Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligence Quotients: science or pop pyschology?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 25 (386291)
02-20-2007 6:20 PM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2007 6:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2007 6:51 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 5 by kuresu, posted 02-20-2007 8:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 8 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-21-2007 11:56 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 11 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-21-2007 4:30 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1723 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 2 of 25 (386292)
02-20-2007 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
02-20-2007 6:20 PM


All in all I think we're not far from agreement. But:
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.
Well, I certainly question it. After all, that's what IQ tests were developed to measure - how much schooling you had received. (I suggest you look up Alfred Binet, the inventor of the IQ test, and read about his goals for the test.)
IQ tests do have merit in some situations. For instance, they accurately detect both mental retardation and high-functioning geniuses. It's the small perturbations in the middle that, in my view, are weighted well beyond what they signify. If, today, we both took a test, and I scored 130 and you scored 132, what would that mean in the real world? And how would we know that, the next day, our scores might not be reversed, and I 2 points higher than you?
(This is the realm of the racial difference so commonly referred to, but from a difference that's all but meaningless, all manner of racial disparities are ironed over, justified by "biology", and removed from the list of problems we have a responsibility to solve. Quite an accomplishment for a few points!)
Lastly - it's worth pointing out that the highest IQ on record belongs to columnist Marylin vos Savant, who scores 212 or so on tests. While Albert Einstein is not known to have ever been tested, psychologists have estimated a score of 160-180.
Einstein, of course, needs no biography here. vos Savant hasn't done much but write a newspaper column. As you ask - what, indeed, is all the fuss about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-20-2007 6:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-20-2007 7:44 PM crashfrog has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17919
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 3 of 25 (386293)
02-20-2007 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
02-20-2007 6:20 PM


IQ tests are a reliable measure of one thing - the ability to pass IQ tests.
The Flynn effect - a tendancy of average IQ to increase over time for the population of a given region - raises serious questions about the idea that IQ tests measure raw native ability.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-20-2007 6:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by kongstad, posted 02-21-2007 5:23 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-22-2007 11:48 AM PaulK has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 25 (386303)
02-20-2007 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
02-20-2007 6:33 PM


Examing intelligence quotients
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.
Well, I certainly question it. After all, that's what IQ tests were developed to measure - how much schooling you had received.
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 suggest you look up Alfred Binet, the inventor of the IQ test, and read about his goals for the test.)
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.
IQ tests do have merit in some situations. For instance, they accurately detect both mental retardation and high-functioning geniuses. It's the small perturbations in the middle that, in my view, are weighted well beyond what they signify. If, today, we both took a test, and I scored 130 and you scored 132, what would that mean in the real world? And how would we know that, the next day, our scores might not be reversed, and I 2 points higher than you?
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.
Lastly - it's worth pointing out that the highest IQ on record belongs to columnist Marylin vos Savant, who scores 212 or so on tests. While Albert Einstein is not known to have ever been tested, psychologists have estimated a score of 160-180.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2007 6:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2007 11:35 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2770 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 5 of 25 (386304)
02-20-2007 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
02-20-2007 6:20 PM


if I remember the story correctly:
when my dad joined the army, he and a bunch of other recruits had to take an IQ test. the sole purpose--to determine if they could use whatever rifle it is the army uses.
just about everyone failed. reason? you don't make people take tests in noisy environments--that will lower scores. especially with IQ tests. there may have been some other things going on, but my memory of the story is hazy.
its safe to say that those same recruits could, in fact, properly use the army's main rifle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-20-2007 6:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-21-2007 10:21 AM kuresu has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1723 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 6 of 25 (386328)
02-20-2007 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hyroglyphx
02-20-2007 7:44 PM


Re: Examing intelligence quotients
An IQ test often doesn't measure what variable you pick, rather, it measures how you solved the problem.
Well, I've taken several - and no, they don't. They can't. They'd have to get inside your head to do that, and obviously they're not privy to your thought processes. They have literally no idea how you solved the problem. They're just scored like regular tests, with the additional factor that they're usually timed.
IQ tests are replete with questions like these to remove the cultural factor. Or at least they are supposed to be.
Well, you'd think so - but even the format of the test itself can be a cultural factor. Sure, you and I grew up taking Scantron tests with the ol' #2 pencil. That kind of thing might be totally alien to someone from a completely different culture.
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'm a genius, according to the tests. (I've been pretty copiously tested by parents who wanted to know why their brainy son had such poor grades.)
I can't play chess for shit. There's a kind of strategic thought that I'm not any good at, and so I'm the worst player I know at games like chess and go.
But I'm a great tactician. And I'm not even sure I can explain the difference between tactics and strategy; but it's abundantly clear when I'm hanging out with my best friend. (Brilliant chess player.) Tactics is what I'm good at. Strategy is what he's good at. If he's Ender, then I'm Bean. (Oddly enough, though, he's the short one.)
So clearly chess is not a great metric for intelligence. Or maybe I'm just not that intelligent? Maybe I'm good at test-taking. My best friend swears I'm smarter than he is, and I know the reverse is true. Either way it convinces me that there's something to human intelligence and genius that doesn't fit on a linear scale. You've come to the same conclusion, if I read you right.
If you can expose the cultural or racial bias in the test, I'll certainly consider it.
Well, for instance:
Question 3 assumes you're from a culture with a 24 hour day and a 60 minute hour;
Question 4 makes a pretty large assumption about your cultural background, assuming that you're familiar with the phrase "birds of a feather", which is an English-language idiom;
Question 10 makes an assumption about your knowledge of geometry and names for shapes;
Question 11 makes the assumption about your familiarity with English-language idioms again;
And of course the whole test makes a pretty big assumption about your familiarity with multiple-choice questions, since it doesn't give instructions about how to answer the questions.
I'm not saying that any one of these are tantamount to a question like "Are you black? If you answered yes, subtract ten points." But in aggregate they disadvantage people from cultural backgrounds different from the culture the people who wrote the test thought was "normal." Even if the difference was only 1-2%, well, that would be the so-called "racial" difference between white scores and black scores, right there.
That's a factor concerning IQ that needs to be considered.
Indeed. Test-taking is a skill itself, and that's a factor that, in my opinion, confounds the ability of IQ tests to measure minute differences in IQ (if there even is such a thing.)
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-20-2007 7:44 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-22-2007 3:14 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 25 (386365)
02-21-2007 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by kuresu
02-20-2007 8:09 PM


Tests and distractions
when my dad joined the army, he and a bunch of other recruits had to take an IQ test. the sole purpose--to determine if they could use whatever rifle it is the army uses.
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.
just about everyone failed. reason? you don't make people take tests in noisy environments--that will lower scores.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by kuresu, posted 02-20-2007 8:09 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Tal, posted 02-23-2007 5:46 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4184 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 8 of 25 (386379)
02-21-2007 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
02-20-2007 6:20 PM


Publisher: Free Press; 1st Free Press Pbk. Ed edition (January 10, 1996)
this alone should answer your question. it's not an academic press.
the iq tests test the potential for abstract reasoning in traditionally educated, english speaking people. that's what they were developed for. they do a fine job of it. but iq means nothing for most "useful" purposes: it doesn't mean you will do well in school; it doesn't mean you'll cure cancer; it doesn't mean you have any ability to lead or inspire. it means you are good at abstract reasoning. these tend to be very useful things in upper-level academics in any field, though a particular individual's abilities may be less broad. i'm brilliant, but god help me i can't work in an office or anything like that.
think about the smartest people you know. some of them may actually be smart. some of them may just be charismatic. both are valuable, in different arenas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-20-2007 6:20 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by truthlover, posted 02-21-2007 4:09 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4316 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 9 of 25 (386421)
02-21-2007 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by macaroniandcheese
02-21-2007 11:56 AM


the iq tests test the potential for abstract reasoning in traditionally educated, english speaking people.
Yep.
I do really well on IQ tests. It would be awesome if it was really a measure of "intelligence" over all, because then I'd be smarter than most people. However, I'm not. When it comes to the basics of living, I've found most people can figure out the best solution to their problems every bit as well as I can. I can solve geometry problems better than most, but that's about it.
What I'd really like is if it were a good measure of the ability to answer riddles or find insightful interpretations of allegorical stories. I'd love to be good at either, but instead, I'm lousy at both.
I know I could beat my wife on an IQ test, but when there's a hundred things to do and life seems horribly confusing, she has no problem figuring out some way to get all 100 things done in a timely manner. They need a test to measure that ability, because if I could hire her or me for almost any job that didn't involve lots and lots of math or brute strength, I'd hire her.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-21-2007 11:56 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-21-2007 4:18 PM truthlover has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4184 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 10 of 25 (386422)
02-21-2007 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by truthlover
02-21-2007 4:09 PM


well that's the thing. it does test for intelligence. we view abstract reasoning as intelligence in this culture... at least we used to. now it's greed and the ability to manipulate and use people. whatevs.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by truthlover, posted 02-21-2007 4:09 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3854 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 11 of 25 (386424)
02-21-2007 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
02-20-2007 6:20 PM


Two observations:
1. There are many different kinds of intelligence.
2. Americans are egalitarians. They want all the kids to be above average.
No comment on IQ tests in particular. I took one as a child, never learned my score, and was surprised to learn a couple of weeks ago--here--that anyone still used these things.
__

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-20-2007 6:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-22-2007 7:14 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
kongstad
Member (Idle past 3126 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004


Message 12 of 25 (386435)
02-21-2007 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
02-20-2007 6:51 PM


I was once tested by Mensa, for admittance.
They used Ravens Progressive matrices
Raven's Progressive Matrices - Wikipedia
These are supposedly made so as to be blind to social circumstances and schooling.
But as I was computer science, math and philosphy student at the time, I had a lot of training in logic.
And when "guessing", I could use words for the relations between the symbols.
I would think "You and the twirlies, xor the straight lines and or the dots"
I passed the test, and though I am an excellent problem solver in some narrow fields, I am just a big idiot in many more
My one experience with IQ test was not blind to schooling!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2007 6:51 PM PaulK has not replied

  
melatonin
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 126
From: Cymru
Joined: 02-13-2006


Message 13 of 25 (386443)
02-21-2007 6:59 PM


IQ tests are certainly a part of science, they do have a fair degree of predictive validity, they do show a structural relationship to the brain.
Edited by melatonin, : No reason given.

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2426 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 14 of 25 (386461)
02-21-2007 10:19 PM


My IQ was tested every couple of years from Kindergarten age through junior high or so.
At some point after that, my mother told me that my scores went down every time I took the test, although I never learned what the scores were.
I found out much later that this wasn't important but it was rather troubling to me at the time. Was I becoming dumber?
I have looked through some IQ tests over the years and I feel the same about them as I do the SAT's.
Some parts are incredibly easy for me, and some parts might as well be in a foreign language.

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2007 12:34 PM nator has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 25 (386551)
02-22-2007 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
02-20-2007 6:51 PM


Intelligence
IQ tests are a reliable measure of one thing - the ability to pass IQ tests.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2007 6:51 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 02-22-2007 12:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024