IQ test

Dard23 · 02-09-2015 04:55PM

Anyone remember the DATS test? I think that's what it's called. I did it in school and again during my apprenticeship. It's better then an IQ test as it measures specific areas where you are strong and weak. I for instance was average at Maths but good at English, Mechanical reasoning and Spacial reasoning from what I remember.

Maximus Alexander · 02-09-2015 07:40PM

Dard23 wrote: »

Anyone remember the DATS test? I think that's what it's called. I did it in school and again during my apprenticeship. It's better then an IQ test as it measures specific areas where you are strong and weak. I for instance was average at Maths but good at English, Mechanical reasoning and Spacial reasoning from what I remember.

I remember that all right, we did it in transition year. I got 99th percentile in 3 of the categories, but memory obviously wasn't one of them, because I don't remember which three. :pac:

Then the guidance counsellor had a meeting with each student and used their DAT scores to suggest college courses that might suit them. "Well... let's see... You could doing anything you put your mind to Max".

Cheers buddy, thanks for the guidance. :rolleyes: I don't work in the field that my degree is in.

Turtwig · 02-09-2015 07:43PM

These types of tests are good for checking for learning disabilities and the like. Anything interpreted beyond that though should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Sanity_Saviour · 02-09-2015 08:14PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I remember that all right, we did it in transition year. I got 99th percentile in 3 of the categories, but memory obviously wasn't one of them, because I don't remember which three. :pac:

Then the guidance counsellor had a meeting with each student and used their DAT scores to suggest college courses that might suit them. "Well... let's see... You could doing anything you put your mind to Max".

Cheers buddy, thanks for the guidance. :rolleyes: I don't work in the field that my degree is in.

.......................................................................................

Deleted User wrote: »

They are a good way of screening people.

Anyone who talks about their IQ test DATS results, or posts them on Facebook, should be avoided at all costs.

Maximus Alexander · 02-09-2015 08:18PM

You're doing a poor job of avoiding me so far. I wish you were better at it.

zeffabelli · 02-09-2015 09:03PM

mariaalice wrote: »

So I did an IQ test and did very well on it, I am bit sceptical of the results. I would consider my self intelligent but noting extraordinary.

Do you think IQ tests can really measure intelligence

No. They can measure a specific type of thinking. They look for one answer....

Creative connective thinking can create many answers, so can lateral thinking.

Badly Drunk Boy · 02-09-2015 10:02PM

hal9000 wrote: »

I am so smrt!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcGQpjCztgA

Any time I see that, I think of my favourite Slovenian band, Laibach, and their song 'Smrt Za Smrt' (Death For Death).

Laibach just played 2 gigs in North Korea 2 weeks ago, becoming one of the only western acts to do so. Their set included a medley of Sound Of Music songs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv-9digMM1w

02-09-2015 10:07PM

smiling at the "if you had all the time in the world bit "... that's why they are timed, I should think
I think they're alright at judging potential intelligence but it's up to you to translate that to real world results or achievements, and lack of one doesn't preclude the other

KomradeBishop · 03-09-2015 11:17AM

Generally intelligence tests - of most varieties from what I can see - don't seem to have a time limit.

osarusan · 03-09-2015 11:47AM

bluewolf wrote: »

smiling at the "if you had all the time in the world bit "... that's why they are timed, I should think

The timing adds an extra component though, which may force students to move on to another question before they've given as much thought to a question as they otherwise would, and some students would get more answers right if they had more time.

So a timed test isn't purely a test of intelligence (or language comprehension, or whatever the test is testing) but also (possibly unintentionally) of speed of thought process and exploration of possibility.

This time limit is something that is rarely necessary in situations outside the test itself - if you have a particularly puzzling problem at work, for example, you don't simply move on if you fail to solve it in 5 minutes, you stick with it until you have solved it or come to the conclusion that you will never solve it by yourself - so its value in testing is certainly open to criticism.

Of course, test-setters are aware of this and try to set times which limit the impact of the time-limit itself, but the impact of the time-limit (psychological impact also) cannot be completely negated.

meeeeh · 03-09-2015 11:48AM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Generally intelligence tests - of most varieties from what I can see - don't seem to have a time limit.

The ones we did in school at psychology were definitely timed. It would make no sense not to time it.

not yet · 03-09-2015 11:53AM

mariaalice wrote: »

So I did an IQ test and did very well on it, I am bit sceptical of the results. I would consider my self intelligent but noting extraordinary.

Do you think IQ tests can really measure intelligence

Yeah, but can you sh!t standing up, that's the true measure of intelligence.

not yet · 03-09-2015 11:56AM

mariaalice wrote: »

So I did an IQ test and did very well on it, I am bit sceptical of the results. I would consider my self intelligent but noting extraordinary.

Do you think IQ tests can really measure intelligence

Have you met Christ our saviour and his young fella Jesus..?

03-09-2015 12:08PM

osarusan wrote: »

The timing adds an extra component though, which may force students to move on to another question before they've given as much thought to a question as they otherwise would, and some students would get more answers right if they had more time.

So a timed test isn't purely a test of intelligence (or language comprehension, or whatever the test is testing) but also of speed of thought process and exploration of possibility.

This time limit is something that is rarely necessary in situations outside the test itself - if you have a particularly puzzling problem at work, for example, you don't simply move on if you fail to solve it in 5 minutes, you stick with it until you have solved it or come to the conclusion that you will never solve it by yourself - so its value in testing is certainly open to criticism.

That interesting from another point, if you are not timed but are marked for getting a high score in the shortest time, however you will also do well if you get the test fully correct, so best out come is fully correct in the shortest time but you can do almost as well just by getting everything correct, the out come of the test means you will get a job/career you really want.

What they are really looking for in that sort of test is what sort of person you are and how you approach situations what sort of attitude to speed verses accuracy do you have, what's you attitude to risk different question will have different weighing, its often not just about getting the questions correct.

03-09-2015 12:23PM

Thinking about this the thing about the most 'intelligent' people I know are the type that can absorb and sort huge amounts of technical and statistical information much quicker that the average person.

osarusan · 03-09-2015 12:32PM

mariaalice wrote: »

Thinking about this...

But imagine if you'd only been given 3 or 5 minutes to think about it before you had to move on to the next thing...you might not have reached that conclusion :pac:

Ave Sodalis · 03-09-2015 12:43PM

Mesrine65 wrote:

Annual membership fee â‚¬60...fÃºck off, I'm not that thick.

Mensa is proof that having a high IQ doesn't mean you're necessarily intelligent.

Seriously though, saying this as someone who has a high IQ, the tests are very limited in what they measure. If someone told me they had a high IQ, I wouldn't immediately think they must be smart. I would actually put more faith in someone with a high EQ, but at the end of the day, this is also just one test. Intelligence is quite subjective anyway, although society generally pretends otherwise. The Leaving Cert tends to be spouted as a big factor but I know more than one person who got over 550 points who are definitely unintelligent, and I know very smart people who are did poorly in their Leavung... as a wise man once said "if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing it's stupid".

meeeeh · 03-09-2015 12:57PM

osarusan wrote: »

But imagine if you'd only been given 3 or 5 minutes to think about it before you had to move on to the next thing...you might not have reached that conclusion :pac:

In fairness time management is a skill. I know a few very intelligent people and they can be very different in how they process things, in which areas they shine and also when. My iq in high school wasn't super high but it was well above average, I think it's on a level of a common moron atm because I deal with a lot less numerical or mathematical problems.

Also there are studies that show stress linked to poverty amongst other things will lower someone's IQ results. Better off people will reach better results, when you take away other factors like upbringing or whatever. It's interesting how our mind works but I Q definitely isn't a very good predictor how someone will do later in life.

OneOfThem · 03-09-2015 12:58PM

meeeeh wrote: »

The ones we did in school at psychology were definitely timed. It would make no sense not to time it.

Would timing not distort the results? Some people handle pressure better than others, which would effect performance?

osarusan · 03-09-2015 01:00PM

meeeeh wrote: »

In fairness time management is a skill.

Agreed, completely.

But my point is that a test which is designed to test something else can actually be testing time management unintentionally.

And the results of this test will be used to evaluate understanding of a particular subject, even though the results may actually demonstrate better time management rather than better understanding of the subject matter itself.

03-09-2015 01:01PM

sup_dude wrote: »

Seriously though, saying this as someone who has a high IQ...

http://icant.co.uk/talks/jsconfeu2011/img/patontheback.png

Ave Sodalis · 03-09-2015 01:06PM

^^^ and if I didn't say it, I would inevitably get the "oh you're just jealous" comments. You can't win. If you read my post you'll notice I said it's not a big deal and by no means a solid test for intelligence.

meeeeh · 03-09-2015 01:16PM

OneOfThem wrote: »

Would timing not distort the results? Some people handle pressure better than others, which would effect performance?

But dealing with pressure efficiently and solving things quickly it is part of equation. If you give unlimited time then you have to ask harder questions. Time is part of the equation.

03-09-2015 01:20PM

osarusan wrote: »

Agreed, completely.

But my point is that a test which is designed to test something else can actually be testing time management unintentionally.

And the results of this test will be used to evaluate understanding of a particular subject, even though the results may actually demonstrate better time management rather than better understanding of the subject matter itself.

But that's why ones that are looking at a lot of attributes have all sorts of way of framing the test to over come this its not just a case of getting question right in a set amount of time sometimes their is no obvious right or wrong answer. The test is often trying to discern someone who can tell the different between risk and danger and how quickly they can do for example.

The leaving cert is changing from 2017 to prevent doing well by just learning off by heart and re producing it on the day of the exam.

osarusan · 03-09-2015 01:29PM

mariaalice wrote: »

But that's why ones that are looking at a lot of attributes have all sorts of way of framing the test to over come this its not just a case of getting question right in a set amount of time sometimes their is no obvious right or wrong answer. The test is often trying to discern someone who can tell the different between risk and danger and how quickly they can do for example.

The leaving cert is changing from 2017 to prevent doing well by just learning off by heart and re producing it on the day of the exam.

Jaysus, how many times do I have to explain that I'm talking about when it happens unintentionally.

If the test-setters are aware of and overtly testing those things, then great.

If they are not aware of the impact, then not great.

As an example, there is a test of language proficiency called an IELTS test. It has a listening component (30 mins) and a reading component (60 mins). At the end, students are given a score which, on the surface, relates to their comprehension levels of aural and written English.

But, if those students were given a chance to listen again (just like, in a job, if something wasn't quite clear the first time, we would ask somebody to say it again, instead of just thinking 'well I didn't understand that at all, so I'll just forget it and move on to the next issue'), or to read for longer (just as at work, where we would read something at length if we didn't understand it the first time), their scores would have been higher.

Therefore, the IELTS test (which is one of the better ones out there), by adding a time-limit, adds an element of time-management to the test which doesn't necessarily replicate real life time-managment - so the skills it is (unwittingly) testing are not necessarily the most relevant skills.

03-09-2015 01:40PM

osarusan wrote: »

Jaysus, how many times do I have to explain that I'm talking about when it happens unintentionally.

If the test-setters are aware of and overtly testing those things, then great.

If they are not aware of the impact, then not great.

As an example, there is a test of language proficiency called an IELTS test. It has a listening component (30 mins) and a reading component (60 mins). At the end, students are given a score which, on the surface, relates to their comprehension levels of aural and written English.

But, if those students were given a chance to listen again (just like, in a job, if something wasn't quite clear the first time, we would ask somebody to say it again, instead of just thinking 'well I didn't understand that at all, so I'll just forget it and move on to the next issue'), or to read for longer (just as at work, where we would read something at length if we didn't understand it the first time), their scores would have been higher.

Therefore, the IELTS test (which is one of the better ones out there), by adding a time-limit, adds an element of time-management to the test which doesn't necessarily replicate real life time-managment - so the skills it is (unwittingly) testing are not necessarily the most relevant skills.[/QUOTE

So you think graduate entry tests or tests for cetin jobs and careered are useless then?

What your opinion of ones like Hpat for medical entry.

Sanity_Saviour · 03-09-2015 01:54PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

You're doing a poor job of avoiding me so far. I wish you were better at it.

ok

osarusan · 03-09-2015 01:55PM

mariaalice wrote: »

So you think graduate entry tests or tests for cetin jobs and careered are useless then?

I don't know - does the test actually replicate the challenges of skills and knowledge they want to test?

If so, great.

If not, and they are unwittingly other things as well, then the test is certainly flawed.

mariaalice wrote: »

What your opinion of ones like Hpat for medical entry.

I don't know anything about it.

Mousewar · 03-09-2015 01:56PM

Speaking as a super genius and a level 8 Dungeon Master, I think IQ tests are a pretty decent measure of IQness but not YQness. Think about it.

OneOfThem · 03-09-2015 03:49PM

meeeeh wrote: »

But dealing with pressure efficiently and solving things quickly it is part of equation. If you give unlimited time then you have to ask harder questions. Time is part of the equation.

But the ability to handle pressure isn't related to IQ? At least in my anecdotal experience that doesn't seem to be the case. So the results won't accurately reflect IQ?

IQ test

Comments