I think IQ tests have some value, but only in terms of the specific things involved in the test (I like your basketball analogy re sample size and think it's relevant). We like to imply/extrapolate that the parameters involved in the testing process are indicative of a person's intelligence compared to everyone else on the bell curve, but to me it seems a bit limited/flawed. There's many different aspects of intelligence and I don't think IQ tests adequately reflect those.
That position is reasonable in some respects. The reality is, we do not yet have a perfect handle on what 'causes' people, in a physiological sense, to be more or less intelligent. Some research has suggested that brain density might be a good indicator, but it is likely to be more complicated than that. Further, even if it were just brain density, the fact is that it's just not very easy to get a highly accurate measure of it for us to be able to use brain density to predict anything. An intelligence test is really just the best measure that we currently have of intelligence. An intelligence test not the be all and end all of intelligence, to be sure, but it (assuming it is a good one) does seem to do a pretty decent job of measuring intelligence well enough for us to make sensible predictions with it.
Aside from the somewhat arbitrary nature of intelligence wouldn't a supposed intelligent person do well in any sort of test?
That is indeed correct. One of the most widely-accepted models of intelligence proposes that we have this 'general factor' of intelligence that does most of the heavy lifting. While you can measure more specific abilities with specific ability tests (e.g., verbal, spatial, mechanical, numerical, even knowledge tests), a person who does well on one of these tests will
probably do well on all of the others.
And if they didn't, they would go away, review, make adjustments and then come back and produce a higher score? Even a person of so called average intelligence, once they understood the means and the parameters of the testing process, could easily improve their score.
There is a fair bit of research on 'retesting effects', though I am most familiar with the research on tests used for employment testing. That research has shown that people do indeed improve their scores on their second assessment, however, the 'retest' effect seems to taper off beyond the second attempt at the test. Also, not all types of tests show the same size retesting effects. Some seem to be more vulnerable than others.
I have done that very thing when applying for jobs where part of the interviewing process involves a personality and IQ test - jumped on google prior, reviewed similar sorts of tests, then done well. Would I have done well without preparing? Perhaps, but it certainly helped.
Yes, this is a wise thing to do. An employer would want your test score to be as accurate as possible, and if you are worried (for example) that being unfamiliar with the testing app or feeling anxious during the test would have reduced your score, it would be in their interests for you to have taken the practice test. For anyone else in this situation, check out:
https://www.shldirect.com/en/practice-tests
https://www.savilleassessment.com/practice-tests/
https://www.trytalentq.com/
I also think for a true indication of a person's IQ - if there is such a thing - one would have to do the test multiple times over the course of several months(and the test parameters be different at every sitting - this would be quite difficult and time consuming, obviously, but they would need to be different to prevent 'studying up'), because the test does not take in to account a sitter's state of mind at the time. I think outside factors could easily have a big say on a person's performance in the test. Also, a less assured, confident person is more likely to under perform, especially under pressure, yet they may well be extremely 'smart'.
These views are fairly common but interestingly they aren't well supported by the data. Part of the process of developing a
good IQ test involves minimising these extraneous factors as much as possible. This can be through improving item wording, item types, making instructions clearer, and so on. In practice it takes years, and data from lots of people, to write a good IQ test, and a lot of attention is given to ensuring items function as intended. One of the criteria for judging the quality of a test is whether it gives very similar results when people sit the test multiple times. Psychologists call this "test-retest reliability" and it's essential (but not sufficient!) for a good IQ test. Any decent IQ test should return very similar results if given to the same person multiple times.
On top of that, the tests assume some kind of prior knowledge of the specific areas outlined and tested for in the test. What about someone who had never been to school or had left school early? Are we to presume that that person has a low IQ? I have met many people who are much less educated than me, but are much smarter(admittedly no great achievement).
Yes, most (probably all) tests do assume some basic knowledge. For example, you couldn't go visit the Sentinelese tribe and give the tribe people an IQ test and expect the test to work properly (in fact there is a cool test battery called the "Q Test" that is designed for testing people from, for example, remote tribes). But, in the main, the knowledge required to complete a decent IQ test should be picked up by most people through their day to day life. Every person who goes to any school encounters numbers, shapes, and words. The thing to keep in mind is that the tests psychologists design are intended to work well in many situations, but nobody expects them to work in all situations.
IMO IQ tests do indicate intelligence somewhat but mainly in terms of a person who isn't particularly switched on i.e. a thick cnt is going to flunk it no matter what but a reasonably smart person could easily do well if they understood the parameters and what is tested(obv given they have the necessary prior knowledge). Therefore, IQ is a bit of a false indicator, in my opinion.
Most decent IQ tests do a good job of producing a bell curve, which one wouldn't expect to happen given what you described here.
Anyway, not saying that you are asserting or refuting any of the things I have specified above. Just a couple of thoughts. Interesting to hear what kind of stock you personally put in IQ tests with respect to them claiming a definitive measure of intelligence?
No worries; I enjoy writing about this sort of thing. I do believe that (good!) IQ tests are very good measures of intelligence. Scores on those tests are associated with things you'd expect a good intelligence test to be associated with. But that's not to say that these tests are the only or most accurate way to measure intelligence that exists or could exist. But, relative to time, effort, and expense, they are very good. One thing to bear in mind is that intelligence is perhaps the most well-researched concept in Psychology; a great many people have invested their lives studying it. That is not to say that all questions have been answered about it, but Psychologists are pretty confident that it is a 'real' thing.