Are IQ tests bullshit?

[JinzouTamashii]

*eyeroll* Are intelligence tests just more Mensa thinktank related bullshit or do they actually have any validity on the statistical growth of the populace along the Bell curve?

[Tsurukiri]

I don't think standard IQ tests tell a lot about social intelligence of a person, for example. They only test certain kinds of logical thinking. In a job interview test, according to my own experience, the IQ test is only one small part of it.

And like with any test, the test only tells how well people are doing that test. You can train for Mensa style of tests and therefore perform better in them. In that respect is like a skill.

[neowired]

first and foremost, IQ test score is statistical in it's very core - scoring 100 IQ means that exactly 50% people scored less and 50% scored more. IQ score is purely statistical
professional, standard IQ tests score "keys" are based on testing a large group of people first, and that's how the statistics are made

a standard IQ means basically the speed of your brain
which in turn is mostly based on the capacity/speed/quality of your short term memory

a person with higher IQ will spot patterns quicker, and will spot more complex patterns, be it graphic, writing, science, he will see things interconnect, etc.

a person with very low IQ will have problems with noticing patterns, and with understanding how in world everything is interconnected, probably

the downside of high IQ is that your brain works faster, yes, this means you get easily bored and have more troubles concentrating on and doing simple stuff which doesn't challenge your brain. you may over analyze or spend countless hours on looking for patterns, never getting anything done, because it amuses your brain, it's subconscious really. Einstein is a great example if you know how much troubles he had with doing simple life stuff.

a most optimal IQ is said to be about 120, you don't really need more, and having more creates it's own sort of problems

note that in the most standard IQ tests the peak is either 140 or 160 depending on the way of counting, but it's all still statistics

wiki points to an article which says that people with 70 IQ think with about 8 bits/second, at 105 IQ it's 16bits/second, and at 135 it's 24bits/second ; p

the above text is a simplification created from my limited knowledge within a limited time period

[Wintermoon]

Don't ask random people on a message board. Ask a psychologist who actually has enough background knowledge to form an informed opinion.

My opinion: IQ correlates with intelligence, which makes it somewhat useful for statistical analysis. (It also correlates with various other factors, which makes it somewhat less useful.) However, it does not measure intelligence. On the individual level, IQ is completely useless.

[LVUER]

Agree with WinterMoon, ask the professional. But personally, I think IQ is to measure how quick you grasp something, not your actual intelligence level.

[neowired]

it should be noted that "intelligence" is a mix of many different elements, and doesn't really have one set definition

IQ, so called "Intelligence quotient" is nothing more and nothing less than a statistical score of how well you can do an IQ test when in relation to other people who also did that test

[JinzouTamashii]

Hmm. I work at a state college, so I interact with so-called professionals and professors everyday... I know what makes 'em tick and what ticks 'em off, lol. It is a huge amount of work to manage a full class and keep everyone on the same page. I feel sorry for my Calculus professor... I am incapable of doing arithmetic or having neat handwriting on a 60-minute cram test...

I asked my therapist, "Who studies with therapists?" She shrugged, smiled, and said "Scientists." My family is basically all coming in for therapy because we drove enough nuts during the holidays! Talk about Christmas stress...

[number473]

An IQ test certainly is to some degree arbitrary, but they aren't totally bullshit. They measure something a bit more specific than general intelligence, I think we can agree, but what's more important is to be able to get things done and actually solve problems that come up in real life. Whether that's by quick thinking or just force of personality ^_^
Anyway, IQ can change, so it's not such a big deal.

[Sin]

I believe there are people with higher and lower intelligence, yes. Furthermore I believe it's genetic (i.e. you can't grow more intelligent than you already are)
Whether or not an IQ test can properly distinguish the two comes down to the individual test.

IQ tests is a loaded issue because many people fear they may be discriminating and that IQ may not be a particularly practical quality in real life.

Personally I think it's a perfectly valid endeavor to try to measure intelligence. I also think IQ should be something expected from our world leaders.
(Yes I'm aware of the fact that G.W. Bush evidently scored above average on an IQ test once but we all know he never had any real intelligence to speak of. Most likely the test was flawed or tested a too narrow spectrum of parameters).

[Ren]

(Yes I'm aware of the fact that G.W. Bush evidently scored above average on an IQ test once but we all know he never had any real intelligence to speak of. Most likely the test was flawed or tested a too narrow spectrum of parameters).

So, what you're saying is that we could test the tests on him!
Anything that lets him score more than "monkey" is obviously a bad test. :P

[pkt]

Well now on this subject I'll have to disagree. I think that a person IQ changes over time and such. I know that at times I'm more intelligent almost to the level of genius and other times I'm dull ass a sack of potatoes. Mood, brain chemistry, and other factors play a key. Some people work best when tired and some don't everyone is different and while I think the tests give a decent approximation I don't think their the end all beat all method.

[PyTom]

Yes, because if an IQ test claims that someone is "above average", and that person graduates from Yale and Harvard (the latter with an MBA), and later becomes Governor, and then was elected President twice, there _must_ be something wrong with that test.

[lunasspecto]

A speech problem and dangerous politics aren't necessarily signs of a below-average intelligence in the areas of abstract logic, mathematics, and written language.

[neowired]

A speech problem and dangerous politics aren't necessarily signs of a below-average intelligence in the areas of abstract logic, mathematics, and written language.

what this person said. All politicians are intelligent in one way or another, otherwise they wouldn't become politicians.
at the very least they are very sly bastards ; p

also the standard IQ which is based on how fast the brain operates IS almost only pure genetics, and it is also related to the age of the person and the level of tiredness (obviously a tired brain works slower) among other things. that's why when you are doing a professional IQ test you are instructed to do it on a fresh mind, when you aren't tired, and the outcome is calculated based not only on how well you did the test but also on your age

You should keep in mind that success in life isn't very related to IQ at all. If you'd ask me, life success is mostly dependent on your motivation, character, on your long term memory... IQ has little to do with it, even if it let's you debate with other people about quantum mechanics or whatever.

[Tsundere Lightning]

I believe there are people with higher and lower intelligence, yes. Furthermore I believe it's genetic (i.e. you can't grow more intelligent than you already are).

This is demonstrably untrue. Intelligence can be gained, lost, and consciously developed; if this wasn't true, there would be no point in getting an education.