ uses a normal distrubution, 100 being the average. It just compares how "smart" you are to rest of the population, which is what makes sense. Measuring an absolute value without comparing with others is what is completely pointless. If you were told your IQ was 731 and didn't give you the average IQ then you would have no way of knowing what it means.

[Vitalius]

I don't really see how it can be biased if everyone gets the same kind of test, and it tests the same thing.

So if I take a test from the USA and give it to a man who cannot speak english, and he makes a 20 because he could not read it and completely guessed, he is mentally deficient to me?

You might say to that, "Well obviously put it in his language." But my point is that the results are effectively the same in regards to culture too. Not just to language. 

Yes, an IQ is based on comparing your intelligence to others, but at the same time that is completely pointless if those other people are exceptionally different from you. 

Let me put it another way. If an old African man and a young European boy take the same test that is designed for the Old African male demographic, then the young European boy will obviously results in a much lower IQ than the Old African male. If the reverse is true and they take a test designed for the young European boy, he will have a higher IQ than the old African man.

You might say to that, "Then make an IQ unbiased for both of them." and the response to that is simply: "You cannot do that." 

The question becomes, when that is said, "What subject/types of questions could we put in a test that is unbiased to both of them?" and the answer is never clear cut simply because most, if not all, will basically mean both will fail equally well and the result will be that their IQs are equal.

Essentially, to say there should be an unbiased IQ test is to say you want a test with no subject, which will effectively make the results completely pointless and void.

Thereby, the best way to test a person's IQ is to only test them against others like them. Old African men to old African men, and young European boys to young European boys. Then you know they will have a relatively similar background, but even then, you have to account for many other social aspects as well, such as wealth (rich old African men vs poor old African men, one will have formal education while the other will not).

Effectively, we want IQ's to represent a person's intelligence that is not based on knowledge acquired, but how effectively and efficiently a person uses said knowledge. The problem is that the only way to measure such a thing is to watch as they acquire knowledge and apply it as Intelligence and Knowledge go hand in hand. You cannot see one without having seen the other. 

It is sort of like saying "I want to see how well you can make a clay pot vs how well another person can, but since you do not have access to the same amount of clay they do, neither of you can use clay to do it." In which case, you can control what type of material they do use and how much. However, you cannot do that with knowledge. It is far too ambiguous and complicated to set a control.

And thus, based on all that, I say simply that IQs are pointless and dumb real world versions of e-peen because they cannot be validated in any truly unbiased shape or form that would not make their point effectively moot.

In other words, they are stupid and should not ever be used for anything important.

[beebskadoo]

So if I take a test from the USA and give it to a man who cannot speak english, and he makes a 20 because he could not read it and completely guessed, he is mentally deficient to me?

You might say to that, "Well obviously put it in his language." But my point is that the results are effectively the same in regards to culture too. Not just to language. 

Yes, an IQ is based on comparing your intelligence to others, but at the same time that is completely pointless if those other people are exceptionally different from you. 

Let me put it another way. If an old African man and a young European boy take the same test that is designed for the Old African male demographic, then the young European boy will obviously results in a much lower IQ than the Old African male. If the reverse is true and they take a test designed for the young European boy, he will have a higher IQ than the old African man.

You might say to that, "Then make an IQ unbiased for both of them." and the response to that is simply: "You cannot do that." 

The question becomes, when that is said, "What subject/types of questions could we put in a test that is unbiased to both of them?" and the answer is never clear cut simply because most, if not all, will basically mean both will fail equally well and the result will be that their IQs are equal.

Essentially, to say there should be an unbiased IQ test is to say you want a test with no subject, which will effectively make the results completely pointless and void.

Thereby, the best way to test a person's IQ is to only test them against others like them. Old African men to old African men, and young European boys to young European boys. Then you know they will have a relatively similar background, but even then, you have to account for many other social aspects as well, such as wealth (rich old African men vs poor old African men, one will have formal education while the other will not).

Effectively, we want IQ's to represent a person's intelligence that is not based on knowledge acquired, but how effectively and efficiently a person uses said knowledge. The problem is that the only way to measure such a thing is to watch as they acquire knowledge and apply it as Intelligence and Knowledge go hand in hand. You cannot see one without having seen the other. 

It is sort of like saying "I want to see how well you can make a clay pot vs how well another person can, but since you do not have access to the same amount of clay they do, neither of you can use clay to do it." In which case, you can control what type of material they do use and how much. However, you cannot do that with knowledge. It is far too ambiguous and complicated to set a control.

And thus, based on all that, I say simply that IQs are pointless and dumb real world versions of e-peen because they cannot be validated in any truly unbiased shape or form that would not make their point effectively moot.

In other words, they are stupid and should not ever be used for anything important.

So have you taken the test?

[Vitalius]

So have you taken the test?

I took quite a few professional ones in my psychology class. All came out with varying results that just reinforced what my teacher was basically teaching us: That they mean nothing. 

From those, I got anywhere from 160 to 75. So I will leave it up to you. Am I a genius or mentally retarded? Or somewhere in between?

If you meant the one linked in the OP, then no.

[beebskadoo]

I took quite a few professional ones in my psychology class. All came out with varying results that just reinforced what my teacher was basically teaching us: That they mean nothing. 

From those, I got anywhere from 160 to 75. So I will leave it up to you. Am I a genius or mentally retarded? Or somewhere in between?

If you meant the one linked in the OP, then no.

We are all retarded so I guess some are a bit less retarded. 

[LAwLz]

Let me put it another way. If an old African man and a young European boy take the same test that is designed for the Old African male demographic, then the young European boy will obviously results in a much lower IQ than the Old African male. If the reverse is true and they take a test designed for the young European boy, he will have a higher IQ than the old African man.

You might say to that, "Then make an IQ unbiased for both of them." and the response to that is simply: "You cannot do that." 

The question becomes, when that is said, "What subject/types of questions could we put in a test that is unbiased to both of them?" and the answer is never clear cut simply because most, if not all, will basically mean both will fail equally well and the result will be that their IQs are equal.

Essentially, to say there should be an unbiased IQ test is to say you want a test with no subject, which will effectively make the results completely pointless and void.

But the thing is, there are no "IQ test designed for old African men" or "young European boys". IQ tests don't really have "subjects" or "different types of questions" depending on who is taking the test either. All of them are designed to test the same thing. A proper IQ test don't require you to have more than basic education either, since it's all based on things like drawing connections and seeing patterns.

 

I do agree that you shouldn't rely on IQ tests for anything important though, because like I said before you can have high IQ and be dumb, and vice versa. Knowledge is more important than intelligence.

[kaneandtaker]

128. I just do for fun.

[mr moose]

So if I take a test from the USA and give it to a man who cannot speak english, and he makes a 20 because he could not read it and completely guessed, he is mentally deficient to me?

You might say to that, "Well obviously put it in his language." But my point is that the results are effectively the same in regards to culture too. Not just to language. 

Yes, an IQ is based on comparing your intelligence to others, but at the same time that is completely pointless if those other people are exceptionally different from you. 

Let me put it another way. If an old African man and a young European boy take the same test that is designed for the Old African male demographic, then the young European boy will obviously results in a much lower IQ than the Old African male. If the reverse is true and they take a test designed for the young European boy, he will have a higher IQ than the old African man.

You might say to that, "Then make an IQ unbiased for both of them." and the response to that is simply: "You cannot do that." 

The question becomes, when that is said, "What subject/types of questions could we put in a test that is unbiased to both of them?" and the answer is never clear cut simply because most, if not all, will basically mean both will fail equally well and the result will be that their IQs are equal.

Essentially, to say there should be an unbiased IQ test is to say you want a test with no subject, which will effectively make the results completely pointless and void.

Thereby, the best way to test a person's IQ is to only test them against others like them. Old African men to old African men, and young European boys to young European boys. Then you know they will have a relatively similar background, but even then, you have to account for many other social aspects as well, such as wealth (rich old African men vs poor old African men, one will have formal education while the other will not).

Effectively, we want IQ's to represent a person's intelligence that is not based on knowledge acquired, but how effectively and efficiently a person uses said knowledge. The problem is that the only way to measure such a thing is to watch as they acquire knowledge and apply it as Intelligence and Knowledge go hand in hand. You cannot see one without having seen the other. 

It is sort of like saying "I want to see how well you can make a clay pot vs how well another person can, but since you do not have access to the same amount of clay they do, neither of you can use clay to do it." In which case, you can control what type of material they do use and how much. However, you cannot do that with knowledge. It is far too ambiguous and complicated to set a control.

And thus, based on all that, I say simply that IQs are pointless and dumb real world versions of e-peen because they cannot be validated in any truly unbiased shape or form that would not make their point effectively moot.

In other words, they are stupid and should not ever be used for anything important.

The tests are not subjective, the questions are simply made easier or harder depending on the developmental stage of the tested. For example the pattern recognition test for a 3 year old will be four boxes with a dot in one corner, the image will be rotated once for each sequences and then the child asked what the next image will be. An adult will easily answer that quickly but a child will take longer. And conversely the test for an adult will have an odd shape that has a myriad of lines and dots so it is much harder to find the pattern.  Both questions require no knowledge but test the persons ability to think and problem solve at their developmental stage.   That is why a real IQ test will always produce the same bell curve from the results regardless of how many people do it.