IQ tests as a reliable measure of "intelligence" and of "ability"?

randylonghorn

Moved from LC as this discussion was taking a thread there off-topic.

For context: this started with a discussion as to whether studying Hons Maths at LC was an advantage to potential doctors, whether mathematical ability was an indicator of potential ability in medicine, and whether it was fair that those taking Hons Maths should get bonus points / be advantaged when applying for Med.

It then went ever so slightly off-topic ... >_>

Pugzilla wrote: »

Honours vs pass maths student, considering mathematical ability is intrinsically linked to IQ, who's more intelligent on average?

Firstly, you're making the fundamental mistake of equating IQ to intelligence, an assertion which any educational psychologist would be very slow to make. Yes, IQ is one (somewhat flawed) means of measuring one (rather narrow and rigid) understanding of intelligence, but that's all it is.

For one example of a broader understanding of intelligence (and one by no means irrelevant to the question "what makes a good doctor?") have a look at the work of Howard Gardner and Project Zeroth. (By the way, I am by no means promoting this particular set of theories, I am simply suggesting they are a good place to start in terms of critiquing and deconstructing the traditional narrow view of "what is intelligence?".)

Pugzilla

randylonghorn wrote: »

Firstly, you're making the fundamental mistake of equating IQ to intelligence, an assertion which any educational psychologist would be very slow to make. Yes, IQ is one (somewhat flawed) means of measuring one (rather narrow and rigid) understanding of intelligence, but that's all it is.

Fair enough, but it's still the most studied and reliable measurement of general intelligence and predictor of job performance. The other so-called "intelligences" are very subjective and wish washy.

jumpguy wrote: »

To use Hippocrate's (now rather clichéd) logic - as a doctor you're treating people, not diseases.

Doctors are nonetheless disease oriented while it's the Nurses that are patient oriented and take a more holistic approach. Medical vs Nursing Model

randylonghorn

Pugzilla wrote: »

Fair enough, but it's still the most studied ...

Yes, probably.

Pugzilla wrote: »

...and reliable measurement of general intelligence ...

Highly contested statement, especially among those who have actually done all that study.

Pugzilla wrote: »

... and predictor of job performance.

Seriously, you need to back that up with some very serious evidence from academic / peer-reviewed journals if you want to convince me, as most of the evidence I have seen from those sources, and indeed, my own personal experience, would indicate otherwise.

Pugzilla wrote: »

The other so-called "intelligences" are very subjective and wish washy.

I would argue that they simply haven't gotten the attention or study as yet, hence why I said that I wasn't promoting those theories as any kind of dogma. What I think such studies have done best so far is to cast doubt on the traditional narrow and dogmatic views of "intelligence" so beloved of people who like to try to reduce human beings to mathematical equations and values.

Pugzilla

randylonghorn wrote: »

Seriously, you need to back that up with some very serious evidence from academic / peer-reviewed journals if you want to convince me, as most of the evidence I have seen from those sources, and indeed, my own personal experience, would indicate otherwise.

Smidth and Hunter concluded that "for hiring employees without previous experience in the job the most valid predictor of future performance is general mental ability."
http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/96/1/72/

'Mainstream Science on Intelligence', issued by 52 academic researchers, stated among other things that:

1. "Intelligence is a very general mental capability ... it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings ..."
2. "Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments."
3. "While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence."
4. "IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measureable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes ... Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance"
5. "A high IQ is an advantage because virtually all activities require some reasoning and decision-making"

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf

randylonghorn wrote: »

What I think such studies have done best so far is to cast doubt on the traditional narrow and dogmatic views of "intelligence" so beloved of people who like to try to reduce human beings to mathematical equations and values.

What little understanding we have of neuroscience suggests we can be defined like this. Humans are not exempt from fundamental laws of nature. They're called laws for a reason. We're extremely insignificant in the grand order of the universe, no amount of human exceptionalism or anthropocentrism wil change that. We have no special status.

randylonghorn

So ...

... what say the good people of the Psychology forum?



Are IQ tests a valid measurement of "intelligence"?

More broadly, are they a valid indicator of ability, and a / the main predictor of success in any field?

For that matter, what IS "intelligence"?

And, a slight tangent I guess, but can the human psyche be reduced to mathematical equations and values, and understood like that?

randylonghorn

So ..

... what do the good people of the Psychology forum say?


Are IQ tests a valid measurement of "intelligence?

Are they a predictor then of general ability and of success?

For that matter, what IS "intelligence"?

And (albeit at a slight tangent) can the human psyche be reduced to a set of mathematical equations and values, and understood that way?



Sorry if duplicate, seem to have lost a post somewhere when I moved this!

Naikon

IQ tests are bull****

looksee

IQ tests prove that you are good at doing IQ tests.

I have always been able to get a better score in an IQ test than my husband, even though he has a much better academic background than I have, achieving two primary degrees and a masters by the time he was about 23. I finished education at 17 with a minimal qualification and a year of shorthand and typing. I have always found it impossible to pass exams, though I know I am not unintelligent. Eventually I did get a third level qualification in a creative art subject.

While he has considerable academic ability, I have creative ability, good lateral thinking, and while completely non-mathematical, I can see patterns and have good spatial awareness. I can read plans and visualise the three dimensional object represented. I think this 'flexibility' (for want of a better word) of thinking means I can solve problems that approached from an academic point of view seem much more difficult.

I do not know if this proves anything - well of course it doesn't prove a great deal, being only one example, but I am a believer in the theory of multiple intelligences, and wonder how long it will take for it to be applied to education.

psycjay

randylonghorn wrote: »

So ..

... what do the good people of the Psychology forum say?


Are IQ tests a valid measurement of "intelligence?

Are they a predictor then of general ability and of success?

For that matter, what IS "intelligence"?

And (albeit at a slight tangent) can the human psyche be reduced to a set of mathematical equations and values, and understood that way?

Lets start with the third question, what IS intelligence? This is always going to be difficult because intelligence is a concept, and not a real property of the universe such as mass etc. All one has to do is do a search for "the definition of intelligence" and you will see lots off differences. In psychology, intelligence is broadly seen as the ability to master ones environment. In the context of doctors for example, intelligence would be seen as the ability of the doctor to acquire and apply medical knowledge in the best way.

The next factor is whether people have a global, or general intelligence (often called "g"), or simply a cluster of individual abilities. As far as I can remember there is evidence on both sides.

IQ tests assume the former, that there is a "g" and that the combination of individual abilities give rise to the measurement of "g". In this way by measuring a sample of abilities IQ tests postulate that this gives an indication of general intelligence. Support for this comes from comparing different IQ tests to each other, which use different individual measures. It is found that scores often compliment each other. However this could simply be the way that the tests are designed, in other words they are designed to give the same overall score as other "standard" tests!

IQ tests do have good predictive validity in academic performance, and to a lesser extent career success. However you have to be cautious when looking at the data as the results may simply be due to outliers, such as those with very high or low IQ. Also there are other factors which can be more important such as personality.

As for the last question (which is a major tangent ) there are a few schools of thought on this.

a: The human mind can be reduced to environment-biology and eventually to mathematics
b: The human mind can be reduced but due to quantum effects can never be reduced to pure mathematics
c: the mundane parts of the brain can but consciousness is special and magical and can never be reduced.

There are of course other views but these are what scientists and philosophers generally argue.

But back to the doctor argument which got us here. The argument was that higher level maths equates to higher intelligence which equates to better doctors. Well in my view this is flawed because mathematical ability and what doctors do are totally different. Using intelligence, or IQ as a bridge between the two is pointless.

I personally think that if they really want to test to see who will make a better doctor they should design tests which reflect the abilities of an actual doctor. For example a pre-med course where you are given both practical and academic tests. Then the top students get to go on further etc. This could be the same for any other competitive discipline (such as clinical psychology..)

cranks

David Wechsler, developer of the very widely used Wechsler intelligence scales for both adult and children defined intelligence as the 'aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, think rationally, and to deal effectively with the environment'. That was back in the 40s.

I like this definition because it is given in the context of accepting that there are many factors that are brought to bear on an individual's capacity to be purposeful, rational, and effective in the environment that are unlikely to be captured in a given 'intelligence' test. However, there are fundamental, neurologically based, cognitive processes at work.

Intelligence tests are what they are and certainly engage fundamental cognitive processes such as inductive reasoning, visualisation, abstraction, speed of processing etc. These things are important for getting through the day, never mind how adept you might be at solving matrix reasoning tasks. Constructs such crystallised and fluid intelligence (what you know and your capacity to use it/think on your feet/make inferences and so on) are useful and do lend themselves to a more intuitive grasp of a definition of intelligence, in my view.

I find the concept of 'g' useful and tend to think of it as the 'grease' that eases the process of absorbing, assimilating, making connections, and churning out when required. (god, that's a crude, quasi-industrial analogy). There's definitely a fluidity to thinking and reasoning that's apparent in high IQ individuals who, by my crude definition, appear to be cognitively well- greased!

My tuppence-worth.

As for the question as to whether the human psych can be 'reduced to a set of mathematical equations and values' - I've no doubt that one day we'll have a complete set of algorithms that will explain it all, but all that's beyond my ken.