Page 9 of 9 [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

03 May 2012, 5:58 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
bizboy1 wrote:
Generally, people who score low or would score low tend to try to invalidate the tests. This is usually done to make them feel better.
I got 140 in my first IQ test*.

I do not think that's low.

I was quite glad. Uh ohh, 3% percentile! In your face! Hahaha!

But then, I figured... Most of the test did not really test my inherent intelligence, but rather the great practice I have had playing video games with puzzle themes.

At least in my case, I am pretty sure that my high IQ test score is the result of practice. If you can practice for a test, then I don't see how it could be a test of inherent intelligence at all.

In fact, I wonder if there is any point in testing inherent intelligence or specific skills like spatial. History is full of phycisists that suddenly decide to become painters and after 2 years of hesitating get good at it. I think the human brain is remarkable at learning and that nothing. I mean nothing is fixed in it. Is "intelligence" really something that can be diagnosed based on your genotype?

Soon we will have to admit that if Einstein took an IQ test at 10, he would have gotten the score of an idiot.

The IQ test is nothing but a bunch of cliche puzzle questions that you can practice to do well. Is there even a correlation between IQ and success?

* I got better scores in later attempts.

Think about it, if IQ was really worth it as a metrics, wouldn't companies actually use it as a requirement? When you look for people to hire, you don't base your decisions on pop quizzes or political ideals, but on what will give you money. Somehow experience greatly outweights your IQ or your aptitude test or whatever in regards to the requirements expressed by companies when hiring. And saying "My IQ is 140" in your resume would make you sound like a useless lunatic.

And while we are at it, have you looked at Mensa? Has your average Mensa member done anything more notable than "being a Mensa member"? Yet they seem to be the only organization that actually cares about IQ.


That's a great point about practicing. Flynn wrote a book about The Flynn Effect (which he popularized) which is basically the observation that IQ scores have gone up on average quite a bit since the test came into wide use decades ago. He did not think that this meant that the human race suddenly got smarter. He thinks that it is the practice effect that you describe but on a grand scale. Basically, modern educational culture steers people towards thinking about the world in a very specific way, starting pretty much from infancy (in many families) and this raises scores through practice so much that the test has had to be re-normed multiple times.

In other words, IQ scores are as much nurture as they are nature.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

03 May 2012, 5:59 pm

Oodain wrote:
TM wrote:

@Hyperlexican how do you define intelligence? The definition famously used back in the late 1920s if I remember correctly was "Anything the IQ test measures"


nice piece of circular logic there.


Not my definition, I got it from a debate I read about that took place in the late 1920s or 30s between people about what the IQ test actually measured. Hence, why a lot of people are so predictable, they are saying the same s**t that was said in the 1920s. Is there any wonder I get bored?



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

03 May 2012, 6:05 pm

Image


_________________
.


TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

03 May 2012, 6:11 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
Image


I love how these threads always end up with the people putting themselves on the highest pedestals in whatever applicable category posting something akin to what you just did to make fun of a position which they had no hand in defeating and in fact didn't defeat.

Go get your rear-end kicked by WilliamDelaney again please.



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

03 May 2012, 7:46 pm

TM wrote:
Women also regularly score better in tests where the test material is directly related to the material they've studied, in the case of mathematics, women tend to memorize formulas better. As DW_a_Mom touched upon as well, the education system has changed from being centered around how males learn, to being centered around how females learn, so that is yet another factor.

If the changes in the educational system were enough to shift around IQ scores between the sexes, that cuts against your argument, not for it.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

03 May 2012, 7:46 pm

Funny how people keep on starting threads about long-debunked measures of personal superiority and then whine when others don't always treat the topic respectfully.



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

03 May 2012, 8:18 pm

ruveyn wrote:
In order to measure intelligence one first has to define it. What is intelligence? Good question. Do you have an answer. I don't

Quoted for truth, as well as summing up everything in this thread that matters.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

03 May 2012, 8:34 pm

TM wrote:
@Hyperlexican how do you define intelligence? The definition famously used back in the late 1920s if I remember correctly was "Anything the IQ test measures"

ruveyn wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
also on topic is the fact that IQ tests are not necessarily very good at objectively measuring intelligence.


In order to measure intelligence one first has to define it. What is intelligence? Good question. Do you have an answer. I don't

ruveyn


i don't have a definition as it is too complex for me to personally define. i don't know all of the factors that should be included. i know of a few that are definitely missed by IQ tests though. i believe intelligence is broader than the IQ tests can measure.

TM, i find it amusing that you were severely criticising psychology in another thread, yet here you are... arguing support for an artificially fabricated psychometric. in this thread you even quoted psychological studies in spite of the fact you said that the only field you trust is economics.

Vexcalibur wrote:
But then, I grew up. And then, I figured... Most of the test did not really test my inherent intelligence, but rather the great practice I have had playing video games with puzzle themes.

Tetris FTW!! ! it helped me a great deal.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,081

03 May 2012, 11:57 pm

TM wrote:

Several of the sources I linked stated something akin to that, you can go look it up the links are a few pages back. You should also look into the requirements in mathematics and how they have changed in the last 30 years, because as far as I've noticed, the standards have slipped quite a significant amount in the US in those 30 years.

Women also regularly score better in tests where the test material is directly related to the material they've studied, in the case of mathematics, women tend to memorize formulas better. As DW_a_Mom touched upon as well, the education system has changed from being centered around how males learn, to being centered around how females learn, so that is yet another factor.

Also, as I've said, in this case it doesn't matter if differences are cultural, or societal, it just matters that they are.


I don't disagree with any specific findings of IQ measurement in the research you provided, but it is dependent on the demographic measured; it is an average of test scores and numbers, simple math; but there is too much evidence that argues against gender differences in general intelligence, even per IQ testing, to make conclusions that the fact that males score higher than females in some of these demographics in intelligence testing, provides evidence of which gender is smarter. It is dependent on the demographic measured, and what is actually being measured.

Interestingly, the study on height you provided that suggested that taller people score higher on standard measures of IQ than shorter people, may not have measured countries where IQ is measured at the highest levels on average.

The individuals in countries reported with the highest average IQ, fall close to a half foot shorter, per nationwide averages on height, than in other developed countries among those averaged with the tallest heights.

So, if that study on height and intelligence has inherent validity, culture provides close to a 10 point boost in IQ, over some countries where the tallest individuals in average height are measured, per example of Norway with an average nationwide height of 5' 11 1/2"M/5' 6 1/2"F with a nationwide IQ average of 98 vs. Hong Kong with an average nationwide height of 5' 7 1/2"M/5' 2 1/2"F with a nationwide IQ average of 107.

Even if the average IQ score for 5 foot 2 1/2" height women from Hong Kong were to score 4 points lower than average males in that country at an IQ of 105, women still score an average of 5 points higher than average IQ scoring males in Norway scoring at a potential 4 point higher spread than females in Norway.

Test score results and averages are what they are, so per IQ tests and a 4 point gender spread given for males and females the average 5 foot 2 1/2" women from Hong Kong scores an average IQ of 105 vs. an average IQ of 100 for males who are close to 6 feet tall, on average in Norway.

Does this mean that on average shorter women in Hong Kong are smarter than taller men in Norway? If one considers a five point spread in IQ as providing an accurate measure of whom is smarter, along with average measures of height, it is the much shorter women, on average, in Hong Kong over the much taller men, on average, in Norway.

If there are any inherent differences as to which gender is overall smarter, per measures of average IQ scores, or even height, environment easily overcomes them, per statistics on average IQ scores and average height, as compared between countries; male vs female, given a 4 point spread of IQ measured within each country among the genders.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#Average_height_around_the_world
http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm

Just as evidence of how this a moving target, per demographic:

The latest Dutch and Belgium studies show no significant differences in general intelligence among the genders, attributable to different scores on subsets of intelligence testing, as well as specific differences measured in cognitive abilities.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000851

Quote:
Abstract
Using multi-group covariance and means structure analysis (MG-CMSA), this study investigated whether sex differences were present on the Dutch WAIS-III, and if so, whether these sex differences were attributable to differences in general intelligence (g). The sample consisted of 294 females and 228 males between 18 and 46 years old. Both first and second order common factor models were fitted, the latter including g as second order factor. The results indicated that on the level of the subtests, females outperform males on Digit–Symbol Substitution, and males outperform females on Information and Arithmetic. In addition, the subtests Information proved to be biased in favor of males. With respect to the first order common factors, no sex differences were found with respect to the factor Verbal Comprehension (once Information was effectively removed from the model). Yet, males outperformed females on the factors Working Memory and Perceptual Organization, and females outperformed males on Perceptual Speed. These sex difference on the level of the first order common factors were however not attributable to sex differences in g. Summarizing, the present study showed that males and females do differ with respect to specific cognitive abilities, but that g cannot be viewed as the source of these differences


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000049

Quote:
Abstract
Sex differences on the Dutch WISC-R were examined in Dutch children (350 boys, 387 girls, age 11–13 years) and Belgian children (370 boys, 391 girls, age 9.5–13 years). Multi-group covariance and means structure analysis was used to establish whether the WISC-R was measurement invariant across sex, and whether sex differences on the level of the subtests were indicative of sex differences in general intelligence (g). In both samples, girls outperformed boys on the subtest Coding, while boys outperformed girls on the subtests Information and Arithmetic. The sex differences in the means of these three subtests could not be accounted for by the first-order factors Verbal, Performance, and Memory. Measurement invariance with respect to sex was however established for the remaining 9 subtest. Based on these subtests, no significant sex differences were observed in the means of the first-order factors, or the second-order g-factor. In conclusion, the cognitive differences between boys and girls concern subtest-specific abilities, and these sizeable differences are not attributable to differences in first-order factors, or the second-order factor g.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

04 May 2012, 10:17 am

TM wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Image


I love how these threads always end up with the people putting themselves on the highest pedestals in whatever applicable category posting something akin to what you just did to make fun of a position which they had no hand in defeating and in fact didn't defeat.

You know what your post is missing? An actual rebuttal to the claim that Mensa do nothing useful.

Could it be because they really did not do anything useful ever since founded?

If you are always so right, why do you always end up being the guy that puts a Herculean effort actually avoiding to actually handle the other side's arguments?

Quote:
Go get your rear-end kicked by WilliamDelaney again please.
Since you are a man and ergo you have high IQ. Please use your superior imagination to picture me putting "ha ha ha" 600 times.


_________________
.


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

04 May 2012, 10:31 am

WilliamWDelaney wrote:
Over the course of my time here at WP, I have amply demonstrated a fairly intimate level of familiarity with the subject matter that I discuss, and I have clearly demonstrated a willingness to carefully review hundreds of pages of material in order to arrive at an accurate conclusion. I usually understand subjects at a fairly extraordinary depth, and I am normally willing to delve into detail that most people would find to be frustrating or intimidating. Nobody who is actually familiar with my postings ought to have any doubt as to my familiarity with this subject.

Therefore, your assessment is ignorant...a crock of crap...nonsense...horse feathers...folderol. Essentially, I know what I am talking about, and you don't; therefore, I see nothing more to be gained from carrying on this discussion.


With respect, you have demonstrated nothing of the kind. What you have demonstrated is the willingness to extrapolate research demonstrating specific findings, and pretend that it supports more general conjectures, which is a fundamental error. Research stands for the propositions that it proves, not the conjectures that remain unproven.

I will certainly agree with you that androgens have a demonstrable impact on some facets of cognition dealing with spatial reasoning. However, that's not what you claimed. You said,

WilliamWDelaney wrote:
There is scientific evidence that gonadal steroids have a measurable effect on performance in tasks involving certain aspects of spatial reasoning and verbal memory, and there is evidence that they also impact divergent versus convergent thought processes.


and earlier:

WilliamWDelaney wrote:
In other words, it's a scientific fact that just BEING A GUY gives you a boost in certain areas.


You have presented only one study (not the multiple studies that you claim to have read), on the subject of androgens (not gonadal steroids, generally). You have not presented evidence that all gonadal steroids (or even all androgens, for that matter) have the impacts that you claim. Furthermore, your second statement that I quoted presents the implicit assumption that because males have higher levels of androgens that this automatically means that men receive a proportionately higher benefit from them. And it also presents the implicit assumption that other gonadal steroids do not confer similar cognitive benefits.

Now, it may well be that you actually have evidence to support these assumptions. But you have not presented it, so your assertions are--as yet--nothing more than mere conjecture.

Your posts have not demonstrated that you have read any farther into the text of the literature that you cite than the abstracts. You have demonstrated yourself to be nothing more than a dilettante. You might be more, but your posts have yet to demonstrate that.


_________________
--James


Last edited by visagrunt on 04 May 2012, 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

04 May 2012, 10:32 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
TM wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Image


I love how these threads always end up with the people putting themselves on the highest pedestals in whatever applicable category posting something akin to what you just did to make fun of a position which they had no hand in defeating and in fact didn't defeat.

You know what your post is missing? An actual rebuttal to the claim that Mensa do nothing useful.

Could it be because they really did not do anything useful ever since founded?

If you are always so right, why do you always end up being the guy that puts a Herculean effort actually avoiding the topic being discussed?


It's mostly because your and the people who share your point of view do not make it a herculean task by a Sisyphean one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mensans

http://www.mensafoundation.org/linkserv ... howMeta/0/

After all, why should I do the work of collecting sources and making arguments when you blatantly disregard anything which you disagree with. For instance, you made an idiotic assertion that Mensa has done nothing with no sources backing you up on it, I just now quoted you multiple sources showing that Mensa have indeed done things to better the world, yet I expect you to reply in your normal manner with a post that has no value.

You're one of those people who expect others to make sound arguments and come with sources, yet rarely if ever do so yourself.