Is IQ fake news? (1 Viewer)

[Jon]

Thought it would be an interesting topic. What does the team think?

 

[Isaac]

OK I'll bite. What do you mean by IQ.

 

[Jon]

This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

 

[The_Doc_Man]

To some degree, the IQ tests are valid as indicators of a person's ability to handle new problems, new situations, obscure activities. However, I have seen complaints that many of the IQ tests are biased, either culturally or ethnically or even with respect to gender. The tests depend heavily on the ability of the test subject to read and understand the questions and problems. To the degree that such difficulty is linguistic, the application of the test becomes flawed.

Here is my analogy. If I shoot a shotgun at a large, distant sheet of graph paper and from that, determine coordinates on an X-Y plane, I can then apply linear regression techniques to determine a straight-line best fit for a line represented by the scatter pattern. I can do this - but the line I get from doing it has no meaning. The error is in the assumption that this mathematical treatment applies to the particular experiment. The more correct approach would be a radial frequency determination to see how quickly the shot pattern spreads.

If the IQ test you want to give me implicitly includes the assumption that I can understand it, and if that assumption is wrong for some reason, then it is going to give crap results. And therein lies the difficulty in IQ testing. What it is meant to test can be quite real - but can the test actually find that which it seeks?

 

[Steve R.]

IQ is not "fake" news it is "politically incorrect" news. Over the years, standardized tests used for employment and college admissions (such as the SAT, ACT) have fallen into disrepute over claims that certain groups of people don't do as well and other subjective factors that some claim don't allow the person taking the test to score "properly". Even the teaching of science in the high schools has fallen victim to the mentality that objective standards of measuring results cannot be used to measure results. The interpretation of results is increasingly "subjective" .

Now that I have the above out of the way. A while back, this thread was posted: Is genius born or made? The relationship of that thread to this thread, is that standardized tests (while helpful) in a mundane way; won't really identify those people who take-off because of some deep insight that they have may have over what others perceive. I always liked the observation that genius and insanity are almost indistinguishable. That may also have implications on how well/poorly a genius/insane person does on an IQ test.

I don't have a problem with standardized tests. They are better than nothing. But as with any "device", there will be outliers because no system is perfect. With that in mind, we shouldn't condemn the use of something like an IQ because simply because it is not perfect.

 

[Isaac]

Honestly, on the subject of IQ tests, the thought hadn't crossed my mind since I was in my low 20's (until now).
The main reason it crossed my mind in my 20's was because I worked for an awful guy who bragged about his IQ and that he was a member of "MENSA". I laughed long and out loud at that, because at the time, I hadn't heard of MENSA, all I knew was that MENSA meant STUPID in spanish. (or something a bit less strong). I never told him why his share made my day.

I pretty much ignore the concept of intelligence and IQ. It means nothing to me. Everything in this world and life that means anything to me is 95% related to knowledge/learning, or belief/attitude, and 5% related to this thing they call 'intelligence', which nobody has ever been able to define.

In this life there are only two things. Being well, and being sick.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

In a world of dichotomies, @Isaac, you can make a few more comparatives.

There is also acting smart or acting stupid. Even smart people can do stupid things. (That's why we have the Darwin Awards...)

 

[Jon]

That may also have implications on how well/poorly a genius/insane person does on an IQ test.

Because a genius has a better capability to see things that others can't, does us calling the genius insane really mean that we cannot comprehend what the genius can see? We think what they are saying is nuts, but it is only because they have insight that we can never achieve with our puny minds.

It reminds me of Plato's Allegory of the cave, where the shadows are the reality for those in the cave, but they are not the real world that caused those shadows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

 

[Jon]

The tests depend heavily on the ability of the test subject to read and understand the questions and problems.

@The_Doc_Man The way IQ tests are created is by having a huge pool of questions. Then, they take people from different backgrounds and test them on the questions. If they find a poor background influences the expected outcome of the questions, those questions then get eliminated from the pool, since they are shown to be skewed by background. IQ is supposed to measure raw capability, and if a persons background influenced the result, that question is clearly not suitable. They do the same for things like culture, education levels and so on.

To summise, the questions that skewed resuilts based on education, culture, wealth etc are not used in the final tests.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Because a genius has a better capability to see things that others can't, does us calling the genius insane really mean that we cannot comprehend what the genius can see?

This will sound like a diversion - but consider "Weird Al" Yankovic and his parodies of popular music. Or the late Robin Williams and some of his free-association humor. Those guys clearly fall into the "comic genius" category even though they are hard to understand sometimes.

 

[Jon]

The "hard to understand" I get. Sometimes you could say something that seems off-the-wall, but it is related in some way to the previous topic discussed. The genius might think the link is obvious, but most others do not see that "obvious" link.

Then again, there is supposed to be some correlation of madness with genius. But just saying a correlation leand people into believing that all geniuses are mad! I mean look at Einstein's hairdo!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I have NO CLAIM on being a genius, but sometimes I find that my free-association thought patterns come up with off-the-wall responses. And when I mention them, people look at me like I've lost my mind. I don't think I'm senile - at least not quite yet - but sometimes I must admit to the "spaghetti" method of thinking... throw it at the wall to see if it sticks.

 

[Jon]

I tend to go off on lots of tangents myself. Lots of sparks of creativity going on. I've always wanted to be an inventor, kinda. I am learning programming again (JavaScript) so I can at least invent things in the digital world.

The side-effect of all this is poor concentration!

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Dr Jordan B Peterson mentioned IQ tests.

He said the US army has been using the IQ test to identify suitable recruits since the 1930s.

He also said that the army rejects any candidate with an IQ of less than 83.

Think about that, the Army wants foot soldiers stupid enough to walk towards the enemy and get shot at, you'd think they would want people with a low IQ!

But no the low IQ ones are rejected. In other words, they cause more problems and they are worth.

And think about this too, I believe I've got the figure right, in that one in ten people have a low IQ. That means for every 10 people you know there's a good possibility that one of them is an actual danger to you in your workplace/business!

Here's a YouTube video clip where Jordan Peterson explains it:-

 

[Jon]

Yes, I've seem him talk about the topic. He goes on to say it represents a real problem in society, since what do you do with people who have a low IQ? If they are unable to contribute meaningfully to the workplace, they have to be supported. I cannot remember the details but he covered them.