-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
Are IQ tests a TRUE measure of "intelligence?"
- Thread starter Khadijah
- Start date
So what would it mean if you got a 168?
I dont understand the point of attributing so much to the number....Like if it makes you feel good about yourself to go around telling random people who dont know you and dont care, and you could be lying in the first place, then go head if thats how you get your kicks but i believe that the truly most intelligent people are much smarter than to even put much of a value at all on that IQ number because they are smart enough to realize how much more there is in the world that means a million times more
I dont understand the point of attributing so much to the number....Like if it makes you feel good about yourself to go around telling random people who dont know you and dont care, and you could be lying in the first place, then go head if thats how you get your kicks but i believe that the truly most intelligent people are much smarter than to even put much of a value at all on that IQ number because they are smart enough to realize how much more there is in the world that means a million times more
TruthSpeaker1
Bluelighter
How do you know he is lying? I also don't think he is trying to brag about his IQ.
I scored a 125 IQ, which is 25 points above average I think.
I see your IQ as a determinant in how fast you can process information. So like I said before, IQ scores would mean something when you were younger because then the school board can decide to place you in the appropiate class level for your IQ. After a certain amount of time though your IQ level diminishes in value and your crystallized intelligence (cumulative knowledge) holds more merit.
I scored a 125 IQ, which is 25 points above average I think.
I see your IQ as a determinant in how fast you can process information. So like I said before, IQ scores would mean something when you were younger because then the school board can decide to place you in the appropiate class level for your IQ. After a certain amount of time though your IQ level diminishes in value and your crystallized intelligence (cumulative knowledge) holds more merit.
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
>>
I see your IQ as a determinant in how fast you can process information.>>
This is one way of looking at it, although it rather clearly doesn't measure exclusively that.
>>After a certain amount of time though your IQ level diminishes in value and your crystallized intelligence (cumulative knowledge) holds more merit.>>
Well, fluid intelligence is ALWAYS important in the acquisition of knowledge. What holds merit is decided largely by how we choose to exploit our individual abilities.
ebola
I see your IQ as a determinant in how fast you can process information.>>
This is one way of looking at it, although it rather clearly doesn't measure exclusively that.
>>After a certain amount of time though your IQ level diminishes in value and your crystallized intelligence (cumulative knowledge) holds more merit.>>
Well, fluid intelligence is ALWAYS important in the acquisition of knowledge. What holds merit is decided largely by how we choose to exploit our individual abilities.
ebola
TruthSpeaker1 said:
No doubt, i didnt say he WAS lyin, just that anyone can say anything online so it really dont mean much, but maybe im just bein critical. i dont know if he was tryina brag, but he said nothing of value for the thread. not his opinion on the topic, not whether he thinks its valid or not, not any discussion on what any other poster brought up, nothing. just popped in to tell us his IQ and that he thinks hes a genius, and nothing else, which looks more like braggin than discussion to me. =P but who knows.
TruthSpeaker1
Bluelighter
I totally agree. As long as an effort is put in, results will definity come back positive. This is assuming that you are a normal functional human being.
There is also evidence that average IQ scores worldwide are rising. This is called the Flynn effect. So with that in mind, are we getting smarter or is the test being less valid?
Maybe, if you define fluid intelligence as the ease in which a person is able to learn. This definition is flawed however because then fluid intelligence would vary from person to person and from topic to topic. For example, I go to my European History class every single day and can honestly say that I have learned virtually nothing from that class. This lack of learning is not due to my deficiency in fluid intelligence, but rather as a difference in interest. Now, if you were to place me in any psychology class I will start to pay attention and learning psychology will seem a lot easier for me simply because I am more interested in it.
Also, there is evidence that as we age, our fluid intelligence may diminish but our crystallized intelligence remains relatively intact.
"There are some consistently observed changes in CNS function with "normal" aging... deterioration in "fluid" intelligence (i.e., the ability to dynamically evaluate, accommodate, and respond to novel environmental events) also occurs."
"However, some tests used to assess intelligence are influenced by motor speed, so slowed reaction time confounds the assessment. On non-timed tests, vocabulary, verbal information, and comprehension are well maintained. "Crystallized" intelligence (i.e., accumulated knowledge) is also relatively stable into the seventh decade of life"
http://www.cja-jca.org/cgi/content/full/50/suppl_1/R12
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
>>
Maybe, if you define fluid intelligence as the ease in which a person is able to learn. This definition is flawed however because then fluid intelligence would vary from person to person and from topic to topic.>>
I define fluid intelligence as aspects of intelligence that are NOT dependent on acquired knowledge. This encompasses aspects of both learning and creativity. And, yes, on this picture, fluid intelligence would be at least somewhat contextually dependent.
>>Now, if you were to place me in any psychology class I will start to pay attention and learning psychology will seem a lot easier for me simply because I am more interested in it.>>
I'd imagine. I thought that might've been why you chose "psi" as your avatar.
>>Also, there is evidence that as we age, our fluid intelligence may diminish but our crystallized intelligence remains relatively intact.>>
So much is true, but fluid intelligence continues to matter, even as we begin to lose it.
ebola
Maybe, if you define fluid intelligence as the ease in which a person is able to learn. This definition is flawed however because then fluid intelligence would vary from person to person and from topic to topic.>>
I define fluid intelligence as aspects of intelligence that are NOT dependent on acquired knowledge. This encompasses aspects of both learning and creativity. And, yes, on this picture, fluid intelligence would be at least somewhat contextually dependent.
>>Now, if you were to place me in any psychology class I will start to pay attention and learning psychology will seem a lot easier for me simply because I am more interested in it.>>
I'd imagine. I thought that might've been why you chose "psi" as your avatar.
>>Also, there is evidence that as we age, our fluid intelligence may diminish but our crystallized intelligence remains relatively intact.>>
So much is true, but fluid intelligence continues to matter, even as we begin to lose it.
ebola
TruthSpeaker1
Bluelighter
haha, I believe you were the first to spot that. Damnit, time for a new avatar.
Symmetrical Daze
Bluelighter
I learned in Educational psychology class that Einstein had an IQ of 85. The problems with IQ test are lack of ability to measure creativity and similar features one would think to be apart of intelligence.