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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Or in their username
Essendon Player Sponsor 2024 - Archie Perkins and Nic Martin
Essendon Player Sponsor 2023 - Archie Perkins and Nic Martin
Essendon Player Sponsor 2022 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Essendon Player Sponsor 2021 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Essendon Player Sponsor 2020 - Orazio Fantasia, Anthony McDonald Tipungwuti, Shaun McKernan
Mine is next to my posts.
Let's have a less snarky time on hereHey you're back old buddy, glad to see you here!
