The Validity of Psychometric Analysis (i.e. IQ Testing) and its Principle Functions

15 posts

Flag Post

IQ testing is supposedly a means to determine the intellectual aptitude of a given individual by method of standardized evaluation. A test would be administered under strict conditions of supervision and the limits of the mind would be established by correlation to a definitive scale. For example, if someone achieved a score above 99% of the other contestants, as extracted from a random populace, then his indication of intelligence would be one considered to be at or above genius level.

Now, there has been a smorgasbord of parametric variables in the conceptual breakthroughs (development of tests and interpretations of scores) and marketing franchises (notably, campaigns against social prejudice and for social communication) of psychometric Darwinism, but the main issue that concerns the major strands of debate are those about the nature of the test not in itself, but in relation to the object of its outpouring attention and requited affection.

Do you believe that IQ tests are reliable means of extrapolating a person’s relative intelligence? Although IQ tests are scientifically objective, they are not, in the same vein, necessarily infallible or even, at times, sensible.

I am not according IQ as a future predictor of success, but merely projecting the theme of controversy enshrouding the nature of the subject matter.

IQ is a very moot topic and there is much ground to be covered, but little to no true gray zones. What we do know and what we have realized are the peripheries to comprehension. Nonetheless, I am interested in the character of this beast and aspire to tame it, as I hope the neighboring community is also.

 
Flag Post

I’m not sure I can effectively draw sources, but if my understanding is sound, “IQ Tests” are standardised (well the original intention was). The tests are standardised such that the average is always an IQ score of 100. Because of increasing levels of education, what may have once been a 100 in the past may only be a 90 now.

Personally, these tests suffer not just from educational differences, but also cultural differences. A person doing an IQ Test in their native language will do better than in a 2nd language. It is also the same reason why questions that ask about inches are likely to be better answered by countries that use Imperial Units rather than by people who use SI units. There’s also cultural differences in the types of knowledge valued, as well as the degree of education leading up to the IQ test.

I’m not really sure if this adds much to the topic or what you were hoping to go with the topic, but nonetheless.

 
Flag Post

IQ tests are not infallible. They can change depending on the day and how you take it. They have time and time again been criticised yet by many they’re still glorified as if they’re perfect. IQ tests are not perfect.

 
Flag Post

a lot of the typical questions in IQ tests relate to the ability to compare relations. “A is ot B as C is to” etc. where we use grammar and math as the basis of A and B and C.

but depending on the situation you live in, grammar and math may be more or less significant in your life. hunter-gatherers will suck at math and grammar tests.

i’ve also noticed that some IQ tests limit the amount of time you have, while others don’t, which has a major impact on how well i would score at them. some even include reading inside the time-limit, so someone that is dyslexic is going to suck at some tests, and less at others.

they mean very little, but we don’t have anything better for the purpose, and it can be a useful purpose. for instance the corrolations between IQ and suicide or age of first marriage or likelyhood of divorce is quite interesting. though i can’t find it right now.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

a lot of the typical questions in IQ tests relate to the ability to compare relations. “A is ot B as C is to” etc. where we use grammar and math as the basis of A and B and C.

but depending on the situation you live in, grammar and math may be more or less significant in your life. hunter-gatherers will suck at math and grammar tests.

IQ tests are standardized to reflect the relative intelligence of a sample populace, under certain guidelines of restriction. Combining that with the theory of multiple intelligences, IQ tests for hunters and gatherers would be vastly different in respect to IQ tests for more developed civilizations, such as the United States and urban metropolises. However, I would agree that most IQ tests are devised in a fashion for qualification based on comparison. As A is to B, B C and so on. Intelligence tests could rightly be christened comparison assessments, as one undergoes the test through means of such faculties.

i’ve also noticed that some IQ tests limit the amount of time you have, while others don’t, which has a major impact on how well i would score at them. some even include reading inside the time-limit, so someone that is dyslexic is going to suck at some tests, and less at others.

Reading isn’t simply about deciphering visuals; it is more about the collegial interpretation of literary symbolism. So, many forms of IQ tests would be fundamentally flawed if presented to people afflicted with dyslexia as people without the inhibition. However, the vehicle of psychometric analysis would be justly recalibrated given those circumstances. IQ tests are standardized to accurately reflect the intelligence of a populace, as defined by the nature of their characteristics – be they psychological or physical in constitution. In example, if an IQ test allowed qualification of intelligence by means of non-visual, yet literary apprehension, then the IQ test would be conditionally viable.

they mean very little, but we don’t have anything better for the purpose, and it can be a useful purpose. for instance the corrolations between IQ and suicide or age of first marriage or likelyhood of divorce is quite interesting. though i can’t find it right now.

Agreed

Originally posted by JaumeBG:

IQ tests are not infallible. They can change depending on the day and how you take it. They have time and time again been criticised yet by many they’re still glorified as if they’re perfect. IQ tests are not perfect.

Yes, the instrument is not perfect, but it is nonetheless an accurate model for determination of one’s general maxima on identified impositions. One can run several trials and receive several different results, but they should be tightly knitted and be used to establish a general range for performance

 
Flag Post
IQ tests are standardized to reflect the relative intelligence of a sample populace, under certain guidelines of restriction. Combining that with the theory of multiple intelligences, IQ tests for hunters and gatherers would be vastly different in respect to IQ tests for more developed civilizations, such as the United States and urban metropolises. However, I would agree that most IQ tests are devised in a fashion for qualification based on comparison. As A is to B, B C and so on. Intelligence tests could rightly be christened comparison assessments, as one undergoes the test through means of such faculties.

yeah that sounds nice, but no, they actually don’t. the average IQ using global standardization is 98 for the USA, 102 for the Netherlands, 107 for Japan, and 65 for most third world countries.

now, i don’t know how much faith you put in ethnic superiority or inferiority of some races, but i’d say it’s ballony. an IQ of 65 is barely enough for someone to whipe their ass. even gorillas can score over 70 (literally). so, no, they are made by and for a particular part of the global population, and don’t really apply to others.

So, many forms of IQ tests would be fundamentally flawed if presented to people afflicted with dyslexia as people without the inhibition

hagwash. everybody has some or other inhibition. so which do you count as part of IQ and which don’t you? what if someone has dyscalculia? or what if they are simply bad at math? what about concentration span? when is something a part of your IQ, and when is it something outside of it?

 
Flag Post

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

IQ tests are standardized to reflect the relative intelligence of a sample populace, under certain guidelines of restriction. Combining that with the theory of multiple intelligences, IQ tests for hunters and gatherers would be vastly different in respect to IQ tests for more developed civilizations, such as the United States and urban metropolises. However, I would agree that most IQ tests are devised in a fashion for qualification based on comparison. As A is to B, B C and so on. Intelligence tests could rightly be christened comparison assessments, as one undergoes the test through means of such faculties.

yeah that sounds nice, but no, they actually don’t. the average IQ using global standardization is 98 for the USA, 102 for the Netherlands, 107 for Japan, and 65 for most third world countries.

I really need to research my facts before establishing an argument. However, I see the work as an infraction of my right to freedom of procrastination and is therefore not apt to my liking.

While I would not personally condone the utility of such generalization, it would seem reasonable to impose an absolute scale of IQ, if only for matters of categorical simplification.

now, i don’t know how much faith you put in ethnic superiority or inferiority of some races, but i’d say it’s ballony. an IQ of 65 is barely enough for someone to whipe their ass. even gorillas can score over 70 (literally). so, no, they are made by and for a particular part of the global population, and don’t really apply to others.

IQ tests are culturally biased. On the other hand, a difference on the level of a few SD (quantiles of IQ) certainly is a very fundamental breach in the commonality of man and I don’t think a mere disparity in our ways of living would entitle one to dismissal of IQ as nothing more than cultural prejudice. Again, adhering to the theory of multiple intelligences, certain ethnicities are better at certain things than other ethnicities. So, there is some validity to the charge, but one cannot deny the relative differences of a sample skillset between ethnicities.

So, many forms of IQ tests would be fundamentally flawed if presented to people afflicted with dyslexia as people without the inhibition

hagwash. everybody has some or other inhibition. so which do you count as part of IQ and which don’t you? what if someone has dyscalculia? or what if they are simply bad at math? what about concentration span? when is something a part of your IQ, and when is it something outside of it?

In this case, i meant inhibition as being something that is not cognitively dependent – a nondescript deficiency of the sensory preceptors et al, if you will. For example, some people with high-functioning autism are dynamically brilliant at mathematics, but couldn’t start a conversation if their lives hung in the overarching balance

 
Flag Post

that’s not high-functioning autism if they can’t start a conversation. that would be an idiot savant. but anyway, you didn’t really answer my question.

my concentration for instance is just horrible. how do you tailor an IQ test to not be affected by that? and would you? where is the line between inside or outside intelligence? what is “intelligence”?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

that’s not high-functioning autism if they can’t start a conversation. that would be an idiot savant. but anyway, you didn’t really answer my question.

my concentration for instance is just horrible. how do you tailor an IQ test to not be affected by that? and would you? where is the line between inside or outside intelligence? what is “intelligence”?

IQ is a measure of an individual’s cognitive potential. so, elimination of extraneous factors would be the deletion of non-cognitive properties as disposable of the circumstances. concentration is a department more of will than intelligence. I would simply set up preparatory suspensions in order to induce positive qualities and reduce the influence of negative influx

 
Flag Post
IQ is a measure of an individual’s cognitive potential

isn’t the negative effect of my horrible concentration ability a limiting factor of my cognitive potential? is discalculia cognitive or non-cognitive?

i think we’re quite far removed from perfecting the methodology or even the definition of what we’re measuring.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:
IQ is a measure of an individual’s cognitive potential

isn’t the negative effect of my horrible concentration ability a limiting factor of my cognitive potential? is discalculia cognitive or non-cognitive?

i think we’re quite far removed from perfecting the methodology or even the definition of what we’re measuring.

Yes. However, you can’t say that studying for a test is a form of cheating, can you? No. I propose that any non-cognitive debilitation be remediated prior to the administration of the test. For you see, the faculty of concentration is not a cognitive identity in itself, but, as you subtly connoted, a facilitator of the former. Concentration assumes a critical role in psychometric analysis, but it isn’t cognitive in itself. At least not when we agree that cognition is: the conscious processes of the brain to directly solve the problem and the faculties that transport the means to do so, as covering both psych and brain. I.e. cognitive processes would be the ones responsible for the deliverance of understanding; the deciphering mechanisms of encrypted abstraction.

 
Flag Post

I do believe IQ does make a difference.
I used to not, but over the last year or so I’ve seen it.

I don’t agree with how they test teenagers or kids on IQ.
It seems like it’d be better to give them the same test (as long as the specific test wasn’t on too advanced education based things) as adults. It would add another way to find out if the teen/kid is competent and also get rid of all these false “geniuses” that seem to come by that often times level out to become average or slightly above as they age.

IQ tests do show some true things, although there are mistakes in it.
Someone who scores a IQ of 110 could actually be smarter than someone who scores 130.

I may be a bit bias though considering the results I’ve gotten multiple times compared to others. I just honestly can’t see how someone could score 100 or below on any of the tests I’ve taken unless they just stopped half way through.

Originally posted by simeng:

For example, some people with high-functioning autism are dynamically brilliant at mathematics, but couldn’t start a conversation if their lives hung in the overarching balance

That wouldn’t be high-functioning autism though.
That’s way too extreme for the “high-functioning” side.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by simeng:For example, some people with high-functioning autism are dynamically brilliant at mathematics, but couldn’t start a conversation if their lives hung in the overarching balance

That’s Savant syndrome, where a person seems to be really bad at most things intelectually, but there’s one thing that they’re beyond God-tier at, even if it’s closely related to something they aren’t good at all at.

High-functioning autism on the other hand, is when someone is autistic (they still could be really good at math, though) but has learned how to deal with society and its quirks with relative ease.

/psycology student

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by simeng:For example, some people with high-functioning autism are dynamically brilliant at mathematics, but couldn’t start a conversation if their lives hung in the overarching balance

That’s Savant syndrome, where a person seems to be really bad at most things intelectually, but there’s one thing that they’re beyond God-tier at, even if it’s closely related to something they aren’t good at all at.

High-functioning autism on the other hand, is when someone is autistic (they still could be really good at math, though) but has learned how to deal with society and its quirks with relative ease.

/psycology student

I was intending to make a splash, so to speak, by inciting metaphorical expression. By “couldn’t start a conversation”, I merely meant “socially awkward”…

Perhaps I should take aside this opportunity as a learning experience and, through the means of this heuristic device, when addressing scientific documentation and thereafter communication, speak in the right set of mind.

All things considered, if you interpret the description at face value, then, yes, that would not be high-functioning autism, but rather savant syndrome. Not yanking anyone’s chain; opening an outlet of clarification.

Originally posted by Zachary_Greene:

I do believe IQ does make a difference.
I used to not, but over the last year or so I’ve seen it.

I don’t agree with how they test teenagers or kids on IQ.
It seems like it’d be better to give them the same test (as long as the specific test wasn’t on too advanced education based things) as adults. It would add another way to find out if the teen/kid is competent and also get rid of all these false “geniuses” that seem to come by that often times level out to become average or slightly above as they age.

Except that, to enroll in specific curricula/programs, one is required to pass an admissions IQ Test in order to be deemed “Gifted” or “Gifted Applicable” (near "Gifted). Generally speaking, I would advise against IQ tests for children as it is, as previously mentioned, both inaccurate and unreliable thereof.

IQ tests do show some true things, although there are mistakes in it.
Someone who scores a IQ of 110 could actually be smarter than someone who scores 130.

I may be a bit bias though considering the results I’ve gotten multiple times compared to others. I just honestly can’t see how someone could score 100 or below on any of the tests I’ve taken unless they just stopped half way through.

IQ scores are just indicators of one’s general intelligence; they’re not perfect. However, they are fairly adequate at their vocation; public misconceptions of IQ in both the overviews and details are often the sources of complaint. IQ covers a broad spectrum of dimensions; for example, mathematical ability and linguistic fortitude. So, someone with an overall lower IQ could still be better than someone with an overall higher IQ in their hallmark subject of specialty.

 
Flag Post
High-functioning autism on the other hand, is when someone is autistic (they still could be really good at math, though) but has learned how to deal with society and its quirks with relative ease.

/psycology student

basically, it’s any form of autism where it’s not severe enough to be a strong handicap to a person’s life or career. but it’s a very vague term that’s not really ever used anymore.

I was intending to make a splash, so to speak, by inciting metaphorical expression. By “couldn’t start a conversation”, I merely meant “socially awkward”…

Perhaps I should take aside this opportunity as a learning experience and, through the means of this heuristic device, when addressing scientific documentation and thereafter communication, speak in the right set of mind.

All things considered, if you interpret the description at face value, then, yes, that would not be high-functioning autism, but rather savant syndrome. Not yanking anyone’s chain; opening an outlet of clarification.

idiot savant would serve your example just as well. but the typical example for what you were describing used by most people would be Asperger’s Syndrom. but you were kinda talking about yourself there, weren’t you?

I just honestly can’t see how someone could score 100 or below on any of the tests I’ve taken unless they just stopped half way through.

different mode of thought i guess. a lot of those questions for instance is just some images that you have to find the match or mismatch to, or see a sequence in to recognise a missing step. those are always incredibly easy to do, and i can’t imagine anyone not seeing it. however, if given limited time i suck at these things much worse than others. i think these things have more to do with how a person’s imagination works than anything else.

like, seeing images or hearing sounds in your head, is easy to do for some, hard for others, impossible and incomprehensible for thirds. and it works differently for everyone.

i’ve been to really low level education, and those morons, when they hear two notes one after another, can’t even hear if the second note is higher or lower than the former. which basically means they perceive a completely different world, and therefor their imagination also must have a completely different basis.

what i mean is…the meaning or essence of the word “thought” is completely different from one mind to the next. if you define the word “thought” as what you’re used to use as such, another person by that definition may be literally thoughtless.