• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Is IQ a valid measure of intelligence ?

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

boomerang

boomerang

Paranormal Adept
My wife is a recently retired public school teacher, having made a long and successful career of shaping young minds. We have had, over the years, a mildly contentious disagreement over the meaning and validity of written tests that measure intellectual aptitude--i.e., IQ tests.

So what's your take on the human animal and tests designed to measure the power and ability of its mind? Are numerical values derived from IQ tests meaningful in the larger world? Do they have predictive significance? And the real stickler: Assuming IQ is meaningful--to what extent is mental horsepower inherited and to what extent is it the product of the early learning environment? Is there a danger that numerical labeling of a person's "smarts" at an early age may become a kind of self-limiting prophecy?

Or in the words of Homer Simpson: "Why do things that happen to stupid people keep happening to me ? " :oops:
 
Last edited:
boomerang said:
...a mildly contentious disagreement over the meaning and validity of written tests that measure intellectual aptitude--i.e., IQ tests.
Click to expand...

Man that's a lot of questions. But I enjoy spouting off my opinions, and it's an interesting subject. :)

Are tests meaningful in the larger world? Yes.
Do they have predictive significance? Yes.
to what extent is mental horsepower inherited. A large extent, like any other human trait.
To what extent is it the product of the early learning environment? A large extent. It's fairly easy to reduce a kid's IQ by hitting them.
Is there a danger that numerical labeling of a person's "smarts" at an early age may become a kind of self-limiting prophecy? Yes.

A big problem with I.Q. is that "Intelligence" does not correlate in a linear fashion with "Success in Life".

In that regard I.Q. follows a Bell Curve. People in the middle of the curve tend to be the most economically and socially successful. The farther you move towards the ends of the curve, the less successful, and usually less happy, the people become.

My experience tracks this. I used to work with mentally retarded people. An I.Q. of 60 is not so bad. An I.Q. of 50 makes life very unpleasant. Small things like personal hygiene, sex, employment, and friendships become almost impossible.

The same is true on the other side of the curve. All my friends with high I.Q.'s had great difficulties. An I.Q. of 160 is not so bad. An I.Q. of 200 makes life very unpleasant. Small things like employment and friendships become very difficult.

One of my best friends and old drinking buddies is a weirdo psychiatrist who has an I.Q. of 190. He is a total azzhole, but he really likes me (because I make him laugh, and can fix things). He told me "Imagine how unpleasant life would be if everyone you met on the street, and every person you worked with had an I.Q. of 65. That's what life is like for me".
 
Our class was given IQ tests when we're in high school. The guy who scored highest 's occupation in adult life? Riding on the back of a garbage truck. Make of that as you will.
 
When you ask if IQ tests are valid, what do you mean by valid?

My sense is that you can test for specific attributes of intelligence -- like math, spacial reasoning, social reasoning, patten matching, etc... these are all parts of intelligence but not necessarily generalized intelligence.

We can test for some of the parts, but I don't know what you mean by valid. I can be great at social reasoning but suck at being rational, logical, or any of the rest and be successful.

And that's what Bush did, I think.
 
boomerang said:
And the real stickler: Assuming IQ is meaningful--to what extent is mental horsepower inherited and to what extent is it the product of the early learning environment?
Click to expand...

Excellent point.

Equally meaningful is the extent to which the types of intelligence tested for are the types of intelligence valued by the legislatures and departments of education that shape the curriculum in states and nations? Thus heavy weight put on mathematical/computational skills in those tests tend to define intelligence as mathematical and computational.

Is there a danger that numerical labeling of a person's "smarts" at an early age may become a kind of self-limiting prophecy?
Click to expand...

Yes. And in the other cases a form of false (because narrowly based) validation of one's supposed superiority to others, leading to numberless kinds of personal dysfunction in later life.
 
Constance said:
Excellent point.

Equally meaningful is the extent to which the types of intelligence tested for are the types of intelligence valued by the legislatures and departments of education that shape the curriculum in states and nations? Thus heavy weight put on mathematical/computational skills in those tests tend to define intelligence as mathematical and computational.



Yes. And in the other cases a form of false (because narrowly based) validation of one's supposed superiority to others, leading to numberless kinds of personal dysfunction in later life.
Click to expand...
Agreed, good point.

One of the key attributes of "intelligence" 100 years ago was the ability to memorize large bits of information quickly. This is something the kids of today look upon as a pretty stupid thing to do.
 
I tend to see pen and paper aptitude tests as measures of a given individual's ability to "handle" various categories of abstract concepts. With the stipulation that performance on any given day may or may not represent that person's best performance.

Any means by which to quantify the totality of a person's abilities by discrete testing will always fall short. But, I sometimes get a little miffed at those who simply shrug off aptitude scores as utterly meaningless. Stipulating that we speak always in terms of statistics when dealing with such issues, such scores are apparently the best single predictor of a person's likelihood of success in endeavors requiring the use of complex reasoning. And yep--We have all known those individuals who are "so smart they are stupid".

The Shrub measured at 125? That's frightening.

There's a story about physicist Richard Feynman, arguably one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century. Somewhere during his tenure in the public school system, Feynman scored something like 124 on a test for intelligence. This would be impressive were it not for the fact that the average IQ for Nobels in physics is upwards of 150. After receiving a Nobel Prize for work in quantum mechanics he quipped, in typical Feynman fashion something like "...and I did it with an IQ of only 124 !" Assuming the story is true, I suspect Feynman was simply bored with the test in high school and had his mind on more complex things.

Someone on a different forum, while discussing this same topic, offered two very salient points on the subject. This fellow was a Phd from Harvard. His observations: Be always careful to make a distinction between raw intelligence and that thing we call wisdom. And--Gifted individuals need no numerical credentials to validate their abilities. Talent has a way of becoming quickly evident in dealing with the real world.
 
boomerang said:
I tend to see pen and paper aptitude tests as measures of a given individual's ability to "handle" various categories of abstract concepts. With the stipulation that performance on any given day may or may not represent that person's best performance.

Any means by which to quantify the totality of a person's abilities by discrete testing will always fall short. But, I sometimes get a little miffed at those who simply shrug off aptitude scores as utterly meaningless. Stipulating that we speak always in terms of statistics when dealing with such issues, such scores are apparently the best single predictor of a person's likelihood of success in endeavors requiring the use of complex reasoning. And yep--We have all known those individuals who are "so smart they are stupid".

The Shrub measured at 125? That's frightening.

There's a story about physicist Richard Feynman, arguably one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century. Somewhere during his tenure in the public school system, Feynman scored something like 124 on a test for intelligence. This would be impressive were it not for the fact that the average IQ for Nobels in physics is upwards of 150. After receiving a Nobel Prize for work in quantum mechanics he quipped, in typical Feynman fashion something like "...and I did it with an IQ of only 124 !" Assuming the story is true, I suspect Feynman was simply bored with the test in high school and had his mind on more complex things.

Someone on a different forum, while discussing this same topic, offered two very salient points on the subject. This fellow was a Phd from Harvard. His observations: Be always careful to make a distinction between raw intelligence and that thing we call wisdom. And--Gifted individuals need no numerical credentials to validate their abilities. Talent has a way of becoming quickly evident in dealing with the real world.
Click to expand...

Feynman 125: A Polymath Physicist On Richard Feynman's "Low" IQ And Finding Another Einstein | Psychology Today

See also Stephen j Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" and Robert j Sternberg's (what's with the "j"?) "Triarchic Theory of Intelligence" - Sternberg also wrote about creativity and wisdom.
 
Shouldn't we be able to make some pretty shrewd guesses about IQs around the forum? We have plenty of material to work with. It would be interesting to see how close people could come to guessing IQ just based on postings and whether some people aren't particularly good at guessing?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
manxman said:
I will do that one later, im off out the rest of the day, gotta get this weekends auction stock sorted, and shipped.
Click to expand...

The nice thing about that one is there is no time limit ... they do encourage to have a go at one sitting.
 
boomerang said:
My wife is a recently retired public school teacher, having made a long and successful career of shaping young minds. We have had, over the years, a mildly contentious disagreement over the meaning and validity of written tests that measure intellectual aptitude--i.e., IQ tests.

So what's your take on the human animal and tests designed to measure the power and ability of its mind? Are numerical values derived from IQ tests meaningful in the larger world? Do they have predictive significance? And the real stickler: Assuming IQ is meaningful--to what extent is mental horsepower inherited and to what extent is it the product of the early learning environment? Is there a danger that numerical labeling of a person's "smarts" at an early age may become a kind of self-limiting prophecy?

Or in the words of Homer Simpson: "Why do things that happen to stupid people keep happening to me ? " :oops:
Click to expand...

What's the mildly contentious disagreement? You give some indication in your last post ... seems your wife would be in a position to make some interesting observations.

You've heard of the research where IQs were randomly assigned to school kids? I need to look that up and see if it's true and the details.
 
Back
Top