People's criticism of IQ tests

Scanlas The 2nd · 26-09-2011 8:16am #1

I think IQ tests are a good measure of intelligence. I think people are overly critical of IQ tests because they are basically protecting their ego. I think for some people intelligence is important for how they see their self worth. Without objective tests of intelligence it's very easy to kid yourself that you are intelligent. This is one of the reasons imo why so many people dislike IQ tests. What do you think?

BBDBB · 26-09-2011 8:20am

duuuuuuuuuuur

Pherekydes · 26-09-2011 8:22am

I.Q. test results show how good you are at I.Q. tests.

Seachmall · 26-09-2011 8:23am

They're typically a good indicator for general intelligence but by their very nature ignore other important factors (emotional, creative).

Blazer · 26-09-2011 8:23am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I think IQ tests are a good measure of intelligence. I think people are overly critical of IQ tests because they are basically protecting their ego. I think for some people intelligence is important for how they see their self worth. Without objective tests of intelligence it's very easy to kid yourself that you are intelligent. This is one of the reasons imo why so many people dislike IQ tests. What do you think?

I'm betting you just done one and are happy with the result

The reason there's criticism of IQ tests is because your IQ can vary on any given day or any time during the day depending on how you feel.
To get a really good idea of someone's IQ you'd be tested over several days to get an average...a once off doesn't really count as Mensa will insist on several tests to prove your IQ is fairly consistent.

biko · 26-09-2011 8:24am

IQ test is good caus it can get u better jobb.

*yes I totally connected intelligence quotient and grammar there.

Badly Drunk Boy · 26-09-2011 8:29am

I'm fairly good at IQ tests. I'm terrible at emotion or creativity-related tests. (I have no emotions). Therefore, I'll nominate the OP for President.

Jesus Wept · 26-09-2011 8:29am

People who like IQ tests annoy me. They like doing IQ tests and telling you their score. They do a bunch and their score increases.

IQ tests can be learned, the more you do, the better you'll do... unless you're a complete ham. They aren't a great measure of intelligence but then again, what is?

FWIW, I hold this opinion in spite of scoring well in the only full IQ test I've taken (work induced).

Also, mensa is for utter saps.

King of Kings · 26-09-2011 8:33am

The-Rigger wrote: »

Also, mensa is for utter saps.

indeed.

Chuck Stone · 26-09-2011 8:38am

Some people will use IQ statistics to justify racism and elitism.

How Media Let The Bell Curve's Pseudo-Science Define the Agenda on Race

Nearly all the research that Murray and Herrnstein (writers of The Bell Curve) relied on for their central claims about race and IQ was funded by the Pioneer Fund, described by the London Sunday Telegraph (3/12/89) as a "neo-Nazi organization closely integrated with the far right in American politics." The fund's mission is to promote eugenics, a philosophy that maintains that "genetically unfit" individuals or races are a threat to society.

The Pioneer Fund was set up in 1937 by Wickliffe Draper, a millionaire who advocated sending blacks back to Africa. The foundation's charter set forth the group's missions as "racial betterment" and aid for people "deemed to be descended primarily from white persons who settled in the original 13 states prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States." (In 1985, after Pioneer Fund grant recipients began receiving political heat, the charter was slightly amended to play down the race angle--GQ, 11/94.)

foxyboxer · 26-09-2011 8:39am

What about the different types of intelligence?
You might have an IQ of 180 but be unable to change a light bulb!

stevenmu · 26-09-2011 8:39am

There's lots of problems with IQ tests. For one, they tend to include some questions which are actually knowledge based not intelligence based, such as what a particular word means. Someone who's extremely intelligent may get them wrong due to a lack of knowledge, but an idiot may get them right by just happpening to know that particular word.

Jesus Wept · 26-09-2011 8:41am

foxyboxer wrote: »

What about the different types of intelligence?
You might have an IQ of 180 but be unable to change a light bulb!

If you have an IQ of 180, you probably have someone who changes the lightbulbs for you.

foxyboxer · 26-09-2011 8:49am

The-Rigger wrote: »

If you have an IQ of 180, you probably have someone who changes the lightbulbs for you.

Of course, because you wouldn't know how :pac:

Lando Griffin · 26-09-2011 8:49am

The-Rigger wrote: »

If you have an IQ of 180, you probably have someone who changes the lightbulbs for you.

Or if you got the energy saver light bulbs with mimimium life of 6000 hours and changed them all the same time you would only need to contract the work once every .......

La Flama Blanca · 26-09-2011 8:57am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I think IQ tests are a good measure of intelligence. I think people are overly critical of IQ tests because they are basically protecting their ego. I think for some people intelligence is important for how they see their self worth. Without objective tests of intelligence it's very easy to kid yourself that you are intelligent. This is one of the reasons imo why so many people dislike IQ tests. What do you think?

No, IQ tests are a good measure of IQ. I do well in IQ tests, but it tangibly only helps me out with fixing problems - DIY conundrums, computer problems, logistical issues, etc.

It has nothing to do with intelligence. Intelligence is your application of knowledge.

Seachmall · 26-09-2011 9:05am

La Flama Blanca wrote: »

No, IQ tests are a good measure of IQ. I do well in IQ tests, but it tangibly only helps me out with fixing problems - DIY conundrums, computer problems, logistical issues, etc.

It has nothing to do with intelligence. Intelligence is your application of knowledge.

Intelligence has numerour factors including logical problem solving, abstract thinking, understanding complex issues and reasoning abilities which would explain why you're good a DIY, computer, and logistic problems if you do well in IQ tests.

I'm sure application of knowledge would be another factor, but one of many.

"Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability. [...] Clinical psychologists generally regard them as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes." - Wiki (with sources)

stupidusername · 26-09-2011 9:09am

I've never taken an IQ test,so I've no ego driven reason to hate them. I do think though that they really aren't a precise way to measure intelligence. Like with mentally disabled people,it's generally thought that they have a low IQ and while this is true for some I don't think it is necessarily true for the majority,however a standard IQ test will show them to have a low intelligence. Knowing how smart people with disabilities can be,I wouldn't consider it a good measure. Maybe it sounds like clutching at straws,but there are other forms of intelligence that an IQ test just doesn't test.

Dravokivich · 26-09-2011 9:34am

In my opinion, intellegence is down to how you apply the knowledge you gained along with the ability to gain further knowledge.

If it can't be applied, what's the use in it?

Chuck Stone · 26-09-2011 9:44am

Dravokivich wrote: »

If it can't be applied, what's the use in it?

Winning trivial pursuit?

Scanlas The 2nd · 26-09-2011 9:52am

IMO if you aren't good at the non verbal sections (where no prior knowledge is required) of an IQ test then you aren't intelligent. It tests the raw processing ability of your brain.

Logical Fallacy · 26-09-2011 9:54am

There are different types of IQ tests. Most folk who claim to have taken them can't seem to say which one they took...so their actual score has no relevance as a lower score on one test would be more impressive than a higher score on another.

Cianos · 26-09-2011 9:59am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

IMO if you aren't good at the non verbal sections (where no prior knowledge is required) of an IQ test then you aren't intelligent. It tests the raw processing ability of your brain.

Towards one application and purpose. Someone could just as easily say that if you were thrown in to a unique, awkward social situation and couldn't handle yourself well then you're not intelligent, because it challenges the raw processing ability of your brain (again towards one application and purpose).

Reganio 2 · 26-09-2011 10:08am

Go on then sort out an IQ Test here and I will lash it out of it :P

Seachmall · 26-09-2011 10:09am

Cianos wrote: »

Towards one application and purpose. Someone could just as easily say that if you were thrown in to a unique, awkward social situation and couldn't handle yourself well then you're not intelligent, because it challenges the raw processing ability of your brain (again towards one application and purpose).

But that's not the type of intelligence IQ tries to measure.

Just because it doesn't measure every aspect of intelligence doesn't mean it's irrelevant. It does seem to be a good estimate for one's ability to reason logically and solve problems among other things. These things are important in a wide array of fields, be they personal or professional.

And for the record I've never taken an IQ test so I'm not trying to defend a number I once got or anything like that.

Cianos · 26-09-2011 10:19am

Seachmall wrote: »

But that's not the type of intelligence IQ tries to measure.

Just because it doesn't measure every aspect of intelligence doesn't mean it's irrelevant. It does seem to be a good estimate for one's ability to reason logically and solve problems among other things. These things are important in a wide array of fields, be they personal or professional.

And for the record I've never taken an IQ test so I'm not trying to defend a number I once got or anything like that.

The poster I quoted said that if you can't perform on a particular section of the IQ test, then you're simply not intelligent.

I agree that they're a good measurement of the types of intelligence they seek to measure, but they also popularise those particular forms of intelligence as representing intelligence overall, as the poster I quoted seems to think.

This is a related talk on the negative repercussions of this view;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY

Helix · 26-09-2011 10:22am

wanna have a good idea of someone's intelligence? talk to them for 5 minutes

Fremen · 26-09-2011 10:22am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I think IQ tests are a good measure of intelligence. I think people are overly critical of IQ tests because they are basically protecting their ego. I think for some people intelligence is important for how they see their self worth. Without objective tests of intelligence it's very easy to kid yourself that you are intelligent. This is one of the reasons imo why so many people dislike IQ tests. What do you think?

I reckon people put too much stock in them. They tend to be good at measuring abstract reasoning capabilities, but intelligence is a pretty nebulous concept.

Here are a few forms of intellegence that I would regard as important, but that IQ tests miss.
-Wit. The ability to tell a joke.

-Social intellegence. The ability to be "easy to talk to", or even just to gauge what's appropriate in a given situation.

-Physical intellegence. The ability to read or predict someone's intended action in a game of football, for example.

-Creativity. The ability to think in ways that other people do not think.

I can square three-digit numbers in my head, but there are certain traits that I'd also consider "intelligence" that I'm hopeless at, or at least no better than average.

Scanlas The 2nd · 26-09-2011 10:28am

Fremen wrote: »

I reckon people put too much stock in them. They tend to be good at measuring abstract reasoning capabilities, but intelligence is a pretty nebulous concept.

Here are a few forms of intellegence that I would regard as important, but that IQ tests miss.
-Wit. The ability to tell a joke.

-Social intellegence. The ability to be "easy to talk to", or even just to gauge what's appropriate in a given situation.

-Physical intellegence. The ability to read or predict someone's intended action in a game of football, for example.

-Creativity. The ability to think in ways that other people do not think.

I can square three-digit numbers in my head, but there are certain traits that I'd also consider "intelligence" that I'm hopeless at, or at least no better than average.

I think people put too little stock in them. From my experience people are very critical of them. Of course there are other forms of intelligence not measured, but IQ tests are good at measuring several forms of intelligence.

opinion guy · 26-09-2011 10:30am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I think IQ tests are a good measure of intelligence. I think people are overly critical of IQ tests because they are basically protecting their ego. I think for some people intelligence is important for how they see their self worth. Without objective tests of intelligence it's very easy to kid yourself that you are intelligent. This is one of the reasons imo why so many people dislike IQ tests. What do you think?

You are wrong. Whatever score you got subtract 10.

Read the book Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman for a good understanding of why IQ tests are rubbish

opinion guy · 26-09-2011 10:33am

The-Rigger wrote: »

Also, mensa is for utter saps.

Mensa is a biggotted organisation. Only allowing membership if you are 'smart'. Its discrimination.

.....of course.....I can't imagine their dinner parties are all that exciting so the rest of us aren't missing much.......:rolleyes:

Scanlas The 2nd · 26-09-2011 10:33am

opinion guy wrote: »

You are wrong. Whatever score you got subtract 10.

Read the book Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman for a good understanding of why IQ tests are rubbish

I never took an IQ test. I think if a good Social Intelligence test became mainstream people would find something to criticise about it too.

starch4ser · 26-09-2011 10:39am

IQ tests are for idiots

Fremen · 26-09-2011 10:45am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I think people put too little stock in them. From my experience people are very critical of them. Of course there are other forms of intelligence not measured, but IQ tests are good at measuring several forms of intelligence.

At the end of the day, what's the point of the test? I can see that an IQ test might be useful for identifying young children on either end of the IQ spectrum that might need special attention. But the vast majority of people have IQs between 70 and 130, by definition.

Do I really gain anything from knowing what my number is? Is it actually meaningful to compare my number to your number? Outside of extreme circumstances, is IQ actually a good predictor of success?

Seachmall · 26-09-2011 10:49am

Fremen wrote: »

Do I really gain anything from knowing what my number is? Is it actually meaningful to compare my number to your number? Outside of extreme circumstances, is IQ actually a good predictor of success?

In certain careers it can be, but likewise creativity is important in many careers and they cross over in most jobs. Unfortunately we can only test one form of intelligence which results in people often relying too much on it. But that doesn't mean it's useless for an employer to use an IQ test.

Scanlas The 2nd · 26-09-2011 11:02am

Fremen wrote: »

At the end of the day, what's the point of the test? I can see that an IQ test might be useful for identifying young children on either end of the IQ spectrum that might need special attention. But the vast majority of people have IQs between 70 and 130, by definition.

Do I really gain anything from knowing what my number is? Is it actually meaningful to compare my number to your number? Outside of extreme circumstances, is IQ actually a good predictor of success?

Who said anything about success? IQ tests are good at measuring several forms of intelligence which is their purpose, not predicting success, also they can be useful for employers in for some positions. Do you have any issues with measuring people's height?

Fremen · 26-09-2011 11:09am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Who said anything about success? IQ tests are good at measuring several forms of intelligence which is their purpose, not predicting success, also they can be useful for employers in for some positions. Do you have any issues with measuring people's height?

Well, I was trying to establish what the point of measuring intellegence was in the first place. If the measurement doesn't predict something, you might as well be measuring Qi as IQ.

If at least some employers find them useful, doesn't that mean good results will correlate with success?

26-09-2011 11:11am

I think they can be a good indicator of potential, but no reflection on how well you use that potential.

fremen wrote:

I can see that an IQ test might be useful for identifying young children on either end of the IQ spectrum that might need special attention

Also a good point

Scanlas The 2nd · 26-09-2011 11:14am

Fremen wrote: »

Well, I was trying to establish what the point of measuring intellegence was in the first place. If the measurement doesn't predict something, you might as well be measuring Qi as IQ.

If at least some employers find them useful, doesn't that mean good results will correlate with success?

If a job requires complex abstract reasoning then an IQ test would be a very good way of filtering out people who wouldn't stand a chance.

opinion guy · 26-09-2011 11:19am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If a job requires complex abstract reasoning then an IQ test would be a very good way of filtering out people who wouldn't stand a chance.

No it wouldn't. Some people who might be very good an abstract reasoning might just be bad at taking tests. Taking tests is a skill in itself which is a point you have ignored thus far.

Fremen · 26-09-2011 11:20am

bluewolf wrote: »

I think they can be a good indicator of potential, but no reflection on how well you use that potential.

Yes, but there may be a danger there. If someone does miserably on an IQ test, does that indicate that they have no potential? If you combine that idea with the pygmalion effect, an IQ test could be actively harmful.

cournioni · 26-09-2011 11:22am

What is an IQ test?

Seachmall · 26-09-2011 11:24am

cournioni wrote: »

What is an IQ test?

A test to estimate your ability to reason, solve problems, understand complex ideas, think abstractly etc.

IQ

Scanlas The 2nd · 26-09-2011 11:28am

opinion guy wrote: »

No it wouldn't. Some people who might be very good an abstract reasoning might just be bad at taking tests. Taking tests is a skill in itself which is a point you have ignored thus far.

Well if you are bad at taking tests that implies bad character traits which I don't think employers would mind ruling out too.

26-09-2011 11:29am

Fremen wrote: »

Yes, but there may be a danger there. What about the contrapositive? If someone does miserably on an IQ test, does that indicate that they have no potential?

It indicates something's up and they should be tested further in other ways I suppose. If it's a child they may need extra support.

people with poor expectations internalize their negative label

Well don't tell them if they do badly in the test if they're a kid

cournioni · 26-09-2011 11:32am

Seachmall wrote: »

A test to estimate your ability to reason, solve problems, understand complex ideas, think abstractly etc.

IQ

opinion guy · 26-09-2011 11:45am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Well if you are bad at taking tests that implies bad character traits which I don't think employers would mind ruling out too.

What ??? 'Bad character traits' ????
Some people are criminals now because they are bad at taking tests ?

People get nervous dude.

Scanlas The 2nd · 26-09-2011 12:03pm

opinion guy wrote: »

What ??? 'Bad character traits' ????
Some people are criminals now because they are bad at taking tests ?

People get nervous dude.

If your company were on the line would you prefer someone whose performance is liable to suffer from nervousness or someone who gets things done despite nervousness?

opinion guy · 26-09-2011 12:15pm

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If your company were on the line would you prefer someone whose performance is liable to suffer from nervousness or someone who gets things done despite nervousness?

Getting nervous during a test bears zero relation to getting nervous in real life.

Scanlas The 2nd · 26-09-2011 12:31pm

opinion guy wrote: »

Getting nervous during a test bears zero relation to getting nervous in real life.

Whether thats true or not makes no difference to the employer, either way the employer gets their shortlist of candidates who have proved their abstract reasoning ability with their results. So IQ tests can be very useful.

opinion guy · 26-09-2011 1:02pm

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Whether thats true or not makes no difference to the employer, either way the employer gets their shortlist of candidates who have proved their abstract reasoning ability with their results. So IQ tests can be very useful.

Or the employer has the shortlist of the most autistic test takers.
IQ tests are pointless.

People's criticism of IQ tests

Comments