The supposed legitimacy of IQ testing

Post Reply New Topic

Is there a legitimate scientific basis for present IQ testing? If so, what is it? I have had suspicions for a few years that modern IQ testing was largely pseudoscience, but given how seriously some people here seem to take it I'd be curious to see evidence substantiating an opposing viewpoint.

I don't understand the question. Are you asking if there is validity to taking the test or validity in the results?
What has been shown on this forum time and again is that IQs change over time. My alleged IQ going into HS was 87. So for all intents and purposes I was mildly ret*d. A couple months ago the results were radically different.
Anyone giving the test that is worth their degree is looking for how you solve problems, how you percieve and manipulate information and how you quickly you arrrive at certain results. Anyone can memorize and regurgitate information- it doesn't take a rocket scientist to do that.
I'd say there is certainly some validity in taking the test. But the results are negligible.

Validity in the results, though I'm not sure what point there is in taking the test seriously if the results are invalid.

They can be invalid say if a person is severly autistic. The autisitc isn't going to respond to the person giving the test, thefore, the test wouldn't be accurate and the score probably be significantly lower than the person's real IQ. But for someone who can communicate well, I don't think there is really a problem with a standard IQ test.

I still contest this only somewhat weaker statement. Can you substantiate this claim?

I don't think it's that important to even need an IQ test to be honest. I don't even know what that stands for... But if society must have one, I think they need one to accomodate the standards everyone. There's handicapped parking. Why isn't there handicapped IQ tests?
Not everyone has the same skills as the rest of the world. And just because they require a more organized test, doesn't mean they are dumber.

I get an individualized test in my classroom. I am an advanced student, but I have brain damage. My tests are just in a different format but it is the same test.
The handicapped parking spot is no different than any other spot. It is just in a different place.


I hope I answered your question...

Why aren't you asking a doctor about this?

I think IQ tests are good for testing specific areas of intelligence. Like an employer testing in areas that are relevant to the job opening. But to say that one test can determine a person's entire intelligence capacity, probably isn't accurate. There are just too many areas, and variations, of the brain/intelligence to take into consideration, in order to create a accurate test. I think the only way to get an accurate measure of intelligence, would be to create custom tests engineered specifically for each individual, and this isn't practical, unless you are involved in something of great importance, like NASA, CIA, etc.... So, if you are interested in taking a totally accurate IQ test, be prepared, it would most likely be very expensive and time consuming, plus, I have no idea where you would go to have this done. I'm not even sure if they exist.

Us "pee-ons" must live with the general versions, which I agree, aren't very accurate. So, I guess we must live with the varied results, and just take them for worth they are worth.

I may do this, but that doesn't preclude me from also asking you guys.

They can indicate the presence of neuro-psych conditions (eg via jagged profiles). The most detailed source of information about them is in academic textbooks and papers. I came across a couple while researching AS and psych conditions. If you like, I could outline a few general points I have read (after re-checking the sources) as well as issues such as applicability and validity. More specific questions before doing so would be helpful.

Please do

Is the IQ test a significant measure of success of people with "gifted" scores relative to those of "average intelligence"?

intelligence is the ability to solve problems.

it is not the ability to interpret.

it is not the ability to recreate.

intelligence may not be unmasked in a person until they find themselves faced with a situation that they care greatly about.

i think there is intellectual "quality", and intellectual "drive".

one is "capacity", and the other is "energy".

some people talk very rapidly about ordinary things, and they have much drive, and are seen to be very intelligent.

that is due to the tempo of their verbiage and regeneration of fresh ordinary things to say in their minds.

other people will not say a word and they will relaxedly craft an idea in their mind's eye of the truth of the matter.

they seem slower and duller than the "motor mouths" but their eventual conclusion (if understood by others) is far more engaging and thought provoking.

There is a very good case against IQ as THE measure of intelligence in the book Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman. He proposes that IQ is a measure of only one kind of intelligence, and that it does not predict success or happiness.

You might also read something by Howard Gardner, a psychologist at the Harvard School of Education (came up with the idea of "multiple intelligences"). You can read about him on Wikipedia. Here is a quote of his from the book:

"The single most important contribution education can make to a child’s development is to help him toward a field where his talents best suit him, where he will be satisfied and competent. We’ve completely lost sight of that. Instead we subject everyone to an education where, if you succeed, you will be best suited to be a college professor. And we evaluate everyone along the way according to whether they meet that narrow standard of success. We should spend less time ranking children and more time helping them to identify their natural competencies and gifts, and cultivate those. There are hundreds and hundreds of ways to succeed, and many, many different abilities that will help you get there."

Not according to the book I just mentioned, Emotional Intelligence. It showed that people with high IQs were just as likely as people with low IQs to be unhappy, poor, etc. The most accurate predictor of success and happiness was "emotional intelligence." In other words, people of average intelligence with high emotional intelligence were more likely to be happy and successful in life than people with high IQs and low emotional intelligence.

Of course, this opens up a whole other discussion for defining "success."

yeah I don't believe in IQ tests either- I've had 3 done (not my choice, I had to) and each one showed a different result

If EIQ is really so important then I'm in trouble, because I consistently get very low scores in the EIQ tests.