Intelligence Quotients: science or pop pyschology?

In the mid nineties a book, entitled, "The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life," was one of the more comprehensive reviews on the intelligence quotient to date. Contrary to the studies conclusions that IQ can be quantified and is largely inheritable, there were a lot of dissenting opinions on the subject. Despite its taboo the book posited that IQ was a predictor for socioeconomic factors, (un)employment, criminality, divorce, drop out rates, etc. The estimate provided by the authors concluded that 40-80% of a persons cognitive ability was genetic, and though factors such as poor diet and a bad home life play a role in the expression of intelligence, it plays a nominal role when juxtaposed by the genetic factor.My own view on IQ is that it is certainly real, but that we should tread lightly on its value for a number of reasons. There is no question that some people are more intelligent than others. And there is little question that the evidence of a persons intelligence can be illustrated with tests that are carefully designed to measure actual intelligence and not the amount of schooling someone has. There is a clear distinction between intelligence and what has been learned. For instance, a person can know a whole lot on a certain subject and, in a sense, can feign intelligence. Another person can know little to nothing about a certain subject and we could still be able to ascertain that they are highly intelligent.I also say we should tread lightly only if we place too much emphasis on it. The IQ test itself cannot detect for other areas of arguable intelligence, such as the capacity to create music or art. Is there a way to measure a persons genius by listening to their compositions or viewing their artwork? Can we simply pass off the ability to play music exceptionally as just a "talent?" Or is there some true intelligence in it? I say there is. Others do as well in a recent development and study of Emotional Intelligence, for which I think there is no substitute. It places an emphasis on the ability to understand others in relation to the self. There is not, in a classical sense, a similarity to IQ. But I believe that EQ does have some merit to it.The other problem that I see with placing too much of an emphasis on IQ is that with doing so, we might find ourselves staring at the uglier side of eugenics, where "inferior stock" becomes more than just a parlance, but is actually sought to be eradicated. The social implications could be staggering. Two movies, Gattica and The Island, though slightly corny, do paint a very realistic scenario should we place a high emphasis on eugenics which substitutes for nature.At the same time this all may be a bastardization of what IQ is. That it might be misappropriated or misapplied is not a reason to pretend that it does not exist. Indeed, when one member of a couple is found to be sterile, the couple may sometimes opt for an alternative route of procreation. They sometimes do what they feel is the next best thing, which, for instance, might be artificial insemination. This brings me to my next point.Sperm banks are very selective in who's sperm they allow. In the possible donors bio it lists a multitude of his perceived physical and mental attributes. His height/weight ratio, his job, he's screened for all sorts of diseases, his immediate family's health is considered, his picture is listed for aesthetic purposes, etc. Clinics often list prospective donors IQ. Now, this somehow feels cheap to us, but if we think about it, don't all humans do this screening process while dating? I don't think many people intentionally seek out disease-prone, unattractive, unintelligent suitors. So, in this way, should we really condemn those seeking suitable sperm donors with a measure of contempt as if they are morally inferior to us?But, really, I digress because all this aside, I ask: is this the principle offense of the intelligence quotient? Certainly not. What, then, is all the fuss about? Well, it turns out that in the Bell Curve there are two chapters dedicated to intelligence and race. The implication is that people of certain races categorically receive lower scores, on average, than other races. But is this an anomaly or is this based on an impartial statistical analysis? Could this be a social contrivance or is there really a genetic disparity?I will let you, the reader, decide for yourself.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

quote:

---

And there is little question that the evidence of a persons intelligence can be illustrated with tests that are carefully designed to measure actual intelligence and not the amount of schooling someone has.

---

I would agree that SAT's do this, but that's a good thing. An IQ test often doesn't measure what variable you pick, rather, it measures how you solved the problem. For instance, lets say we have a series of shapes that overlap or conjoin. On each possible answer (A, B, C, D) are those same series of shapes with a point of reference. On the octagon, say, it has point 1. On the square, it has point 2, on the circle, it has point 3, and so on. You are supposed to determine which series lines up best with the picture in question. Any one, of any race, of any cultural background, etc, can understand it in principle, provided it is explained in their language. Something like this can't be skewed. Its purely based on intellect and nothing more. IQ tests are replete with questions like these to remove the cultural factor. Or at least they are supposed to be. I know a little bit about Binet. I'm not aware of any controversy surrounding him. But one thing I do know is that he was fascinated with chess. Chess is a good unbiased indicator of intelligence, provided the rules of the game are well understood by the players. The reason I say so is because it unmasks one's ability to strategize, which is surely indicative of an intelligent being. I understand what you're saying. For instance, I know mathematical geniuses (I'm talking MIT and CalTech grads who work now work for NASA) who, for the life of them, could not compose a cogent sentence to save their life. Which is more intelligent? The left-brained fellow or the right-brain fellow? Its subjective, right? Its only relative to the endeavor. But I would say that this isn't a measure of intelligence, at least not in linear terms of who is smarter. But the IQ test is supposed to alleviate that, such as the example I gave. MENSA, for example, only uses accredited intelligence quotient tests that remove the culture bias factor which attempts to ascertain raw intelligence.Mensa is a bit of mental masturbation and fosters a snobbishly self-congratulatory attitude. I'm not endorsing them. I'm simply relaying that they only accept legitimate tests.But anyway, here is a fun little test that I've taken awhile back. If you can expose the cultural or racial bias in the test, I'll certainly consider it. Very true Ms. Savant but like I said, "most intelligent" is very subjective. Einstein knew things that Savant did not, and likewise, Savant probably had a better grasp on certain aspects more highly than Einstein. Aside from which, there is another factor that might play a role. Some people that are very intelligent do not do well on tests. Maybe they get anxiety, maybe they have attention deficit problems, etc, but that wouldn't speak disparagingly about their intelligence. That's a factor concerning IQ that needs to be considered.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Your Dad probably took the ASVAB or some precursor of it. Based on your raw score and a combination of the different parts of the test, it determines what jobs you are available or not available for. Obviously, the higher the score, the more availability you have in choosing your MOS/rate. Certainly. You can't expect people to take accurate tests under noisy conditions.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Fair enough. Let me ask you more directly then. Do you think that such a thing called "intelligence" exists. If so, what are the qualifiers? Is it largely just a meaningless subjective term? Are there different levels of intelligence? Can such a thing be detected if it does exist?Btw, all parties active on this thread, please feel free to answer.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

quote:

---

An IQ test often doesn't measure what variable you pick, rather, it measures how you solved the problem.

---

You don't need to be watching a person's thoughts in realtime in order to determine whether inductive or deductive reasoning is being employed. I had a similar argument with a fly-by-night poster a few months back. He asserted that Artificial Intelligence was real, and yet, he couldn't explain what intelligence is. Obviously, such a thing as intelligence is real. We know that people can express that intelligence on these tests, because we can examine how they came to their answers. If your argument is that quantifying intelligence is subjective, I would be inclined to agree with you. But it sounds as if you believe there is no validity to the test or its questions. When IQ tests transfered from paper to bytes on a computer did it really make a difference? If a person can't understand how to fill in bubbles on the appropriate answer, maybe they aren't intelligent enough to take the test itself. That's probably because grades often don't reflect the intelligence of the student. Its been my experience that it mostly reflects the students commitment and motivation. I was getting straight A's until third grade. After that time it was all downhill from there. Its not because I couldn't do the work. And I'm sure the case was the same with you. It sounds like perhaps you and I just didn't want to do the work. Well, this is kind of what I was saying earlier. You don't need to be a chess tactician in order to be smart. There are different ways we can exhibit intelligence. Math for me is difficult. Its slow going for me to learn it, whereas my peers just get it. And maybe its a lot like that Matt Damon movie, Good Will Hunting. He was on a date with his Harvard girlfriend, played by Minnie Driver, and she asked him what it was like for him. He tried to explain by using the piano as a reference. He said that when he sees a piano, he sees a box made out of wood, with keys and peddles. It was foreign to him. But Mozart, he says, Mozart just got it. And he was a musical genius. For Will Hunting, he just got math. He was a mathematical anomaly.Maybe its like this for all of us. Maybe we all have our talents that we are exceptional in, whereas in other areas, we just don't get it. I've often wondered what makes idiot savants tick. How can they be retarded and thereby hindered in the simplest of tasks, but excel beyond measure in one or two areas? Isn't a strategist and a tactician pretty much the same thing, just worded differently? Perhaps its a way of uncovering our thought process. For all our arguing aside there is no doubt that you have more than one marble rolling around in your head. Yes, I agree. Terms like "smarter" and "smartest" in linear terms just don't apply. And in that way, "high IQ's" are just sort of self-congratulatory endeavors. I think there is no doubt that you can learn a lot about how a person analyzes things with these tests, but as you pointed out, does it mean Madam Savant was "more" intelligent than Einstein because her IQ score was higher than his? I'm not aware of any culture that does not use this time scale. But you could make a better case by saying the test assumes that its test takers speak English. I'm not seeing how that's "racist." What does that have to do with race though? Figuring out how to solve it is probably the biggest thing they are looking for. LOL! Yeah, that would be really messed up. You are assuming that the makers of the test must somehow be white. What if you were to find out that the drafters were all black, or all hispanic, or all Indian? Would that effect how you viewed it?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Agreed. I would agree, but I think this extends to many people of all nations.__

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

The Flynn Effect is probably the number one objection to IQ testing, but this seems to based off of graphs showing a trend that IQ scores are increasing. It bases its conclusions on a variety of reasons like a better diet, more familiarity with multiple choice questions, etc. But these objections, though perfectly valid, don't really undercut the intelligence quotient in my opinion. My contention is that we have two schools of thought, both pro and con, that may view their tenability or untenability on the basis of tautologies.In my own view, I think the Flynn Effect has done a lot of good at exposing the pitfalls of the intelligence quotient by forcing the deviser's of the test to rethink its application. At the same time, I wonder if most of the objections stem from a perceived "holier than thou" mentality. Or in this case, "smarter than thou." I just think that there is some measure of IQ tests, but in linear terms, they simply can't produce a true algorithym that has any real meaning in the real world.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis