Ignore IQ Tests: Your Level of Intelligence Is Not Fixed for Life

[longknife]

I personally think far too much is based on what score one gets on tests like this. For some, taking tests is easy and the tests don't always reflect the truth about the person's knowledge or abilities.


An interesting story ot read @ Ignore IQ Tests Your Level of Intelligence Is Not Fixed for Life

 

[shart_attack]

I guess this means there may be hope for Luddly Neddite yet.

 

[Peach]

I personally think far too much is based on what score one gets on tests like this. For some, taking tests is easy and the tests don't always reflect the truth about the person's knowledge or abilities.


An interesting story ot read @ Ignore IQ Tests Your Level of Intelligence Is Not Fixed for Life

I'll take the old ones that don't have "spatial intelligence" & "pattern recognition" myself...

 

[Rotagilla]

I wasn't aware of anyone who ever said an IQ score was "fixed for life"...and the guy that wrote the article is a researcher so he NEEDS to come up with SOMETHING to justify his "work"


..and after a bunch of chatter he finally admits at the bottom (after mentioning his book "Relational Frame Theory", of course)

Undoubtedly, there may be some limits to the development of our intellectual skills. But in the short term, the socially responsible thing to do is not to feel bound by those limits


marxist doubletalk and weasel words.. "There may be some limits to the development of our intellectual skills"..hahahaha..right no kidding....
and "The socially responsible thing to do...."

Nowhere does he say IQ is invalid...



One commenter said;
Keep the denial of the G factor. Good luck with that. Nobody -of importance- has ever said that you cannot train to score more in IQ tests. What has been said, and demonstrated again and again, is that relative distances between individuals stay the same if they receive the same training.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I personally think far too much is based on what score one gets on tests like this. For some, taking tests is easy and the tests don't always reflect the truth about the person's knowledge or abilities.


An interesting story ot read @ Ignore IQ Tests Your Level of Intelligence Is Not Fixed for Life

Life is an IQ test. That's the huge obstacle in the path of anti-IQ people. Being good at Bushman skills doesn't correlate well with IQ scores but then again being a remarkable Bushman doesn't correlate well with succeeding in life in modern societies.

 

[Wake]

There are many differences in opinion on the matter. Intelligence is basically the acquisition and application of knowledge and skills. It's a matter we don't really understand. Intelligence seems to be hereditary and fixed. I don't see children with otherwise normal intellect becoming the next John Nash. Intelligence is probably biological, and can't really be augmented. If it could, to what degree? How do you, in the spanse of a month, become as intelligent as people like John Nash, Christopher Hitchens, and Christopher Langan?

"IQ" is different than intelligence. An IQ test judges you based on what you know in the test. How well you take it. Intelligence isn't synonymous with knowledge, or knowledgeability, either. I could be absolutely brilliant, yet not care to know certain things that the test asks me. The test would inaccurately rate my IQ. There are a great many things I don't care to know, and certainly don't wish to remember.

 

[Rotagilla]

There are many differences in opinion on the matter. Intelligence is basically the acquisition and application of knowledge and skills. It's a matter we don't really understand. Intelligence seems to be hereditary and fixed. I don't see children with otherwise normal intellect becoming the next John Nash. Intelligence is probably biological, and can't really be augmented. If it could, to what degree? How do you, in the spanse of a month, become as intelligent as people like John Nash, Christopher Hitchens, and Christopher Langan?

"IQ" is different than intelligence. An IQ test judges you based on what you know in the test. How well you take it. Intelligence isn't synonymous with knowledge, or knowledgeability, either. I could be absolutely brilliant, yet not care to know certain things that the test asks me. The test would inaccurately rate my IQ. There are a great many things I don't care to know, and certainly don't wish to remember.

Partially right. Mostly wrong.
Even wiki has to admit that IQ is a valid way to assess human intelligence...and wiki always tries to be politically correct.
No one ever said that it was a way to measure one's total intelligence on everything, though.

They'll claim "cultural bias" but there are tests that exclude that.

"Culture-fair" tests, also called "culture-free" tests, are designed to assess intelligence without relying on knowledge specific to any individual cultural group or educational level.

One of the first culture-fair tests, the Army Beta Examination, was developed by the United States military during World War I to screen soldiers of average intelligence who were illiterate or for whom English was a second language.
Beginning in the post-war period, culture-fair tests, which rely largely on nonverbal questions, have been used in public schools with non-native English speaking students whose lack of familiarity with both English language and American culture have made it impossible to assess their intelligence level using standard IQ tests.

Tests carefully designed to exclude cultural bias (for example, spatial relationship tests based entirely on pictures, memorization of digit sequences, and pure eye-hand reaction time) produce results comparable to those of traditional IQ tests.

Further, if IQ tests embody cultural biases of the largely U.K. and U.S. creators of the tests, it's odd that populations of East Asian countries, with a variety of very different cultures, all test higher than those of the test makers

..I've been down this road before, though and the ones who protest the loudest are the ones who don't like the results. The tests are "racist"..(of course) LMAO...they were created by white people..blah...blah..

The facts are that asians average around 110, whites around 100 and negroes (in america) around 85


Global IQ 1950-2050
Flynn effect

 

[Rikurzhen]

There are many differences in opinion on the matter. Intelligence is basically the acquisition and application of knowledge and skills. It's a matter we don't really understand. Intelligence seems to be hereditary and fixed. I don't see children with otherwise normal intellect becoming the next John Nash. Intelligence is probably biological, and can't really be augmented. If it could, to what degree? How do you, in the spanse of a month, become as intelligent as people like John Nash, Christopher Hitchens, and Christopher Langan?

So what's your opinion on the proper treatment regime for a woman who presents with ER- tumors near her lymph nodes? Do you prefer chemotherapy, radiation therapy or surgery? What is your opinion? How about if your opinion differs with those of medical professionals? How much emphasis should we put on the fact that there is a difference of opinion between what the public thinks is the best course and what an oncologist thinks is the best way forward?

The people who specialize in studying intelligence, from various disciplines, understand it pretty well, far, far, far, better than the public understands it. This was true even in ancient times, like 1984, long before we had the tools to explore what is happening in gene-space:

The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy is a book published by Smith College professor emeritus Stanley Rothman and Harvard researcher Mark Snyderman in 1988. Claiming to document liberal bias in media coverage of scientific findings regarding intelligence quotient (IQ), the book builds on a survey of the opinions of hundreds of North American psychologists, sociologists and educationalists conducted by the authors in 1984. The book includes also an analysis of the reporting on intelligence testing by the press and television in the US for the period 1969–1983, as well as an opinion poll of 207 journalists and 86 science editors about IQ testing. . . .

Snyderman and Rothman claimed that the media had misrepresented the views of experts, so that the public now believed that it was impossible to define intelligence, that IQ or aptitude tests were outmoded and that environmentalism and hereditarianism were incompatible points of view. As they wrote:[1][3]

Most significantly, the literate and informed public today is persuaded that the majority of experts in the field believe it is impossible to adequately define intelligence, that intelligence tests do not measure anything that is relevant to life performance... It appears from book reviews in popular journals and from newspaper and television coverage of IQ issues that such are the views of the vast majority of experts who study questions of intelligence and intelligence testing.​

Respondents on average identified themselves as slightly left of center politically, but political and social opinions accounted for less than 10% of the variation in responses.

Snyderman and Rothman discovered that experts were in agreement about the nature of intelligence.[6] "On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy." Almost all respondents picked out abstract reasoning, ability to solve problems and ability to acquire knowledge as the most important elements.

The study found that psychologists were in agreement about the heritability of intelligence in that almost all (94%) felt that it played a substantial role but there was disagreement regarding accuracy with half of those that felt qualified to reply in this section agreed that there was not enough evidence to estimate heritability accurately. The 214 who thought there was enough evidence gave an average estimate of .596 for the US white population and .57 for the US black population.

The study also revealed that the majority (55%) of surveyed experts believed that genetic factors also help to explain socioeconomic differences in IQ.

The role of genetics in the black-white IQ gap has been particularly controversial. The question regarding this in the survey asked "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of black-white differences in IQ?" Amongst the 661 returned questionnaires, 14% declined to answer the question, 24% voted that there was insufficient evidence to give an answer, 1% voted that the gap was "due entirely to genetic variation", 15% voted that it was "due entirely to environmental variation" and 45% voted that it was a "product of genetic and environmental variation". According to Snyderman and Rothman, this contrasts greatly with the coverage of these views as represented in the media, where the reader is led to draw the conclusion that "only a few maverick 'experts' support the view that genetic variation plays a significant role in individual or group difference, while the vast majority of experts believe that such differences are purely the result of environmental factors." . . . .

The study also found that the media regularly presented the views of Kamin and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould as representative of mainstream opinion among experts, whereas those who publicly state that individual and group differences are partly genetic, in particular psychologist Arthur Jensen, were characterized as a small minority. According to Synderman and Rothman, their survey of expert opinion found that the opposite is actually true. In particular, the surveyed experts reported that they hold the scientific views of Kamin to be of only marginal importance.​

And that was 30 years ago. Sweet Jesus, I don't think people understand how many new avenues of research have opened up since then, but that's OK, the public doesn't really need to know, that's why experts exist. You don't need to know how to treat breast cancer, that's what oncologists do and it's their expertise that counts.

"IQ" is different than intelligence. An IQ test judges you based on what you know in the test. How well you take it. Intelligence isn't synonymous with knowledge, or knowledgeability, either. I could be absolutely brilliant, yet not care to know certain things that the test asks me. The test would inaccurately rate my IQ. There are a great many things I don't care to know, and certainly don't wish to remember.

An IQ tests doesn't test knowledge. So what you care to know and what you don't care to know are immaterial here.

 

[Rikurzhen]

There are many differences in opinion on the matter. Intelligence is basically the acquisition and application of knowledge and skills. It's a matter we don't really understand. Intelligence seems to be hereditary and fixed. I don't see children with otherwise normal intellect becoming the next John Nash. Intelligence is probably biological, and can't really be augmented. If it could, to what degree? How do you, in the spanse of a month, become as intelligent as people like John Nash, Christopher Hitchens, and Christopher Langan?

"IQ" is different than intelligence. An IQ test judges you based on what you know in the test. How well you take it. Intelligence isn't synonymous with knowledge, or knowledgeability, either. I could be absolutely brilliant, yet not care to know certain things that the test asks me. The test would inaccurately rate my IQ. There are a great many things I don't care to know, and certainly don't wish to remember.

Partially right. Mostly wrong.
Even wiki has to admit that IQ is a valid way to assess human intelligence...and wiki always tries to be politically correct.
No one ever said that it was a way to measure one's total intelligence on everything, though.

They'll claim "cultural bias" but there are tests that exclude that.

"Culture-fair" tests, also called "culture-free" tests, are designed to assess intelligence without relying on knowledge specific to any individual cultural group or educational level.

One of the first culture-fair tests, the Army Beta Examination, was developed by the United States military during World War I to screen soldiers of average intelligence who were illiterate or for whom English was a second language.
Beginning in the post-war period, culture-fair tests, which rely largely on nonverbal questions, have been used in public schools with non-native English speaking students whose lack of familiarity with both English language and American culture have made it impossible to assess their intelligence level using standard IQ tests.

Tests carefully designed to exclude cultural bias (for example, spatial relationship tests based entirely on pictures, memorization of digit sequences, and pure eye-hand reaction time) produce results comparable to those of traditional IQ tests.

Further, if IQ tests embody cultural biases of the largely U.K. and U.S. creators of the tests, it's odd that populations of East Asian countries, with a variety of very different cultures, all test higher than those of the test makers

..I've been down this road before, though and the ones who protest the loudest are the ones who don't like the results. The tests are "racist"..(of course) LMAO...they were created by white people..blah...blah..

The facts are that asians average around 110, whites around 100 and negroes (in america) around 85


Global IQ 1950-2050
Flynn effect

Asian = 105, not 110. Jews @115.

 

[Rotagilla]

There are many differences in opinion on the matter. Intelligence is basically the acquisition and application of knowledge and skills. It's a matter we don't really understand. Intelligence seems to be hereditary and fixed. I don't see children with otherwise normal intellect becoming the next John Nash. Intelligence is probably biological, and can't really be augmented. If it could, to what degree? How do you, in the spanse of a month, become as intelligent as people like John Nash, Christopher Hitchens, and Christopher Langan?

"IQ" is different than intelligence. An IQ test judges you based on what you know in the test. How well you take it. Intelligence isn't synonymous with knowledge, or knowledgeability, either. I could be absolutely brilliant, yet not care to know certain things that the test asks me. The test would inaccurately rate my IQ. There are a great many things I don't care to know, and certainly don't wish to remember.

Partially right. Mostly wrong.
Even wiki has to admit that IQ is a valid way to assess human intelligence...and wiki always tries to be politically correct.
No one ever said that it was a way to measure one's total intelligence on everything, though.

They'll claim "cultural bias" but there are tests that exclude that.

"Culture-fair" tests, also called "culture-free" tests, are designed to assess intelligence without relying on knowledge specific to any individual cultural group or educational level.

One of the first culture-fair tests, the Army Beta Examination, was developed by the United States military during World War I to screen soldiers of average intelligence who were illiterate or for whom English was a second language.
Beginning in the post-war period, culture-fair tests, which rely largely on nonverbal questions, have been used in public schools with non-native English speaking students whose lack of familiarity with both English language and American culture have made it impossible to assess their intelligence level using standard IQ tests.

Tests carefully designed to exclude cultural bias (for example, spatial relationship tests based entirely on pictures, memorization of digit sequences, and pure eye-hand reaction time) produce results comparable to those of traditional IQ tests.

Further, if IQ tests embody cultural biases of the largely U.K. and U.S. creators of the tests, it's odd that populations of East Asian countries, with a variety of very different cultures, all test higher than those of the test makers

..I've been down this road before, though and the ones who protest the loudest are the ones who don't like the results. The tests are "racist"..(of course) LMAO...they were created by white people..blah...blah..

The facts are that asians average around 110, whites around 100 and negroes (in america) around 85


Global IQ 1950-2050
Flynn effect

Asian = 105, not 110. Jews @115.

Sorry. My mistake. Thanks for the correct numbers.The other two are accurate, though?

EDIT:
By the way you're a racist...figured I get that in before they did..LMFAO

 

[Rikurzhen]

There are many differences in opinion on the matter. Intelligence is basically the acquisition and application of knowledge and skills. It's a matter we don't really understand. Intelligence seems to be hereditary and fixed. I don't see children with otherwise normal intellect becoming the next John Nash. Intelligence is probably biological, and can't really be augmented. If it could, to what degree? How do you, in the spanse of a month, become as intelligent as people like John Nash, Christopher Hitchens, and Christopher Langan?

"IQ" is different than intelligence. An IQ test judges you based on what you know in the test. How well you take it. Intelligence isn't synonymous with knowledge, or knowledgeability, either. I could be absolutely brilliant, yet not care to know certain things that the test asks me. The test would inaccurately rate my IQ. There are a great many things I don't care to know, and certainly don't wish to remember.

Partially right. Mostly wrong.
Even wiki has to admit that IQ is a valid way to assess human intelligence...and wiki always tries to be politically correct.
No one ever said that it was a way to measure one's total intelligence on everything, though.

They'll claim "cultural bias" but there are tests that exclude that.

"Culture-fair" tests, also called "culture-free" tests, are designed to assess intelligence without relying on knowledge specific to any individual cultural group or educational level.

One of the first culture-fair tests, the Army Beta Examination, was developed by the United States military during World War I to screen soldiers of average intelligence who were illiterate or for whom English was a second language.
Beginning in the post-war period, culture-fair tests, which rely largely on nonverbal questions, have been used in public schools with non-native English speaking students whose lack of familiarity with both English language and American culture have made it impossible to assess their intelligence level using standard IQ tests.

Tests carefully designed to exclude cultural bias (for example, spatial relationship tests based entirely on pictures, memorization of digit sequences, and pure eye-hand reaction time) produce results comparable to those of traditional IQ tests.

Further, if IQ tests embody cultural biases of the largely U.K. and U.S. creators of the tests, it's odd that populations of East Asian countries, with a variety of very different cultures, all test higher than those of the test makers

..I've been down this road before, though and the ones who protest the loudest are the ones who don't like the results. The tests are "racist"..(of course) LMAO...they were created by white people..blah...blah..

The facts are that asians average around 110, whites around 100 and negroes (in america) around 85


Global IQ 1950-2050
Flynn effect

Asian = 105, not 110. Jews @115.

Sorry. My mistake. Thanks for the correct numbers.The other two are accurate, though?

EDIT:
By the way you're a racist...figured I get that in before they did..LMFAO

The black IQ has been accurate for the last 70 years. The Hispanic IQ (mestizo and mulatto, not Cuban, Argentinian) is about 90, the Asian IQ is really NE Asian not SE Asian. Jewish IQ is Ashkenazi, not Sephardic. NE Asian IQ comes in a few points higher than European, ranging between 103 and 106, so 105 is a good round number in general discussion.

 

[longknife]

When the quotes get this long, it's time to quit the thread.

 

[Peach]

My scores vary from 115-132, depending on the test; no, not fixed for life. I did better on the "pattern recognition" by concentrating the second time I took one, online. I discount online tests, was tested several times 1st-12th grade, always for the "gifted" program, such as it was near Navy bases and later in a poor, rural area of Florida. (The 115 was my first "culture fair" test.)

 

[Caroljo]

There are many brilliant people out there with very high IQ's.....problem is, I have found that many really smart people have NO common sense.

 

[Rikurzhen]

There are many brilliant people out there with very high IQ's.....problem is, I have found that many really smart people have NO common sense.

True. Intelligent people are very adept and using their intelligence to convince themselves to believe stupid things. I'm not trying to be funny here.

 

[Rikurzhen]

When the quotes get this long, it's time to quit the thread.

Let me help everyone else with the translation - when your thesis gets shot down, don't stick around to learn new things, just skedaddle and so keep alive your false beliefs.

 

[Rikurzhen]

My scores vary from 115-132, depending on the test; no, not fixed for life. I did better on the "pattern recognition" by concentrating the second time I took one, online. I discount online tests, was tested several times 1st-12th grade, always for the "gifted" program, such as it was near Navy bases and later in a poor, rural area of Florida. (The 115 was my first "culture fair" test.)

You've just internally refuted your point. Your score will vary between tests because they're not cross-validated to each other. Most IQ tests ARE cross validated. Some tests which only partially capture IQ are not. This in no way supports your conclusion that what you've experienced is evidence of IQ not being fixed.

There is some movement, but IQ is very stable across life. You've jumped an entire standard deviation and that's not real variation.

Hold it, you're talking about online tests? Those are garbage. Wise to dismiss them.

 

[Caroljo]

There are many brilliant people out there with very high IQ's.....problem is, I have found that many really smart people have NO common sense.

True. Intelligent people are very adept and using their intelligence to convince themselves to believe stupid things. I'm not trying to be funny here.

I know you're not. My brother in law is VERY smart when it comes to building telecommunication towers, he knows everything electronic, and many other things. But when it comes to his everyday life at home...he sometimes has no clue!

 

[Peach]

My scores vary from 115-132, depending on the test; no, not fixed for life. I did better on the "pattern recognition" by concentrating the second time I took one, online. I discount online tests, was tested several times 1st-12th grade, always for the "gifted" program, such as it was near Navy bases and later in a poor, rural area of Florida. (The 115 was my first "culture fair" test.)

You've just internally refuted your point. Your score will vary between tests because they're not cross-validated to each other. Most IQ tests ARE cross validated. Some tests which only partially capture IQ are not. This in no way supports your conclusion that what you've experienced is evidence of IQ not being fixed.

There is some movement, but IQ is very stable across life. You've jumped an entire standard deviation and that's not real variation.

Hold it, you're talking about online tests? Those are garbage. Wise to dismiss them.

Only the the "culture fair"; as I wrote, others were adminstered for "gifted" programs. In person, most one on one. I would concede the range may be fixed, but there so many tests, measuring different types of intelligence, I do not place much weight on them; anyone who can rebuild a transmission is a genius to me.

 

[LoneLaugher]

People with low IQ's are likely to argue that people with high IQ's are stupid.