Intelligence Testing

[AC]

I've been having lengthy arguments about this with a friend of mine.

I'm convinced that intelligence tests are not reliable and valid enough to indicate what they are designed to.

They do however, somewhat work for the people they are deisgned for, IMO.

I try and argue that 'intelligence' is way too broad to be able to be pointpointed down to a number.

Anybody have any thoughts on the subject?

[Weiser Wonder]

I think it provides a hint of someones intelligence but really can't tell the whole story. There are people that do well in school and college etc but have no common sense and vice versa.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

US Army first developed IQ testing. When they tried it out they found that women consistantly tested higher than men. Their conclution was the test must be flawed, and changed the questions so that men would test higher (which would be accurate :P)

The fact that cultral backgrounds, and racial differences consistantly yeild different results it's safe to say that intelligence tests are nothing more than fun and games.

I'm sure there is lots of statistical information to back them up, but there's lots to discredit as well.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Environmental variables and bias make IQ testing a very unprecise science. They have their pluses and they have their minuses. Depending on the audience they can be a good tool.

[calf]

From what I've read, IQ tests test how good you are at taking that test.

As has been said above, there are too many other variables like culture, language, etc that can skew the 'intelligence' measure one way or another.

It's a good tool for some purposes (like problem solving, analytical thinking, etc), but not for others (creativity, communication, common sense, etc).

But yea, the word intelligence is just too broad, and a single measure doesn't really tell the whole story of one's intelligence

[evman150]

Originally posted by calf@Dec 5 2004, 05:19 PM
It's a good tool for some purposes (like problem solving, analytical thinking, etc), but not for others (creativity, communication, common sense, etc).

I would argue that things like creativity and communication aren't a form of intelligence.

[Cain]

Originally posted by evman150+Dec 6 2004, 03:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evman150 @ Dec 6 2004, 03:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-calf@Dec 5 2004, 05:19 PM
It's a good tool for some purposes (like problem solving, analytical thinking, etc), but not for others (creativity, communication, common sense, etc).

I would argue that things like creativity and communication aren't a form of intelligence.

[/b][/quote]
I would.

Argue that they are a form of intelligence, that is.

[calf]

Originally posted by evman150+Dec 5 2004, 08:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evman150 @ Dec 5 2004, 08:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-calf@Dec 5 2004, 05:19 PM
It's a good tool for some purposes (like problem solving, analytical thinking, etc), but not for others (creativity, communication, common sense, etc).

I would argue that things like creativity and communication aren't a form of intelligence.

[/b][/quote]
why's that? maybe not 'forms' of intelligence, but they are certainly good proxies that can go into a measure of one's 'intelligence'.

[evman150]

I think being a good communicator or being creative are good life skills, but then again sewing is a good life skill...

Life skill, not intelligence.

IMO of course.

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't think that IQ tests measure intelligence as much as they test perception, and logic.

In college in my pych course we not only had to take the standardized IQ tests that we've all taken here, but we took the Chitlen (sp?) IQ test, which was a IQ test designed around black kids raised in Brooklyn and Harlem.

I aced the standard IQ test with an IQ of 141

I was marginally ######ed on the other one with an IQ of 67

IQ tests are only valid if they take environment into consideration. thats why negro's in the 50's were considered to have a sub standard level of intelligence.

[calf]

Originally posted by evman150@Dec 5 2004, 09:48 PM
I think being a good communicator or being creative are good life skills, but then again sewing is a good life skill...

Life skill, not intelligence.

IMO of course.

fair enough..I'll agree to disagree...again, they aren't intelligence, but one's ability to be creative and to communicate well is a part of their intelligence, IMO of course.

I'll throw this out to the crowd: what is intelligence (er, what is included in intelligence), to you? (It's a subjective term, so we might as well see what everyone thinks it is)

[Clarkey]

I think success has more to do with hardwork anyway. I know some people who were supposed to be complete morons in high school who are doing very well in University because they simply work hard. Unless you are operating at the top of a given field (rocket scientist) I don't think IQ comes into play that much anyway.

[Table 5]

Originally posted by evman150+Dec 5 2004, 10:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evman150 @ Dec 5 2004, 10:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-calf@Dec 5 2004, 05:19 PM
It's a good tool for some purposes (like problem solving, analytical thinking, etc), but not for others (creativity, communication, common sense, etc).

I would argue that things like creativity and communication aren't a form of intelligence.

[/b][/quote]
Personally, I think that is one of the most stupidest things I've ever heard, but I would love to hear your argument.

Look at most "sucessful" people in almost any field and you will find they have creativity in their blood. Whethers its business creativity and knowing how to change strategies at the right times, or more artistic creativity such as in a comedian, creativity undoubtedly shows intelligence IMO.

but like i said, id love to hear your arguement.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Table 5@Dec 6 2004, 01:18 PM
Personally, I think that is one of the most stupidest things I've ever heard, but I would love to hear your argument.

LOL, I was thinking the same thing but I wasn't creative enough to phrase it so well.

[octothorp]

Are you sure you mean mutually exclusive, fotze? If intelligence and creativity were mutually exclusive, it means nobody with any creativity would ever have any intelligence, and vice-versa.

Other than that, I agree with your point. I tend to stick to a fairly narrow version of intelligence: application of rules to facts. The difficulty is that any attempt to test this must also include measurements of perception, visualization, and knowledge (although IQ tests strive hard to take knowledge out of the equation). Creativity (which, in my mind, is really the formation of new rules through abstract thought), is not necessary for the measurement of intelligence.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by evman150@Dec 5 2004, 09:56 PM
I would argue that things like creativity and communication aren't a form of intelligence.

Well, go ahead and argue it then.