Who exactly are these people still taking IQ tests? What is the general purpose for giving an IQ test?
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
IQ: Ranges, Meaning, and Achievement
- Thread starter xMathFanx
- Start date
Who exactly are these people still taking IQ tests? What is the general purpose for giving an IQ test?
That is a very bold claim; that deserves some type of backing. Go!
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
- Messages
- 14,870
- Reaction score
- 7,128
- Location
- Your Echochamber
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Well the DoD for example, the Army has a minimum IQ (85 IIRC)
Also Law Enforcement, they have a maximum IQ.
The title of this study is very misleading. But they did good by including my argument in their text (1.2. Multiple Variables).
You probably should have read the study first, before posting it.
"Based on the literature reviewed above, it was hypothesised that: (1) childhood cognitive ability would have a significant effect on adult earning ability; (2) openness would be significantly associated with the outcome variable; and (3) being married would be significantly associated with the outcome variable." In other words not entirely just IQ scores lead to success there are "Multiple Variables" that are explained in much more detail than the hypothesis.
In the section 2.2. Measures (under methods) They assert that the 11 year olds were given angeneral ability test not a IQ test. They go on to point out that the test is a verbal and non-verbal test. They then assert that the test is validated by IQ-type tests given for used for secondary school selection. But still the only test given was not a IQ test. Adult IQ tests were not included in this study.
And then the results are probably not what you thought.
"Clearly, the results demonstrate that occupation, education and gender are the most powerful predictors of salary, which is well established. However, the results also implicate cognitive ability, conscientiousness and openness as playing a small, but explicable, role. It appears that much of intelligence’s influence on adult earnings results from indirect effects by contributing to higher levels of education and occupational prestige." Which was the argument that you were trying to argue against.
celticwar17
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,540
- Reaction score
- 2,524
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
It's ignoring the genetic influences of parental condition... they both compound each other... if you are in high socioeconomic status your parents tend to have a higher IQ... and you yourself tend to have a higher IQ as a result... you also tend to have a higher entry level job as a result(because of connections)....
But people with a higher IQ tend to have lower wage entry level positions than people with better socioeconomic status... but they tend to get better wages overtime in the workforce in comparison...
you really have to get down into the weeds on this kind of research and do a multi-variable analysis. I posted that study to simply prove the correlation, not to prove that it is a better predictor than socioeconomic status.
I will give you a new study that does show this. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289611000237
Of course but that doesnt validate IQ testing.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
- Messages
- 14,870
- Reaction score
- 7,128
- Location
- Your Echochamber
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I had no idea you were asking for validation. I was merely answering your question about who still uses it; many do.
Hows this for validation, you have a choice of a child born with an IQ of 75 or an IQ of 135 all things being equal. What do you choose?
I'm not suggesting that IQ tests accurately measure intelligence, but IQ scores certainly correlate with intelligence. To me intelligence is, above all, speed. Present a group of people with a problem and the more intelligent among them will ascertain the solution more quickly than the others. I also believe IQ is incredibly useful for determining the types of careers you do not have the aptitude for.
To me, you take it with a grain of salt. If someone scores a few points higher than you, I wouldn't say without qualifier that they are "better" than you. But they may have a certain aptitude that you do not.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 41,555
- Reaction score
- 31,152
- Location
- Southern England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Taht aptitude could well be no more than acquired skill and practise at completing IQ tests.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
- Messages
- 14,870
- Reaction score
- 7,128
- Location
- Your Echochamber
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I very much doubt that it its "no more than acquired skill" but its certainly a factor for a minority, especially for members of Mensa or posters from /r/iamverysmart who care so much, and brag so much, that they actually work on getting a better score.
But an IQ based entirely on practice would suggest a rather brainless null hypothesis. In such circumstances, one's first score or score @ approx 18 is more useful than repeated scores when determining an aptitude.
But I do not concern myself with such people, they're easy to identify (bragging) and even easier to avoid conversation with.
There is a pay wall for that study.
Again you are making bold claims. Apparently you believe that rich people are smarter than not rich people. If that were true there would be obvious consequences that are not existent on this planet. Obviously your reasoning is flawed.
You also are treading into a very racially charged claim when you assert that genetics have anything to do with intelligence.
And when you are backing a claim cherry picking studies isnt actually backing a claim. There are many studies out there. Many studies are not worth anything. On any given subject you can find a solitary study that backs whatever claim that you are making. If you claim that climate change is false, you can find someone out there that claims it is false. But what is important isnt some obscure study, what is important is if a field of science has a consensus.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
- Messages
- 14,870
- Reaction score
- 7,128
- Location
- Your Echochamber
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
There is a reason why the single biggest predictor of success is the success of one's parent's, and it isn't inherited wealth.
Are you a betting man? If so, given a wager on who has the higher IQ between a random garbage man and a random CEO, who do you pick?
Not even with 10 to 1 odds do I pick the garbage man, I say this knowing there are geniuses working blue collar jobs and absolute idiots running some companies.
celticwar17
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,540
- Reaction score
- 2,524
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I'm not cherry picking anything... They are studies I find that show really good evidence to my claims.
"You also are treading into a very racially charged claim when you assert that genetics have anything to do with intelligence."
... see, another thing I knew... I knew... this was part of your motivation to call IQ a pseudoscience. IQ is genetic, there is no question. It is not entirely genetic...but there is solid evidence that there is a significant genetic component to it... and this is shown in adoption and twin studies. Like I said in a earlier post before, I understand why you don't like this truth... because it can be a powerful tool for discrimination, which racial discrimination especially is wrong. I don't like it either, but that is simply what the evidence points to....
Now a racial/ethnic group difference in average IQ genetically is entirely possible... though it is not entirely verifiable currently... one because it's an extremely taboo subject and there is also epigenetics, genes that can turn off and on depending on conditions in the womb, environment, and parents epigentics.... which adds another complexity to this system... where your literal genetic structure can change depending on certain conditions in the womb.
There is no reason that a garbage man has to always be less intelligent than a CEO. The fact that you believe that is meaningless.
If you present a group with a problem, those in the group with more experience with that type of problem will figure it out faster. That doesn't make them more intelligent it makes them more educated. IQ tests used in relation to careers do not measure actual intelligence it measures knowledge and the ability to use said knowledge. If I took a IQ test after attaining a degree in a certain field, I will score better in that IQ test for what I was trained for as opposed to someone who was not trained in that field. That is because the IQ tests used by higher education are not designed to actually deal with just intelligence. They are designed to place the student in a field of study to facilitate their career choices. Those types of tests have no validity in the study of human intelligence. They are not rigorous tests designed solely to quantify the intelligence of the tester.
The claim that IQ assesses intelligence and the validity of any single measure of intelligence are both strongly contested. One of the reasons that IQ tests are highly contested is that are not a consensus on anyone test. If you have taken a IQ test, the time period in which you took that test could mean that you need to take a new test. Say you took the test in the 70's, those results are not accepted by todays standards. The same goes for the 80's and 90's. And it will keep being invalidated the more and more that science learns about intelligence. That is where the strongly contested part kicks in.
I see you are trying to dishonestly categorize my position to meet your argument. That wont go anywhere. "... I knew..." is your confirmation bias and nothing logical or rational. There isnt any actual evidence that rich people or races are more intelligent. Certainly what you have provided so far does not meet the standards of science to make that claim. It is more in the realm of your opinions on the subject rather than anything else.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
- Messages
- 14,870
- Reaction score
- 7,128
- Location
- Your Echochamber
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Oh my goodness, I literally said, "I say this knowing there are geniuses working blue collar jobs and absolute idiots running some companies." in that post. I specifically said that I didn't.
Do you understand the meaning of the question "Are you a betting man?" You read that whole post, answered no question, and addressed a straw man.
There is also no reason that a woman has to always be shorter than a man. That doesn't change the fact that generally speaking, men are taller than women.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2014
- Messages
- 62,963
- Reaction score
- 27,366
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
In my school, they tested everyone for their I.Q in the second grade.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2016
- Messages
- 8,932
- Reaction score
- 4,192
- Location
- Floriduh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
celticwar17
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,540
- Reaction score
- 2,524
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I think we are straddling two different extremes here.
One extreme is that IQ test is a definitive measure of intellect, that it's written in stone... there are no exceptions... IQ measures what you are capable of.... and it explains everything
Then we have the, IQ test's are biased and based on pseudoscience, that it means nothing because we can change our intellect if we try, and that it is an unreliable means of studying and predicting tendencies of groups of people and individuals.
Both are completely and utterly wrong... even single part of them.
You can change your intellect but there are limits and these limits are correlated to your IQ... it does predict success, but many other things do as well. It is a tool to improve lives, not something to shame you, or put you down, or make you not go for your dreams.
To me your point seemed to be that the odds were higher that a CEO is more intelligent. Was that not your point? I mean be honest you are asserting that the majority of CEO's are more intelligent are you not? If that isnt your point then why ask the question, were you trying to agree with me?
Well ok we can probably show some numbers for gender height comparisons. Lets see those numbers for Ceo's and garbage men. I'll wait and if you find it, then you have a point if it shows that Ceo's are more intelligent. If not then I will just think of it as an opinion.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 133,429
- Reaction score
- 43,228
- Location
- Miami
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
IQ tests are, thus far, incapable of transcending socioeconomic class and culture. Attempting to correlate scores for disparate individuals is probably the most common mistake in their use.
Aside, I feel compelled to note that one ought not, in an IQ thread, direct others to read a sig containing grammatical errors. Just sayin'
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 8,753
- Reaction score
- 5,359
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
We're not talking about innate intelligence here, but aptitude. Given the content of most IQ tests and the fact that this thread is predicated upon correlating SAT scores with IQ scores, there is clearly a bias towards people with specific education. So yes, in an educational setting, IQ may pre-determine who is more likely to succeed, given that IQ tests and their directed educational pathways are largely based on prior learning background.
However, IQ does not tell us how intelligent a person really is. One of my neighbors never finished high school but he can build architecturally impressive houses, and he is also an excellent judge of character. He can read people like a book and intuit a lot about them from simple conversation.
I guess I can summarize my opinion by saying that IQ is one measure, but not *the* measure. The SAT system is woefully outdated and it should be done away with. Relying too much on IQ creates a classist bias by equivocating people with privilege and opportunity with people who have merit. Not all meritorious people are educated or test well by intelligence quotient.
When I was 14 I was given an IQ test to determine why I was having problems in school. The test came out in the 125 range, so my parents put me in a private school. In my 20's I re-took the test and got 115. In my 30's I got 132.
The test is just not a reliable universal measure. It's just food for thought... much like the MTBI and other typecasted test systems.
However, IQ does not tell us how intelligent a person really is. One of my neighbors never finished high school but he can build architecturally impressive houses, and he is also an excellent judge of character. He can read people like a book and intuit a lot about them from simple conversation.
I guess I can summarize my opinion by saying that IQ is one measure, but not *the* measure. The SAT system is woefully outdated and it should be done away with. Relying too much on IQ creates a classist bias by equivocating people with privilege and opportunity with people who have merit. Not all meritorious people are educated or test well by intelligence quotient.
When I was 14 I was given an IQ test to determine why I was having problems in school. The test came out in the 125 range, so my parents put me in a private school. In my 20's I re-took the test and got 115. In my 30's I got 132.
The test is just not a reliable universal measure. It's just food for thought... much like the MTBI and other typecasted test systems.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2017
- Messages
- 345
- Reaction score
- 85
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Now, I think I have already addressed some areas where IQ has some reasonable success, then, I will focus in on areas that I view as problematic:
(A) IQ tests are right to time tests in certain areas, as computational speed is pertinent to intelligence. However, this is also highly limited that there is not a section that accounts for deep critical thought that occurs over very long time periods, such as the intelligence required to read a book the likes of "Gulliver's Travels" by Jonathon Swift and follow what is going on to the depth that the author intended. Or, better yet, to independently create such a story. Consider, this is truly one of the most important types of human intellect, which helps distinguish us from "calculators" (which, although very fast & powerful, are quite constrained in ability to the "rules"). A true intelligence test should be taking this into account, separate to the portions of the test that are timed
(B) Many of the questions themselves are fundamentally flawed. Psychologists are attempting to design an all encompassing intelligence test while failing to realize that they necessarily aren't the most intelligent--thus would fail at the task in ways they (very likely) are unable to foresee (or possibly even understand). Consider, some of the question are typically along the line, "Identify the pattern, determine what comes next". Now, it is quite possible that there is more than one pattern that may occur to a person of high intellect, thus delaying their computational speed score and (possibly) arriving at the "wrong" conclusion--even though the pattern identified is entirely self-consistent.
(C) Background knowledge is necessary in order to take the test, thus those unfamiliar with, for instance, particular terms or membership to a group, will necessarily do poorly on such a question, regardless of their ability to identify the relationship (or not).
(D) There are far superior ways to test for computational speed and power, although it would necessarily require education (which they are attempting to factor out of the equation). Now, an issue with not introducing this factor is that it can truly skew the results. That is, it is patently obvious that a human mind capable of doing some extremely involved triple integral in their head within a certain time constraint (i.e. while timed) is a much better indicator of their brain's computational speed & power then essentially the riddles that are often employed in IQ tests. Now, it is absurd to claim that if person (A) can do the triple integral problem but gets "tripped up" on the IQ riddle problem, while person (B) cannot not even dream of doing the triple integral prb. while flies through the IQ riddle--then, person (B) is therefore more Quantitatively intelligent/advanced (although this is the current system). Note: This is not just a hypothetical, it has famously been reported that Richard Feynman scored an IQ of 125 while a typical Physics Major is (claimed) to be IQ 133. This is an absurdity, and demonstrates a clear issue with the testing, not that Feynman somehow managed to win a Nobel in Physics for his work in QED, contribute to the Manhattan Project, ect. with an intelligence level less than a typical Physics Undergraduate--as many people actually seem to believe simply because of the authority surrounding IQ tests
(A) IQ tests are right to time tests in certain areas, as computational speed is pertinent to intelligence. However, this is also highly limited that there is not a section that accounts for deep critical thought that occurs over very long time periods, such as the intelligence required to read a book the likes of "Gulliver's Travels" by Jonathon Swift and follow what is going on to the depth that the author intended. Or, better yet, to independently create such a story. Consider, this is truly one of the most important types of human intellect, which helps distinguish us from "calculators" (which, although very fast & powerful, are quite constrained in ability to the "rules"). A true intelligence test should be taking this into account, separate to the portions of the test that are timed
(B) Many of the questions themselves are fundamentally flawed. Psychologists are attempting to design an all encompassing intelligence test while failing to realize that they necessarily aren't the most intelligent--thus would fail at the task in ways they (very likely) are unable to foresee (or possibly even understand). Consider, some of the question are typically along the line, "Identify the pattern, determine what comes next". Now, it is quite possible that there is more than one pattern that may occur to a person of high intellect, thus delaying their computational speed score and (possibly) arriving at the "wrong" conclusion--even though the pattern identified is entirely self-consistent.
(C) Background knowledge is necessary in order to take the test, thus those unfamiliar with, for instance, particular terms or membership to a group, will necessarily do poorly on such a question, regardless of their ability to identify the relationship (or not).
(D) There are far superior ways to test for computational speed and power, although it would necessarily require education (which they are attempting to factor out of the equation). Now, an issue with not introducing this factor is that it can truly skew the results. That is, it is patently obvious that a human mind capable of doing some extremely involved triple integral in their head within a certain time constraint (i.e. while timed) is a much better indicator of their brain's computational speed & power then essentially the riddles that are often employed in IQ tests. Now, it is absurd to claim that if person (A) can do the triple integral problem but gets "tripped up" on the IQ riddle problem, while person (B) cannot not even dream of doing the triple integral prb. while flies through the IQ riddle--then, person (B) is therefore more Quantitatively intelligent/advanced (although this is the current system). Note: This is not just a hypothetical, it has famously been reported that Richard Feynman scored an IQ of 125 while a typical Physics Major is (claimed) to be IQ 133. This is an absurdity, and demonstrates a clear issue with the testing, not that Feynman somehow managed to win a Nobel in Physics for his work in QED, contribute to the Manhattan Project, ect. with an intelligence level less than a typical Physics Undergraduate--as many people actually seem to believe simply because of the authority surrounding IQ tests