BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Laboratory >

IQ testing

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Tom Coates
08:57 / 18.06.01
FROM THE ZINE

quote: IQ testing is everywhere today - in schools, in job testing, even for fun. The idea that intelligence is quantifiable and can be calculated to a few 'points' has become completely accepted in the western world. But the history of the IQ test is a dubious one at best - full of misconceptions, innaccuracies and rife with political belief. Is it possible that such an accepted test could just be wrong? And more importantly, is it possible that it's not equally wrong for all?

How many people here have experiences with IQ testing? Have you evidenced radically different scores over different periods? Do you think they are impartial or skewed?
 
 
deletia
13:10 / 18.06.01
IQ Tests piss me off on so many levels. That they privilege utterly institutionalised white male valuations of "intelligence". That they are then used by white males and the browbeaten collaborators who love 'em to make themselves feel better than other people, who may well have a lot more to offer the world. That they are institutionalised as the basis of much modern psychometry, forcing people to fit into highly constructed boxes in order to appear good employees/ "intelligent people". That people with mediocre scores get to boast about them in a "but wouldn't six and a half inches hurt a woman" way while simultaneously complaining about how unfair it is that these tests categorise people.

Grrr... Grrr...
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
13:15 / 18.06.01
I've taken a couple of these IQ tests. I've always been in the same range. Usually, it's low-end genius, I think. Which is patently a crock of shite. It seems my mood is the largest determinant of the score, really.

But when I was studying psych at uni, it was pretty much inculcated in us that IQ tests are only useful if you're of a very specific demographic. And even then, they're usually only measurements of particular forms of intelligence, yes?

Anyone who did more in psychology than goddamn rat-training able to provide more - uh - verifiable info on this?
 
 
Rialto
13:28 / 18.06.01
I spot a trend.

Personally, I'm really against the IQ testing system, which by the way, incidentally, I don't like to mention it, but the last time I took one told me I was a complete genius! That can't be right, can it, I mean, shucks, me , humble Time Please, genius, eh? Who'd have though it? But anyway as I was saying, IQ tests are really unfair because they make people who didn't do as stunningly well as I did feel bad, and that can't be right.

Ho-hum.
 
 
grant
13:31 / 18.06.01
I've had a few at different points in my life. They're very good at measuring how well you take tests, and can definitely be *practiced for*, which sort of undermines the whole idea of measuring some sort of inherent quality.

My mother, to get me into the gifted program (for the non-Americans, that's the only way to be reasonably sure of getting a good education from the public/government schools), used to drill me on IQ test questions and exercises as a little kid. I still remember the memorizing telephone numbers one.

Anyway, it worked.

And 145, depending on the scale, is around the top 8% of the population, I think. (Mensa's cut-off is at 10%, which was around 135 or 140. That was 15 years ago, at least.)

(Oh, and even them snobs acknowledge IQ testing as an imprecise art -- to get in, you have to take two different tests and score high enough on just one of them. For what it's worth.)

I also scored much higher (or so I've been told) as a little kid then I did as a teenager. I'm not sure what the kid scores were; my parents refused (and still refuse, cuz they've forgotten 'em, I think) to tell me. Probably good thing, that.
 
 
grant
13:42 / 18.06.01
Here: an online IQ test.

and
Mensa's list of various equivalent scores.
 
 
Steve Block
16:18 / 18.06.01
I think IQ tests are skewed. I sat one when I was 17 as part of my sociology A-Level and after being quite chuffed with my score, it was slowly pointed out what the score meant and what the questions are. IQ tests are very heavily skewed in favour of very numerate people. I am very numerate, I'm very good at extracting and extrapolating from data, and so that makes me a good candidate at gaining a high score on an IQ test. I think I'm rambling here, but bear with me. IQ tests can only measure things which can be measured through the use of a written test. Many skills can't be measured that way. Imagine if there was no practical involved in subjects such as art or music or sport or medicine. You could be the world's greatest surgeon but have no hands, you know. (Extreme example, yeah, but just roll with it.) IQ tests are very good at measuring IQ, but it's important to remember waht IQ actually means. Not what the letters stand for, but what it means. Having a high IQ means you can answer an IQ test very well, and that's it.

A friends dad was a member of MEnsa, and the sorts of puzzles they set are all ones you would expect people with good numeration skills to be able to solve, so Mensa know exactly what a high IQ means. The problem is there is this whole cachet built up around it, I guess it comes from that elitist notion we all seem to have that we can exclude people based on rules of our own making, like that Simpson's episode where Homer was banned on the basis of his name, yeah?

If I remember correctly, your score is also divided by your age, so the older you are, the more questions you have to get right to get the same score as you did when you were younger, so whoever said they did better as a kid, that's probably why, the tests seem weighted to being young. So I guess the best time to take an IQ test is when you are old enough to be able to read the questions, because getting even two right may give you an IQ of 200...(That's a bit extreme, but again, it's the way it's weighted...)

I also think ridiculing someone because they have a high IQ is just as stupid as praising them for it. At the end of the day, you did well at a test, congrats. Just bear in mind that test offers no extra special life experience...

If they are becoming too common and relied upon, that's a very scary thing. It could well end up in a world where surgeons operate with no hands...
 
 
wembley can change in 28 days
18:44 / 18.06.01
It's not the size, it's what you do with it.

I also tested a lot higher when I was a little kid than...well, especially lately. Part of the test which is interesting is the time factor - a proper test will take into account how long it takes you to solve the various problems. And yeah, I do take them just to fuel my withered ego. No, I don't give a fart about Mensa, unless they want to give me money.

As for 145-ish being genius, it's a bit of a misnomer, because IQ tests don't actually work on many people who are considered genii, or of course on "idiot savants." These people are usually highly developed in a specific area, but can be plain old disabled in others, and they'll never end up with an IQ that's suitable for Mensa, home of the Jack-of-all-brains. For the clicker-throughs, an interesting article on genius.

And of course the tests do measure something very specific...would anybody refute the claim that Nijinsky was a genius, at least in the significant-contribution-to-humanity sort of way? And an IQ test won't ever tell you how skilled you are with your own body. The fascination with out-thinking is a bizarre western concept, even though it probably dates back to the dawn of time, when you'd get a lot more Lucys if you could trick the others out of the best spots in the cave and keep your blueberry stash hidden. The fact that you can never look into your neighbour's head and see how smart they are makes us nervous, too.

It's funny that, while we don't even know what intelligence is, we still get hung up about it, just like all of our little physical insecurities. I wonder if I'd rather be bloody smart and miserable, or a shade moronic and blissfully happy?
 
 
ynh
19:43 / 18.06.01
As a member of the demographic targetted by most of the tests on the site grant posted, aren't I profoundly unqualified to make any evaluation?

Yes, I've had experience, with probably half of them.

My scores got higher, which I can assume is a function of practice?

They are skewed. But as I said, I'm in no position to evaluate how. I just know all the gifted kids were white at my school. All the classes below mine had female majorities, though.

Grant, is the mensa site saying that score 1 on test X is equivalent to score 2 on test Y?
 
 
Krister Kjellin
05:27 / 19.06.01
YNH, I believe you're right about how practice will help you manage IQ tests better. As grants online IQ test above claims:
quote:that not only scores your IQ in about 15 minutes, but also makes you smarter! This test gives you the correct answers after each question and teaches the tricks for answering smarter on the next test!

Of course, if you define intelligence as getting high scores on IQ tests, then practising intelligence tests will make you "smarter". But it's a bit of a circular definition though, isn't it? (is that called circular definition in English? Well, you know what I mean...)

My mother's IQ used to be 130 when she was young. Then she trained to be a teacher during the 60ies, and was forced thorugh a lot of different IQ tests. Her IQ ended up at 160 or something like that before graduation. Guess it's gone down again since.

Also, we have a test to enter university in Sweden, that's very similar to an IQ test. The official advice from the government is to take the test as often as possible to get practice and higher scores.

Personally, I'm convinced that IQ tests primarily measure your ability to score well on IQ test. They may also say something about your algebraic skills and your talent for chess. Not much else though... IQ tests aren't skewed, they're just not saying much about intelligence.

I've known a few people with IQ's in the high 150:s or 160:s who have been virtual idiots at work. One of them lacked the ability to relate to people at all, another one couldn't hold more than one thing in his head at the time.
 
 
[cb]
08:15 / 19.06.01
I took an IQ test about 6 years ago. I was walking through the city, with nothing much to do, when a Scientologist handed me a brouchure to get a free test. So I took up the offer.

After the test, I was treated to a charming chat with a woman who was very interested in my dianetics, and after speaking for such a long time, she refused to give me my result (maybe because I didn't buy any L Ron Hubbard books).

I've since done another test (using downloadable freeware), jsut recently. I'll save you the boredom of bragging about my score.
 
 
grant
15:24 / 19.06.01
quote:Originally posted by [Your Name Here]:
Grant, is the mensa site saying that score 1 on test X is equivalent to score 2 on test Y?


I believe so, yes.

Indirectly at least (to get into the club, you need to get that particular score).
 
 
[cb]
01:08 / 20.06.01
Originally posted by deletia:
"I'll save you the boredom of bragging about my score". Too late. BORED. BORED WITH YOU. BORED BY SHARING AN EARTH WITH YOU.

Bored? I was trying to make a point, by abstaining from telling my score. Maybe you misinterpreted me (?) I was making reference to all the other people who denounced the IQ system, while simultaneously bragging about their performance in it.

And for the record, my score ain't that spectacular.
 
 
Murray Hamhandler
19:58 / 22.06.01
Originally posted by Instantiated Noun:
I've known a few people with IQ's in the high 150:s or 160:s who have been virtual idiots at work. One of them lacked the ability to relate to people at all, another one couldn't hold more than one thing in his head at the time.

Ohhhh, yeah. I've been tested twice: once as a youngster (156) and once a few years ago (157). Although genius by the Binet scale, I'm a complete idiot in far too many ways to even go into. I don't look at intelligence in a quantitative fashion, where one is rich in or lacking in intelligence. Rather, I see intelligence as existing in many different forms, all suitable to different functions. So everyone's a genius in my eyes!
 
 
Quantum
12:43 / 13.09.05
*bump*

So I was reading the 'dyslexia doesn't exist says prof.' thread, where liberal use is made of the term IQ.

See this thread- IQ tests measure how good you are at IQ tests, largely indicating literacy, numeracy, visio-spatial manipulation and other culturally dependant variables biasing white educated men, with pretty arbitrary 'correct' answers. If they measured 'Intelligence' then practice wouldn't improve your score, which it in fact does.

Further, the idea that there is a stable trait 'Intelligence' is, IMHO, a crock of shit. It's a concept that is impossible to define, impossible to measure and pretty useless as a technical term.

Does anyone want to disabuse me of my foolish anti-IQ stance? Am I brainwashed by a Psych education? Is there new proof it's in fact all true?
 
 
Smoothly
14:16 / 13.09.05
I’ll try, Quantum, because I feel a bit non-plussed by the ‘IQ tests only measure how good you are at doing IQ tests’ position. Basically, because it’s just so trivially true. Eye tests only measure how good you are at doing eye tests; Chemistry A-level tests only measures ability at chemistry A-level tests; Drugs tests only measure your performance in drugs tests.
And I really don’t think that anyone argues that IQ is the be-all and end-all of intelligence. As you say, IQ tests measure a few particular skills of a particular type. I think it’s a bit much to criticise them for not taking into account artistic ability, whether you’re emotionally intuitive, how well you can dance or whatever.

As I understand them, IQ tests are used primarily to test aptitude for the core skills that children are taught at (Western, Northern hemisphere, etc) school – ie. pattern recognition, verbal reasoning, numeric manipulation, spatial awareness etc. I imagine they’re quite a good indicator of how a child will cope with learning the basics of algebra, or understanding metaphor. I don’t for a moment think that IQ tests measure every ability that falls under the great big leaky umbrella of ‘Intelligence’ but nor do I think anyone’s claiming that they do.
 
 
grant
14:46 / 13.09.05
Quantum: Not as far as I know. If you google for "EQ", you'll find all sorts of things about the kinds of aptitudes you need to be successful in life which IQ tests are really pretty miserable at delineating.

And, four years too late, if a Scientologist was giving it to you on the street, then it wasn't an IQ test. You can read more about them in the Temple.
 
 
Smoothly
15:22 / 13.09.05
If you google for "EQ", you'll find all sorts of things about the kinds of aptitudes you need to be successful in life which IQ tests are really pretty miserable at delineating.

But this is sort of my point. People love EQ tests; no one ever says ‘But it takes no account of my excellent special awareness!’
In fact, the backlash against the skills IQ tests in favour of the stuff EQ tests - The Oprah Whinfrication of aptitude - worries me a little. It's one thing to say that IQ gives an incomplete picture of a person's mental competencies, but to suggest that all those abilities are meaningless strikes me as dangerously anti-rational at a time where logical responses are being overwhelmed by emotional ones.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
16:00 / 13.09.05
Because EQ tests don't lead to special clubs?

IQ doesn't test your intelligence, it tests how well you picked up on Western education. That's the problem with it. How often has it been suggested to you that an EQ test you took actually meant something genuine?

I will try to continue this later on tonight...
 
 
Smoothly
16:24 / 13.09.05
Because EQ tests don't lead to special clubs?

Yeah, shit, I keep forgetting about the stranglehold that MENSA has on the world's power brokers.

How often has it been suggested to you that an EQ test you took actually meant something genuine?

All the cocking time. How about this – the first result from a Google search on “EQ test”:

Research suggests that a person’s emotional intelligence (EQ) might be a greater predictor of success than his or her intellectual intelligence (IQ), despite an assumption that people with high IQs will naturally accomplish more in life.
 
 
Quantum
18:35 / 13.09.05
Well, that's not really what I meant. I personally despise EQ tests as even more pointless than IQ tests.

When I say IQ tests only show how good you are at IQ tests what I meant was that the results are not very generalisable. Since the 1950s they have got a little better in some ways and worse in others. Take IQ test dot com as an example- it ostensibly measures these 13 mental abilities-

Visual
Vocabulary
Spatial
Arithmetic
Logical
General Knowledge
Spelling
Rote Utilization
Intuition
Short Term Memory
Geometric
Algebraic
Computational Speed

and I'm thinking a lot of these are measured by your GCSE results. Geometry, algebra, spelling, arithmetic? That's intelligence? Sounds like skill at maths to me, learnt through study. Vocabulary and spelling? General Knowledge?
If that's IQ then the currently poor literacy and numeracy levels (thanks to Thatcher et al) mean more people are stupid now. That's a narrow enough definition of intelligence to be useless IMO.

Eye tests test your eyes, chemistry tests your knowledge of chemistry, drug tests the level of booze in your blood, IQ tests test your *education*. See the difference I'm pointing out? Not just trivially true.
 
 
skolld
18:38 / 13.09.05
it's always been my understanding that IQ tests are about testing your ability to retain information and the speed at which you can process it. To do this test makers use information they assume the general poplulation should have access to. Obviously a test of this nature is only going to be useful when applied to the population the test makers are using for their information pool.
I don't believe it is an entirely useless measurement just a limited one. Like any tool you have to use it within its proper context to get the best use out of it.
 
 
Quantum
18:45 / 13.09.05
Those attributes you mention would be a better indicator of 'intelligence' pattern recognition, verbal reasoning, numeric manipulation, spatial awareness etc but the tests seem to be moving further away from measuring those things and more toward measuring academic success. Probably because those attributes are harder to quantify, and thus of course harder to measure.

Psychometric testing in general is becoming more prevalent (at least in business) but less accurate, and is more often than not poorly understood and misapplied. Has anyone had any job interviews for large companies recently? Demented...
 
 
Quantum
18:46 / 13.09.05
skolld- I think the tool is being poorly used, and is a poor tool at best.
 
 
Smoothly
18:54 / 13.09.05
So your key point was the idea that there is a stable trait 'Intelligence' is, IMHO, a crock of shit.. In which case I tend to think you might be right. 'What is Intelligence?' could (and perhaps should) be a thread in itself.
Maybe it should be called Intellect Quotient, or Acuity Quotient or something.

tests seem to be moving further away from measuring those things and more toward measuring academic success

I think this is because we tend to write tests for things that are appropriate to test for and are amenable to testing. Maybe I'm ignorant of the scale of the IQ tyranny, but I thought they were mostly used in schools, for streaming purposes and as predictors of likely academic success. As such they seem pretty well designed.
 
 
skolld
19:27 / 13.09.05
I think the tool is being poorly used, and is a poor tool at best.

i disagree, i think IQ tests are wicked good at determining what tracks a student will 'succeed' in. Schools have become increasinly bent on vocation rather than learning. Jobs are becoming more and more specialized and a liberal education is less and less desirable by the market place. In my opinion the goal of using IQ tests is to dumb down the citizenry by limiting what we have access to learning, and to that end they are quite successful.
I don't think it's the IQ test that is flawed but rather the system it was designed to function in. I believe it is a symptom of a bigger tragedy, if you will.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
21:53 / 13.09.05
Yeah, shit, I keep forgetting about the stranglehold that MENSA has on the world's power brokers.

That's not the point though, it's the general sense of exclusivity that comes with having a high IQ. It's like an all-male smoking club specifically for Christ Church College graduates... you don't want to be part of it really but the suggestion that certain people can be and you're somehow excluded from something so absurd is a little offensive.

How often has it been suggested to you that an EQ test you took actually meant something genuine?

All the cocking time. How about this – the first result from a Google search on “EQ test”

So you're judged on your EQ tests? By the average person? Wait hang on, a majority of people in this country know what an IQ test is but I don't know what an EQ test is... does anyone without an Internet connection? What is an EQ test anyway?
 
 
Smoothly
22:10 / 13.09.05
What is an EQ test anyway?

Follow the link.

it's the general sense of exclusivity that comes with having a high IQ. It's like an all-male smoking club specifically for Christ Church College graduates...

B-b-but that's just bollocks. Or, although you might have a sense of this, I doubt that it's general. It's no more of a 'club' than having A's in your A-Levels , and no more 'exclusive' than having E's in your A-Levels. When was the last time anyone tested your IQ, Nina? Bet it was school. Does anyone seem to care now? Does anyone even ask?

So you're judged on your EQ tests? By the average person? Wait hang on, a majority of people in this country know what an IQ test is but I don't know what an EQ test

I think you might be surprised. Oh Oper-ah / So much to answer for.
 
 
astrojax69
22:14 / 13.09.05
Geometry, algebra, spelling, arithmetic? That's intelligence?

well quantum, err yeah. in a manner of speaking. it seems to be the case that our brains, well, our minds, map out in some manner of pattern recognition in neural networks representations of what we perceive as 'reality' through our senses. in broad strokes, the kind of categories that we chunk these maps into are covered by the topics studied in these, and other, generic education categories. these capacities are what we colloquially call 'intelligence'. people who excel in these fields are almost universally regarded as 'intelligent' in that area of cognition, i would argue.

whether or not an iq test really does anything like quantify this capacity is another matter, i suspect!
 
 
Smoothly
22:36 / 13.09.05
Sorry, missed this from Quantum.

Eye tests test your eyes, chemistry tests your knowledge of chemistry, drug tests the level of booze in your blood, IQ tests test your *education*. See the difference I'm pointing out? Not just trivially true.

No, sorry, I don't think I do see the difference you're pointing out. Yes, IQ tests measure (to a large extent) education, but so what? Educational institutions are where they're used.
 
 
grant
20:46 / 14.09.05

IQ tests aren't just used in education -- they're also used in social work. Here's an unpleasant historical application of IQ testing in eugenics. Not as long ago as you might assume.

On the other hand, this Scientific American overview of IQ does say outright that the stuff covered by the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale and the WISC overlaps with the SAT and the GRE (the two most common standardized academic tests, I think). It's a really interesting article (or synopsis of several articles). The debate over g is kind of along the same lines as this thread.

One thing early on that gave me a kick: Research has found that IQ predicted leadership skills when the tests were given under low-stress conditions, but under high-stress conditions, IQ was negatively correlated with leadership--that is, it predicted the opposite.




EQ as a concept does lend itself to a kind of fluffy bunny mindset, but the stuff does have some real-world ramifications -- you can read about the pre-Oprahfication science behind EI or EQ on wikipedia.

And here's a thing on EQ (or E-IQ) on a Human Services website. It's not actually being used as a hiring tool on that page (it's illegal to use "cognitive ability tests" as hiring tools), but it seems... close.
 
 
astrojax69
21:57 / 14.09.05
just as an aside, our centre has developed a test to evaluate creativity, in sort of an analagous way to measuring iq, but it is not one single number. it is published in the american journal of creativity.

it has been used in some trials and we are developing it as an on-line test, but it is still in an embryonic stage really. will keep you posted.
 
 
Quantum
16:46 / 15.09.05
The standard test for creativity in the classic studies is 'How many uses can you think of for a brick?' scored on number of responses and novelty of responses* which gives a rough and ready measure. What's your creativity test for out of interest? It's purpose I mean?

Geometry, algebra, spelling, arithmetic? That's intelligence?
well quantum, err yeah. in a manner of speaking...people who excel in these fields are almost universally regarded as 'intelligent' astrojax 69
I see your point, and colloquially education is often equated with intelligence.

Here's a couple of definitions of intelligence-
'The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge and the faculty of thought and reason'
'Intelligence is a general mental capability that involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn.'

Yes, IQ tests measure (to a large extent) education, but so what? Educational institutions are where they're used. Smoothly Weaving
So why have them at all? Aren't academic qualifications indicators of academic success? And personally I don't think equating education with intelligence is a good thing, consider dyslexia, people whose education is disrupted for some reason (e.g. homeless children, abused children, traveller's children)- they're not *stupid*.

illegal to use "cognitive ability tests" as hiring tools grant
Really? Blimey- lots of companies kind of do though.


*aside- before 12 yrs old children can dramatically improve their creativity score by roleplaying a 'creative' stereotype, indicating lack of creativity is self imposed, after that age they can't. They 'fossilise' into their role as creative/not creative.
 
 
Lurid Archive
17:33 / 15.09.05
I'm deeply sceptical of intelligence tests myself. I have heard (I can't remember the source, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it was during the Larry Summers incident) that IQ tests are "calibrated" to get the expected demographic results. If true, there is something pretty arbitrary going on there.

I'm prepared to believe that things like geometrical intuition are easier for some than others, despite the fact that you can improve it through training. (I think you disagree with that Quantum, don't you?) So you might be able to measure....something, or somethings. Still the history of the IQ test doesn't give me enormous confidence in it.
 
 
grant
19:46 / 15.09.05
Quantum -- Employment requirements: Griggs v. Duke Power, 1971 -- wikipedia makes me look smarter than I am. The subsequent cases mentioned at that link have more to do with civil rights & discriminatory hiring than they do with aptitude tests.

Interesting, though, that the two are so entwined at the level of case law... (at least in America -- this may well have squat to do with the UK).

Lurid -- The "calibration" you're talking about is called "normalization." Here's the thing with the tests -- they're built to conform to a bell curve. A certain number of any population are always going to be in the middle, fewer are going to be at the top and the bottom. It seems fairly arbitrary, but y'know, with a non-homogenous population and all, there should be weird little spikes and that.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply