Women Now Have Higher IQ's

[Atheist-Lite]

pattern recognition, capacity for abstraction, logical thinking, etc..

It's still bullshit. I'm a genius.. if you believe in the validity of IQ tests.

Crumple doesn't believe in them kind of tests. You may dodge a few extra bullets but you'll find it more difficult dodging them all.

[amused]

pattern recognition, capacity for abstraction, logical thinking, etc..

It's still bullshit. I'm a genius.. if you believe in the validity of IQ tests.

Yes, yes, but can you tell me why this toilet won't flush?

[Jason]

Yes. Like IQ tests, it's chock full of shit!

[amused]

[JimC]

Sandwich orders are getting more complex

Just don't say "Make me a sandwich" to a witch...

[surreptitious57]

If I have a sex change, will that automatically make me more intelligent?

[JimC]

If I have a sex change, will that automatically make me more intelligent?

Suck it and see...

[Pappa]

pattern recognition, capacity for abstraction, logical thinking, etc..

It's still bullshit. I'm a genius.. if you believe in the validity of IQ tests.

I think they are valid, but only to a certain degree. Yes, doing lots of IQ tests does make you better at performing IQ tests, but only because you are flexing those particular mental muscles. Those IQ test skills are still at least partially valid in the real world.

[Atheist-Lite]

pattern recognition, capacity for abstraction, logical thinking, etc..

It's still bullshit. I'm a genius.. if you believe in the validity of IQ tests.

I think they are valid, but only to a certain degree. Yes, doing lots of IQ tests does make you better at performing IQ tests, but only because you are flexing those particular mental muscles. Those IQ test skills are still at least partially valid in the real world.

The best copiers are useful for the best originators. The measure is maybe something to do with the copier cloud around a originator?

[Tyrannical]

pattern recognition, capacity for abstraction, logical thinking, etc..

It's still bullshit. I'm a genius.. if you believe in the validity of IQ tests.

I think they are valid, but only to a certain degree. Yes, doing lots of IQ tests does make you better at performing IQ tests, but only because you are flexing those particular mental muscles. Those IQ test skills are still at least partially valid in the real world.

They switch up the types of IQ tests, because in order to accurately measure the g factor requires a certain amount of unfamiliarity with the test.
Repetition lowers the ability of the tests to measure "g". Sort of like how some people might have to take a class three or four time to pass, while some people excel the first time.

So the "Flynn Effect" is not a sign that people are becoming smarter, but that the questions are less able to measure "g".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_% ... metrics%29

[surreptitious57]

doing lots of IQ tests does make you better at performing IQ tests, but only because you are flexing those particular mental muscles.

IQ tests are multiple choice which involve flexing mental muscles as little as possible. One should only be allowed to reference an answer if one actually knows what it is. The laws of probability are zero indication of actual intelligence. Yes, it is possible to arrive at a correct answer by virtue of logical elimination, but it is equally possible to get it with no bleeding clue whatsoever. It would therefore be better to demonstrate how one arrives at an answer as opposed to just the answer itself. Even if you get it wrong, there will still be evidence of some cognitive process at work. Just guessing it out of thin air indicates nothing but luck. That should not be how one measures intelligence. By that criteria, a child could be a certifiable genius. And also, there are two types of intelligence: logical and emotional. Why should one be deemed more important than the other?

[Pappa]

doing lots of IQ tests does make you better at performing IQ tests, but only because you are flexing those particular mental muscles.

IQ tests are multiple choice which involve flexing mental muscles as little as possible. One should only be allowed to reference an answer if one actually knows what it is. The laws of probability are zero indication of actual intelligence. Yes, it is possible to arrive at a correct answer by virtue of logical elimination, but it is equally possible to get it with no bleeding clue whatsoever. It would therefore be better to demonstrate how one arrives at an answer as opposed to just the answer itself. Even if you get it wrong, there will still be evidence of some cognitive process at work. Just guessing it out of thin air indicates nothing but luck. That should not be how one measures intelligence. By that criteria, a child could be a certifiable genius. And also, there are two types of intelligence: logical and emotional. Why should one be deemed more important than the other?

If you take random guesses on an IQ test, you'll score a low IQ. There are enough questions to smooth out any chance of a high score by luck alone.

[PsychoSerenity]

IQ tests are multiple choice which involve flexing mental muscles as little as possible. One should only be allowed to reference an answer if one actually knows what it is. The laws of probability are zero indication of actual intelligence. Yes, it is possible to arrive at a correct answer by virtue of logical elimination, but it is equally possible to get it with no bleeding clue whatsoever. It would therefore be better to demonstrate how one arrives at an answer as opposed to just the answer itself. Even if you get it wrong, there will still be evidence of some cognitive process at work. Just guessing it out of thin air indicates nothing but luck. That should not be how one measures intelligence. By that criteria, a child could be a certifiable genius. And also, there are two types of intelligence: logical and emotional. Why should one be deemed more important than the other?

IQ tests don't have to be multiple choice. I think the majority are, simply because of convenience. But there are further reasons for using multiple choice, in that part of what's being tested for is the ability to work things out in your mind - usually, using aids like a pencil and paper to work out an answer, is against the rules.

You mention "the laws of probability" as an argument against multiple choice? The laws of probability are precisely what allows multiple choice tests to work. It's possible to precisely calculate the probability of getting any given score by chance, and tests can be adjusted for that. With enough questions, and enough choices in each, the probability of getting a high score by chance rapidly becomes one-over-astronomical, - times ten to the double digit negative exponent.

And there are not "two types of intelligence", either. That's just one of many different ways of modelling intelligence - and no matter how many multiple intelligences you model it as, there is still the "g factor" - general intelligence - a correlation showing that people who are good in one sort of intelligence test, tend also to be good in most others. It doesn't mean that logic is more important, it's just that logical tests are quick, easy and accurate.

But it's all fairly irrelevant anyway because, for the majority of the population, the amount of difference in general intelligence is fairly insignificant compared to other factors in their lives, like where they were born, what education they got etc.

[Tyrannical]

Some of you people probably wonder why potential IQ test questions really do measure intelligence, at least from an inherited genetic standpoint


Difficulty ordinal difficulty between groups should be the same
Groups of questions of varying difficulty are given to various groups of different intelligence averages and cultures. Though the percentage of correct answers for each difficulty category will differ, each group will agree through correctly answering questions that the difficulty level remains constant. Meaning each group answers more "easy" questions correctly than "hard". What is hard for one group and easy for another may be due to cultural bias and those questions are avoided.

Regression to the mean
By testing parents and children, you can test if question difficulty follows a regression to the mean distribution. Parents of above average intelligence on average have children with intelligence lower than the parents. With parents of below average intelligence children, on average their children are smarter than they are. IQ test questions should also follow this pattern.

[rasetsu]