GdB - 13 December 2010 01:59 AM

In my opinion, one should drop the concept of IQ as a measurement of a property somebody has. “Intelligence tests” are context dependent. The real requirement mostly is to have a prediction of somebody being successful in education or in a job. It is perfectly possible to design tests that highly correlate with these successes.

Hear, hear!

George - 13 December 2010 07:44 AM

Maybe your IQ is statistically high, but still not high enough to understand math and mechanics.

Nope.  It is entirely possible for exactly what he describes: someone who is very good at some skills and not so good at others.  IQ as a general evaluation is rather useless when trying to find reasons behind success or the lack thereof in specific skills.

Who needs an IQ measurement anyway, if we are probably no more than a decade away from figuring out which genes are responsible for what we refer to as intelligence. This century will be a lot of fun.

A little aside.  There’s a thing in statistics called regression toward the mean.  The level of this in IQ is 25%.  That means the average IQs of the children will be 25% closer to the mean than the average of their parents’ IQs.  For example, If the parents have IQs of 139 and 141 respectively, their average would be 140.  The most likely average of their children’s IQs would be 130.  Can you fit that into your genetics paradigm, George?

===
Another aside.  In 1963 when I had decided to work for a different company, I learned that they were big on psychological testing of their prospective employees.  This was all the rage then.  So, I applied at five other companies I wasn’t interested in.  Each gave similar tests.  Two from one supplier and three from another.  They were designed so one could not finish them.  As I drove home from each I remembered the questions.  When I went to the testing of my target company they gave me one of those tests which I finished and handed to the tester before the time limit.  After a few minutes of her consulting with her boss they asked if I’d take another.  It was the other version which I also finished early, since rather than figuring out the answers I merely copied them from memory. 

I later found that the results stood me in good stead because the executives in my company were convinced my IQ was in the top 2% of Fortune 500 CEOs so they always treated me gently, even when I was obnoxious. 

Occam

Occam. - 13 December 2010 11:37 AM

A little aside.  There’s a thing in statistics called regression toward the mean.  The level of this in IQ is 25%.  That means the average IQs of the children will be 25% closer to the mean than the average of their parents’ IQs.  For example, If the parents have IQs of 139 and 141 respectively, their average would be 140.  The most likely average of their children’s IQs would be 130.  Can you fit that into your genetics paradigm, George?

Sure I can. Why not? Regression toward the mean also applies to hight, for example. You wouldn’t doubt that genes are largely responsible for our hight, would you?

Write4U - 12 November 2010 12:55 AM

Question: If another intellect like say Einstein existed, but was part of a minor tribe in an obscure corner of the world, how would he know, moreover how would we know?
What does an IQ test measure? It measures the capacity of critical thinking and analysis. The question then becomes analysis of what? One can only test analytical powers with subjects that are known to the individual.
It is said that Einstein only used a portion of his total brainpower. It must be thus with everyone. In the Western world, early exposure to a great variety of subjects is in abundance. In the mid-Saharan desert there is no TV, no radio, no newspapers. There is only sand and that what lives in and on the sand. If tested for IQ on those subjects, any native would display a greater analytical understanding of his environment than a Westerner.
I see it a simple linear function. The greater the exposure, the greater the capacity for analysis grows, i.e. “IQ”
But this principle would hold for every human around the globe. Unless a physical condition prevents, the greater the stimulation of the brain, the greater the brain’s capacity for thought grows.

Actually, IQ tests, or at least the ones in use back in then sixties measure reading ability more than intelligence.  Looking over some of my schoolmates careers seems to support this.  Many of them have had successful lives (outside of the school system) even though they were not top scorers on the IQ tests ( and some have become wealthy) of those who scored high some became teachers and academics but many (including the top two in the class) have also become total failures.  Apparently high IQ does not prevent drug addictions.

It seems to me like most of the tests I have taken were analogies and/or diagrams, or both.  The use of analogies (and an understanding) I have found probably makes for better attorneys and law enforcement officers (as the law is based upon an understanding of similar and dissimilar), and it makes for great debates with right wing and left wing wackjobs, but for whatever it’s worth—I’d rather understand how to fix everything underneath the hood.

I wish I could find it, but there was a study, years ago, of a cohort of geniuses and the researches discovered that overall, they didn’t do much better than anyone else, in fact some of them blew it.  (addiction, mental problems, social problems)

TromboneAndrew - 13 December 2010 08:32 AM

GdB - 13 December 2010 01:59 AM

In my opinion, one should drop the concept of IQ as a measurement of a property somebody has. “Intelligence tests” are context dependent. The real requirement mostly is to have a prediction of somebody being successful in education or in a job. It is perfectly possible to design tests that highly correlate with these successes.

Hear, hear!

George - 13 December 2010 07:44 AM

Maybe your IQ is statistically high, but still not high enough to understand math and mechanics.

Nope.  It is entirely possible for exactly what he describes: someone who is very good at some skills and not so good at others.  IQ as a general evaluation is rather useless when trying to find reasons behind success or the lack thereof in specific skills.

I would think ultimately it has something to do (obviously) with genetics, as expressed in lobe differentiation.  The way the mind stores data, and relates that data into other forms of public speaking, working with hands, etc).  Because a lot of society is based upon the ability to speak and write (as with my field), I have tended to excel there—which may be the reason I am there.  Perhaps the key is simply to find, as the saying goes, what one is good at and working on it. 

My experience tells me I could probably learn to play just about any instrument or learn any language (strong analogy skills), but I’d give anything to be able to draw more than a stick figure.  People who draw in 3D (and it actually looks like something), simply see the world differently, which is beautiful.  I look at a set of facts and testimony and see structure as well, and a way to express it, like a canvas. 

All of my siblings seem to have the same kind of intelligence that I have.  None of us can draw, or are mechanical, but all of us play multiple instruments and are bi, tri or quadralinqual.  What’s odd is that neither of our parents appear to be of exceptionally high IQ, but I’d imagine my older siblings are nearly off the charts. 

Maybe the mailman was a genius.

UlsterScots432 - 13 December 2010 07:00 PM

Maybe the mailman was a genius.

Or maybe you’re not as intelligent as you think you are.