IQ

[OrganisM]

Originally Posted by Reach

text

IQ scores are the measure of one's ability to take an IQ test. Trying to measure intelligence on a linear scale is ridiculous. It's sad that we try to quantify such a thing in such a simplistic way.

As for the study of the brain, I respect that science is young, but to be truthful, we know almost nothing about the brain and most of what we say is basically pretense. Why should an IQ test administered by a psychologist be any better? I've dealt with psychologists and psychiatrists who are the best in this city and have had decades of experience, and they almost killed me through their suggestions (and in the case of the psychiatrist, medications), so if they can't do anything for me than explain the obvious (you are experiencing depressive symptoms, and then you experience manic symptoms..) then I don't see how they can do the impossible, which is to turn the entire scope of the human brain into a numeric value.

There are many criticisms, and the first thing you should have done is googled it. I wouldn't post my statement if there weren't any solid reasoning behind it. First, check the obvious; wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_test

Then look at Asimov's essays, and the opinions of many within the field. Sadly, a lot of this takes common sense, and if you honestly believe that you can put the sum total of a human being's intelligence into a number, it would be a very long and miserably painful discussion. There are many links to and examples of criticism within the Wikipedia article, some of which I would have posted on my own, but I don't wish to be redundant.

[who_cares973]

I took an online IQ test and got 89 :<

[robertsona]

i actually legitimately believe mine is around 140

but that was long ago i took the test and i don't exactly remember.

[rzr]

Originally Posted by who_cares973

I took an online IQ test and got 89 :<

I am SO tempted to sig that, lol.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by OrganisM

IQ scores are the measure of one's ability to take an IQ test. Trying to measure intelligence on a linear scale is ridiculous. It's sad that we try to quantify such a thing in such a simplistic way.

As for the study of the brain, I respect that science is young, but to be truthful, we know almost nothing about the brain and most of what we say is basically pretense. Why should an IQ test administered by a psychologist be any better? I've dealt with psychologists and psychiatrists who are the best in this city and have had decades of experience, and they almost killed me through their suggestions (and in the case of the psychiatrist, medications), so if they can't do anything for me than explain the obvious (you are experiencing depressive symptoms, and then you experience manic symptoms..) then I don't see how they can do the impossible, which is to turn the entire scope of the human brain into a numeric value.

There are many criticisms, and the first thing you should have done is googled it. I wouldn't post my statement if there weren't any solid reasoning behind it. First, check the obvious; wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_test

Then look at Asimov's essays, and the opinions of many within the field. Sadly, a lot of this takes common sense, and if you honestly believe that you can put the sum total of a human being's intelligence into a number, it would be a very long and miserably painful discussion. There are many links to and examples of criticism within the Wikipedia article, some of which I would have posted on my own, but I don't wish to be redundant.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that IQ testing is perfect. However, the idea that it's garbage is ridiculous.

I study Psychology at university and have taken classes in psychometrics. I've already read the entry on wikipedia on this subject, but either way, you're relying on wikipedia to argue that 'IQ tests are garbage'? Please. Find some scholarly sources (not that you will). Modern IQ tests are very predictive of many things and serve an abundance of uses.

That and your rant about psychology and psychiatrists is...borderline ridiculous. We know a ridiculous amount about the brain. I'm going to assume from what you've written that you've never taken a neuroscience class. You're trying to argue we don't know anything about the brain by giving ...anecdotal evidence about...psychiatrists?

Please. I'll be the first to point out that they get paid to give you medicine, and many of their diagnoses are ridiculous (This however, does not in any way apply to every psychiatrist).


I've read opinions on this matter, in particular Asimov's already. He has no idea what he's talking about (Sorry, he really doesn't. As intelligent as he is, he fails to differentiate between intelligence and knowledge, and ...the bulk of his argument holds no water from a scientific perspective. He misunderstands the concept of g entirely.).


That's not to say there aren't valid criticisms of IQ tests. I can generate numerous criticisms. However, I would never claim they're garbage, because it's ridiculous.

[pntballa18]

Originally Posted by Reach

http://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf

126 on that one

[GuidoHunter]

I feel like I should either delete every post that wasn't written by OrganisM or Reach or rename this thread "Post a number that makes everyone else think you're smart! (Hint: start at 130 and just go up from there!)"

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[robertsona]

reach just argues because his IQ is like 170 8)

i kid i kid

but i'm with reach on this one, IQ tests are surely not garbage.

however, i do like the point organism makes, that they measure "how good you are at taking an IQ test", but i don't really think you can be good at taking an IQ test because there are lots of varied question and stuff

[fido123]

I took one when I was in grade 7 by a professional. She never gave me my IQ but I scored 98 percentile in logical thinking which is apparently super high, above average on everything else...but I'm borderline retarded at visual puzzles 8D.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by leonid

Above 100. =)

Online IQ tests are BS in my opinion. I took one of them(http://www.iqtest.dk/) one day and got 145 or something(don't remember exactly), and I know I ain't that smart.

So I just believe my IQ is somewhere above 100.

145 is the ceiling of this test. If you can answer every question on this test correctly, given the difficulty of some of the final questions, you are so much smarter than the average person you clearly have no idea.

I am legitimately curious as to why you feel you are not that smart. Do you mind PM'ing me the logic behind answering the final question so I know you're not lying?

owever, i do like the point organism makes, that they measure "how good you are at taking an IQ test", but i don't really think you can be good at taking an IQ test because there are lots of varied question and stuff

It's a really bad argument;what if how good you are at taking an IQ test is highly predictive of other things? This is basically the entire point of an IQ test. The material that is on it is irrelevant - it's what this material is measuring indirectly (the answer to that is g, or the general intelligence factor).

[Kekeb]

112 relative to: http://www.iqtest.dk/

If you want to make any conclusions on your intelligence, write a legitimate IQ test.

[OrganisM]

Originally Posted by Reach

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that IQ testing is perfect. However, the idea that it's garbage is ridiculous.

Alright, they're very debatable and hardly any authority on intelligence and in many senses just a number. Does that satisfy you?

Originally Posted by Reach

I study Psychology at university and have taken classes in psychometrics.

When many leaders in the field agree that it's debatable even at best, you are championing your studies?

Originally Posted by Reach

I've already read the entry on wikipedia on this subject, but either way, you're relying on wikipedia to argue that 'IQ tests are garbage'? Please. Find some scholarly sources (not that you will). Modern IQ tests are very predictive of many things and serve an abundance of uses.

Wikipedia quotes scholarly sources, and I didn't post additional sources because I thought Wiki's sources were sufficient in this case and I didn't want to be redundant.

Originally Posted by Reach

That and your rant about psychology and psychiatrists is...borderline ridiculous. We know a ridiculous amount about the brain. I'm going to assume from what you've written that you've never taken a neuroscience class. You're trying to argue we don't know anything about the brain by giving ...anecdotal evidence about...psychiatrists?

I'm saying that psychiatrists and psychologists, for all their supposed knowledge, play guessing games all the time. I'll admit my knowledge on neuroscience is limited but that doesn't invalidate what I was saying.

Originally Posted by Reach

Please. I'll be the first to point out that they get paid to give you medicine, and many of their diagnoses are ridiculous (This however, does not in any way apply to every psychiatrist).

..which is exactly what I was saying anyways, and I was saying that it kind of makes it silly to consider psychologists and psychiatrists authorities when they have trouble with basic diagnosis. It's like a mechanical genius who doesn't know how to put gas in the tank of a car.

Originally Posted by Reach

I've read opinions on this matter, in particular Asimov's already. He has no idea what he's talking about (Sorry, he really doesn't. As intelligent as he is, he fails to differentiate between intelligence and knowledge, and ...the bulk of his argument holds no water from a scientific perspective. He misunderstands the concept of g entirely.).

Sorry I didn't use a source you requested.

Originally Posted by Reach

That's not to say there aren't valid criticisms of IQ tests. I can generate numerous criticisms. However, I would never claim they're garbage, because it's ridiculous.

So, we've established that:

1. We know a lot about the human brain
2. Psychology is the study of the mind and its behavior
3. Psychology and the brain are closely related
4. Psychologists are the experts on this matter
5. Psychologists frequently misdiagnose common disorders
6. The fact that it happened to me renders it invalid (because if it's anecdotal it's not true)
7. The experts on in the field are having basic difficulties with applying the science
8. IQ tests are part of the general field
9. Psychologists administer them for a fee
10. IQ tests are administered by those who have trouble applying their knowledge.

and lastly, of course

11. IQ tests are great and psychology is the ultimate truth which cannot be argued.

Glad to know how we got there.

Originally Posted by Reach

It's a really bad argument;what if how good you are at taking an IQ test is highly predictive of other things? This is basically the entire point of an IQ test. The material that is on it is irrelevant - it's what this material is measuring indirectly (the answer to that is g, or the general intelligence factor).

So you're admitting that the results are based on a conjecture which is highly debatable by the highest opinions in the field.

Also, not sure if this article meets your standards, but I find it interesting nonetheless.

Another thing: the guy who invented the test says:

The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured.

[~HentaiXXX~]

tl'dr on the past two posts.

104 on the iqtest.dk Yeah, I'm just that amazing. >_____>

[warriormag17]

I've gotten various scores, in 7th grade it was somewhere around 160.

Lately however, i've gotten anywhere from 120-140.

126 on iqtest.dk

[Reach]

When many leaders in the field agree that it's debatable even at best, you are championing your studies?

I don't know any psychometricians that are going to argue an IQ test is garbage, which was the original point. We can argue all day about 'how valid' an IQ test is, but that doesn't change the fact validity on many tests (e.g. the WAIS) is quite high.

Also, citing so called 'experts' that are not psychometricians is iffy at best, given many say...psychologists never even take a class on psychometrics before getting their Ph.D. This is just the reality of the situation. Half the time they don't know much about what they're giving their opinions on.

Sorry I didn't use a source you requested.

My point was that someone's opinion means nothing. Science is not an opinion. More data than you clearly know about is not opinion. That's just the way it is. No offense - honestly, there are most definitely things you know much more than me about.

However, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I actually do, like Asimov did in his opinion piece...at least not without recognizing it's an opinion and has nothing to do with the facts.

1. We know a lot about the human brain
2. Psychology is the study of the mind and its behavior
3. Psychology and the brain are closely related
4. Psychologists are the experts on this matter
5. Psychologists frequently misdiagnose common disorders
6. The fact that it happened to me renders it invalid (because if it's anecdotal it's not true)
7. The experts on in the field are having basic difficulties with applying the science
8. IQ tests are part of the general field
9. Psychologists administer them for a fee
10. IQ tests are administered by those who have trouble applying their knowledge.

1. True 2. Ok 3. Ok (I suppose more specifically, psychology is the study of the manifestation of the brain). 4. Ok

5. I think frequently is an exaggeration. However, as an aside a psychiatrist and a psychologist are not the same thing. That and there are different kinds of psychologists. Don't overgeneralize.

6. Wow, missing the point. The point was you were arguing against something very unrelated to what you were evidencing, that was also evidenced with anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is generally quite meaningless in psychometrics because ...it deals with population statistics, not individuals.

7. ...

Alright, from here out you're being ridiculous, again. You're comparing apples and oranges all over the place and twisting words to meet your preconceived notions.


I know I'm not going to change your opinion, so why don't we just leave it at that. You're entitled to your opinion, and I accept that.

Anyways, I've found that the eCMA test Reach suggested is relatively consistent under normal circumstances, though it doesn't seem to discriminate well within the upper ranges (150+).

No IQ tests (at least, non experimental ones) can differentiate at this range.


It should be easy to imagine why. How many people score above the range of 150 in a population? If you look up the probability on a chart, you'll see it's pretty low.

The problem is, there's no way to get a random sample of the population that includes enough of these individuals. It's just impossible.

As such, it is generally recognized that above 140 on most IQ tests (e.g. the WAIS), IQ tests are not terribly reliable or capable of measuring anything useful. There are some exceptions to this, but why get into that ;p

[Psychotik]

I never took a real IQ test but I beleive it would be somewhere around 280-290.
Edit: I got 115

[OrganisM]

Originally Posted by Reach

I don't know any psychometricians that are going to argue an IQ test is garbage, which was the original point. We can argue all day about 'how valid' an IQ test is, but that doesn't change the fact validity on many tests (e.g. the WAIS) is quite high.

I suppose "garbage" was too strong a word, then. that's why I defined exactly what I meant.

Originally Posted by Reach

Also, citing so called 'experts' that are not psychometricians is iffy at best, given many say...psychologists never even take a class on psychometrics before getting their Ph.D. This is just the reality of the situation. Half the time they don't know much about what they're giving their opinions on.

That's a scary thought. I didn't think psychometrics to be so far removed from a psychologist's studies, given that they administer the test and help their patient (or whatever term applies) interpret the results.

Originally Posted by Reach

My point was that someone's opinion means nothing. Science is not an opinion. More data than you clearly know about is not opinion. That's just the way it is. No offense - honestly, there are most definitely things you know much more than me about.

I agree that data is data, but one of the most important things is our interpretation of that data. Science is entirely about gathering data and interpreting it, trying to use a process to sift out variables and gray areas and quantify things. The problem is that there is always going to be the question of what to do with that data, so I could hardly say that opinion means nothing. In theoretical sciences, which I consider to be a valid part of science, opinion means almost everything, given the little amount of data and how much they have to extrapolate from that.

Originally Posted by Reach

5. I think frequently is an exaggeration.

Not at all. I didn't say that it was a majority, but there have been a lot of misdiagnoses. I'm not saying the science is invalidated, but there have been more than enough mistakes which leads me to believe that hardly anything within the field is a given.

Originally Posted by Reach

However, as an aside a psychiatrist and a psychologist are not the same thing. That and there are different kinds of psychologists. Don't overgeneralize.

And that is why you'll notice I listed psychologists and psychiatrists separately. They are all within the same general field, though yes of course there are many specific types. They should all, however (at least by my thinking) have a general understanding of these basic parts of psychology.

Originally Posted by Reach

Anecdotal evidence is generally quite meaningless in psychometrics because ...it deals with population statistics, not individuals.

I'm not taking the fact that it happened to me as direct evidence that it happens often. I was simply stating that I am one example.

Originally Posted by Reach

Alright, from here out you're being ridiculous, again. You're comparing apples and oranges all over the place and twisting words to meet your preconceived notions.

I was being sarcastic with the list, but alright. I have the constant desire to learn and break through my preconceptions, so I tend to look at my strongest beliefs and challenge them the most, so don't mistake me for someone who thinks they know everything. You've explained a few things candidly, which I appreciate, and I'm taking them to heart and am going to research them.

EDIT: On another note, what I wouldn't give for an accurate diagnosis from these all-knowing experts... I've had trouble for years and nothing's been resolved. Trying to get to UCLA and get a full week-long diagnosis didn't work either, since they drag their feet like all hell.

[ieatyourlvllol]

Haha, oops...I deleted my post. I might as well repost it now that things have settled down a bit.

Repost

Reach and I had a modest discussion on the topic in the previous thread IQ Test Results..

C/p

Originally Posted by ieatyourlvllol

You prove a good point, Reach. In retrospect, I was a bit ambiguous when saying that "IQ pertains to only the abilities covered by the assessment material..." My intended meaning was that the relationships drawn from the results produced are direct in only the sense of the exact sectors and magnitudes of mental capacities touched upon by the test. The problem is that it's nearly impossible to determine that question 'q' covers 'x' amount of process 'a', 'y' amount of process 'b', and so on. Even if such a feat were accomplished, it would be yet more difficult to establish a system by which a universal value (such as 'g') could be obtained. Like you said, the objective measurement of the various functions of intelligence is composed by a network of correlations. My qualm is that until the network of correlations can be replaced by a [theoretically plausible] conjunction of causal interdependences, the concept, not of IQ itself, but of using it as a supposedly inarguable indicator of extrinsic elements (such as success), is complete nonsense. Perhaps in a decade or so the tests will have progressed such that the correlations are strong enough to arrive at reliable conclusions, but until then, my opinion is that IQ tests should be used primarily for fun and comparison.

Originally Posted by Reach

You bring up some good points.

The 'g loading' of tests can be measured through factor analysis. That is, the ability (or percentage) of the test that measures g directly rather than other factors. However, even in light of this, success (among other various elements of someones life) is not entirely g loaded (it is inevitably affected by many, many things). Thus, as an indicator of such things, an IQ test will *always* be arguable in the sense that it could misrepresent someones actual position. I prefer not to underestimate nor overestimate the power of g, but recognize it as a useful tool. An interesting paper on why g does matter (at least to some degree) can be read here: http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson...hygmatters.pdf


Rather than administer a plethora of various mental tasks like some IQ tests in order to try to measure g, others have simply tried to administer one type of item in progressive order of difficulty that has the highest possible g loading. Tests that do this, such as Ravens APM have been fairly successful measures of g, and also culture fair (though they have been controversial at the same time, probably because of the larger IQ gaps between racial groups and various world populations than even culture biased tests, despite it being a valid measure of success.)


It would be nice to have a test that could perfectly measure intelligence in every case, but even then it would not be a perfect predictor of any extrinsic variables. In order to do that the test would have to account for variables that have nothing to do with intelligence, though the test would certainly be highly accurate, since your innate intelligence is a factor in essentially every task you perform to some degree that would vary depending on the task complexity. I think people want to deny this fact innately, as they want an explanation as to why people are better than they are that isn't innate. Both highly intelligent and highly unintelligent individuals will often reject g despite the evidence of its existence (regardless of whether or not we can measure it properly)...attributing their ability to factors that hardly matter rather than recognize the fact they just got lucky (or unlucky XD ). The heritability factor of g is about 0.85, which means just about all of the heritability of IQ test performance and other various mental tasks is attributable to g.

Looking back upon the past, I'm actually slightly more convinced than before that the results of (properly administered) IQ tests can help establish connections to aspects entailed by g. I still contend, though, that we can't rely completely on correlation lest we do injustice to any aberrants (although in this instance, it's more a matter of intent than of function, but w/e). In any case, it's reasonable to use the results for general purposes (which is what the system was designed for).

Anyways, I've found that the eCMA test Reach suggested is relatively consistent under normal circumstances, though it doesn't seem to discriminate well within the upper ranges (150+).

End repost

P.S. - I've also tried the TA3 on the same site, but it seems a bit partial to individuals who actively pursue the knowledge that constitutes a significant portion of the test.

[HoneyRoasted]

I got 118 on Reach's test, but I didn't get to the last 6.

[Syhto]

The only reason I don't like IQ tests is because everyone just makes up a big number to sound smart, and most are not accurate. Yes there are different spectrums of intelligence and etc, getting an average score does not make you stupid. The last time I took a thorough IQ test I was only 14 and the results came to show ~137.

Your IQ does not define you, it shows how efficiently and quickly you can perform mental processes, yadda yadda. It is a general intelligence quotient.

Being a genius will not always make you successful, or really all that smart for that matter. You may be socially or psychologically inept (mood/mental imbalances), lack basic aesthetics, unable to learn languages, poor moral judgement, the works.

Just saying, the number doesn't make you, rather it enables you.