Science/Environment IQ tests....who's done one?

[Snake_Baker]

The IQ/race issue has also seen the hordes of humanities fraudsters pour an ocean of dismissal all over it, as it doesn't sit well in the fluffy woo-woo universe.

There is excellent replicated data supporting IQ testing and beneficial traits in life.

 

[juss]

Patrick Bullet , psych background obviously. I think the main criticism is that there are so many branches or domains of what makes someone intelligent and while scientifacally it might be easy to define and measure, in the real world it doesnt always give us much meaning.

That being said I'd still like to take one out of curiosity.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Patrick Bullet , psych background obviously. I think the main criticism is that there are so many branches or domains of what makes someone intelligent and while scientifacally it might be easy to define and measure, in the real world it doesnt always give us much meaning.

That being said I'd still like to take one out of curiosity.

Having a high I.Q. is a better scenario than not having a high I.Q.

Everything else is bullshit.

 

[twotooto]

A bit of mis-information and a few misconceptions in this thread; hopefully I can clarify a few things.

An IQ score is just a standardised score. If you know what a 'z-score' is, then you'll have no difficulty understanding IQ. IQ is standardised to a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. In other words, if your IQ is 100, then you're bang on the average. If your IQ score is 115, then you're 1 standard deviation above the average. If your IQ score is 80 then you're 1.33 standard deviations below the average and so forth.

Because an IQ is just a standardised score, you can actually create an IQ score out of any test (or indeed any instrument) that gives you a score, and has a comparison group with a known mean and standard deviation. But IQ scores are most commonly used as a means to quantify intelligence.

Like most human characteristics, intelligence is normally (bell-curve) distributed. This means that we know a lot about its distribution in the population. For details, google "bell curves" but some basic facts are that 68% of us fall within one standard deviation either side of the mean, and 96% of us fall within two standard deviations of the mean. In practical terms, this means that most of us are close to the average, and the further away from the average you move, in either direction, the rarer that level of intelligence is in the population. A person on the 98th percentile of IQ would have an IQ of about 130, and any IQ greater than 135 would be 1 in a 100 or rarer as the number goes up.

If you're keen to see the exact percentile associated with a specific IQ, you can enter the following formula into Excel:
=NORM.DIST(x, 100, 15, TRUE)*100
Replace x with the IQ you want to test.

If you're keen to see the exact IQ, given a percentile then you can use the following formula in Excel:
=NORM.INV(x, 100, 15)
Replace x with a percentile (e.g., .95 for the 95th percentile).

Now, there are still two problems. The first relates to the fact that an "IQ score" can be derived, in principle, from any measure. E.g., if you know the average person's height and the standard deviation of height in the population, then you could actually calculate your 'height IQ' very easily. The implications of this is that any test that yields a score can purport to be an 'IQ test'. But in practice there are many different tests out there. Different tests might measure different characteristics, and indeed many tests don't actually measure anything useful at all. But all of these tests, provided they give a score, can purport to give you an "IQ score". If you're interested in learning about your actual intelligence, then you need to sit a genuine standardised psychometric test of general intelligence. My best advice is to speak with a professional Psychologist if you're interested.

The second problem relates to the fact that an IQ score is relative, not absolute. In other words, your IQ score tells you where you sit in relation to a large group of people. But, unless that chosen group of people is a sensible comparison group, your IQ score won't mean much.
E.g., I am 6 foot 2. This would give me a very high 'height IQ' if you were to compare me to a large group of professional jockeys. But it would give me a very low 'height IQ' if you were to compare me to a large group of professional basketballers.
The same principle applies to IQ testing. If you are an adult and compare your test score to the scores observed in a sample of 5th graders, you'll probably come off looking like a genius but if you compare your score to a bunch of Albert Einsteins, then you'll come off looking like a dumbass.
So, when sitting a test, it is vital that your score gets compared to scores observed in a group of people that are similar to you.

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.

Aside from the somewhat arbitrary nature of intelligence wouldn't a supposed intelligent person do well in any sort of test? 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.

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.

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'.

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).

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.

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?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Higher IQ predicts greater achievement. Read and learn:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/24f3/304736f158ab3cd9999e2343abf5f0b8d721.pdf

I can post reams of this stuff.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

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.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

The major reason regarding IQ testing and the queries behind the validity of them is that there tends to be a number of elements essentially which don't form an objective basis but really are subjective. I had to take one and the thing that stood out for me was the language/definitions of words section which came across as flawed and very questionable. For example someone simply might not know the meaning of a word like godwottery yet know the meaning of cantankerous or vice versa and so simply the questions ability to answer them comes down to luck in the same way as it does for a contestant on a quiz.

While testing around intelligence does largely provide positive outcomes in terms of the veracity of results, the conclusive confirmation that one test is an example of an accurate and confident measure such as the respected/recognised tests is false and doesn't demonstrate an individuals overall intelligence levels conclusively or definitively.

It could be that you were given a crappy IQ test. That said, I know that the Wonderlic Personnel Test has questions like the one you described and that is one of the oldest "IQ Tests" used for employment selection and it's fairly decent. A lot of attention goes into selecting items that truly discriminate people on their intelligence. While it might just seem like luck or coincidence, if it turns out that smarter people tend to know what godwottery means, then the question about godwottery is a good one!

One risk, though, for questions like that is that word usage and meanings can change over time and the test developers must be sure to keep up with the times. This is less of a risk for numerical tests where principles do not change much.

 

[Number37]

Every Bigfooty user should have their IQ measured and published just underneath their number of posts.

 

[twotooto]

Or in their username

 

[Snake_Baker]

Or in their username

You're being flattering, aren't you?

 

[skilts]

I did one of these thingies sometime late in the 1970s. I was applying for a job with BHP, and had to go through all sorts of hoops and a multitude of interviews, starting off with several at a personnel agency. I seemed to have gone through all of these processes with flying colours, so-much-so, that I was told at the final interview with BHP that the job was mine. as long as I performed satisfactorily in an I.Q. test.

A couple of days after I did this test, I received a call from the personnel agency. I was told I had been unsuccessful with my application, due to my performance in the I.Q. test. I have always been fairly certain I was dumb (most who've ever read anything of mine on here can attest to this), but I was shocked. The personnel type then explained that I had (allegedly) done too well in the test, and BHP felt that I would not have been intellectually exercised or extended enough in the position they had advertised, and would thus be more likely to move on to more testing employment elsewhere, thereby wasting all of their proposed training of me.

Now, this was either the greatest disappointment of my working life - I needed a job - or the greatest compliment I've ever been paid. Alternatively, it was most likely the gentlest letdown they were able to come up with. I tend to favour the last-mentioned explanation. FMD, I was prepared to be as dumb as dog shit to eat. On this site, I don't even have that scant compensation.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I did one of these thingies sometime late in the 1970s. I was applying for a job with BHP, and had to go through all sorts of hoops and a multitude of interviews, starting of with several at a personnel agency. I seemed to have gone through all of these processes with flying colours, so-much-so, that I was told at the final interview with BHP that the job was mine. as long as I performed satisfactorily in an I.Q. test.

A couple of days after I did this test, I received a call from the personnel agency. I was told I had been unsuccessful with my application, due to my performance in the I.Q. test. I have always been fairly certain I was dumb (most who've ever read anything of mine on here can attest to this), but I was shocked. The personnel type then explained that I had (allegedly) done too well in the test, and BHP felt that I would not have been intellectually exercised or extended enough in the position they had advertised, and would thus be more likely to move on to more testing employment elsewhere, thereby wasting all of their proposed training of me.

I was thinking as much after the second sentence of this paragraph.

Now, this was either the greatest disappointment of my working life - I needed a job - or the greatest compliment I've ever been paid. Alternatively, it was most likely the gentlest letdown they were able to come up with. I tend to favour the last-mentioned explanation. FMD, I was prepared to be as dumb as dog shit to eat. On this site, I don't even have that scant compensation.

Sorry skilts, but you're condemned to be intelligent.

 

[Mister_X]

I've scored as low as 138 and as high as 180 on IQ tests.

If I were being honest I'd put myself in the 145-50 range.

 

[Upgrayedd]

22 and I voted for Clive Palmer and plan to do so again.

 

[_Swoon]

This clearly scientifically accurate study conveniently available on a well-known media webpage says I rank in the 99.95th percentile! I've already applied to Mensa!

And clearly, the intellectual standards in compiling this test are second to none!

 

[Grin]

https://thingsboganslike.com/tag/iq/

 

[Snake_Baker]

https://thingsboganslike.com/tag/iq/

So you're basically saying it's hip to be stupid?

I'd tend to agree.

 

[Claude Balls]

Having a high I.Q. is a better scenario than not having a high I.Q.

Everything else is bullshit.

Up to a point I reckon. A really high IQ could render life a ceaseless parade of frustrating social interactions.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Up to a point I reckon. A really high IQ could render life a ceaseless parade of frustrating social interactions.

I would strongly agree with your premise based upon my few interactions with people who fit this category. In some ways, it's a curse.

 

[Soft Downhill Skier]

Every Bigfooty user should have their IQ measured and published just underneath their number of posts.

Mine is next to my posts.

 

[Number37]

Mine is next to my posts.

To get a true indication we should combine IQ with how many world wars they, or their grandfather, fought in.

 

[the_interloper]

Mine is next to my posts.

Hey you're back old buddy, glad to see you here!

 

[EasternTiger]

Intelligent slow learner.

 

[Soft Downhill Skier]

Hey you're back old buddy, glad to see you here!

Let's have a less snarky time on here

 

[the_interloper]

Let's have a less snarky time on here

Where were you? Was it self imposed?