What is your opinion on this? is it just a number that has no meaning? does people with low IQ are really 'dumb'? I mean, IQ concentrates on math and problem solving skills, what about people who are good at art or music? Some kind of studies show that low IQ is related to suicidal thoughts.... do you believe it? I would like to read what you guys think about this.
Ok first:i had to do an iq test and it has nothing to do with maths.The stuff you find on the internet is garbage. Second:an iq test isn't absolute the results can highly depend on the mood of a person a depressive person is usually a lot worse than when not in a depressive phase. Of Corse it always depends on the questions etc. So the number isn't absolute but it gives you roughly where you stand ie under average normal or above average. It's also tested in different things like how fast you work concentration explaining things or seeing links between things.your scores can be totally different from category to category And third there is no universal definition of "intelligence" it means something different to everyone
No. The IQ test is ethnocentric and only measures one time of intelligence: Logic. It undermines other aspects of intelligence for e.g. creativity.
The Stanford-Binet intelligence quotient finds a person's mental age and divides it by a chronological age and multiplies by 100. Tests like this only test logic skills, but others can project a person's aptitude or achievement at other things. The thing many people who have not taken Psychology classes before often don't realize is that these tests are ONLY projections or predictions. That's why many who have not taken classes over these tests often believe that these tests DO measure intelligence.
Meh, let's define intelligence first... The older I get, the more I'm convinced real intelligence (the one that matters) it's all about making a comfortable, happy life for yourself. It would require a great deal of self knowledge, among other qualities. No, no tests are needed for that. Another kind of intelligence could be defined by how quickly you can resolve a problem you never had before. Ideally this problem would require from you a creative answer. What kind of test would measure it? Sure not a pack of conventional problems we've seen before. I don't think IQ tests are really useful. You need a guy to do a task, you test the guy on that task. And to do that with children/teens (at least with this generation of kids) is just plain cruelty. You can mark a child for life with a bad result, and it won't prove anything useful anyways.
Well, they measure a certain aspect of it, at the very least. If you get a high IQ score from a test held by a reputable body – Mensa or the like – then you're probably not stupid. Intelligence is the ability to take in, manipulate and apply knowledge. It's the same whether you're gifted in natural sciences, art, literature or whether it's social or emotional intelligence, though in the case emotional intelligence, you're not so much taking in as discovering from within. It's not that easy to test, beyond mathematical prowess. I feel like people who are actually highly intelligent, are skilled across multiple, if not all aspects.
No. IQ is more about measuring a person's ability to preform mental tasks. If one puts a lot of effort into it, they can be more intelligent than others even though their IQ isn't as high as others. Generally, people with higher IQ's will be "smarter", but only if they put the same or more amount of effort. Einstein can't credit all his success to his high IQ alone.
Umyeah. It does all hinge on the definition of intelligence, doesn't it? And there *is* no standard accepted definition. One definition that psychologists toyed with for a while was "intelligence is that which is measured by IQ tests." And by that definition, yes, absolutely, unquestionably, the IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence. But I think we've come a long way since then, recognizing not just different *components* of intelligence (which the IQ test does recognize and account for), but also different *kinds* of intelligence...for which I don't believe any one single test can account.
When I was in primary (grade) school, around the age of 8 or 9, I was asked to complete an IQ test. We were not told that these were intelligence tests (which is quite unethical in my opinion). Later however, I was repeatedly told how "intelligent" I was and they couldn't understand why I was floundering in school and never (or almost never) did my homework. Maybe because I was bored out of my mind for most of my primary school career...plus I have a bit of a rebellious streak - I didn't like being told what to do, especially when it appeared completely pointless... I have of course matured since then...I think.
No. It's all about mathematics and "school smarts", which are superficial. One could memorize these things but be total shit at learning everything else.
I don't think so. IQ only refers to logical reasoning, so a person with high IQ is more likely to come to a conclusion faster and in less steps than a person with low IQ, but there's nothing saying a person with low IQ won't reach the same conclusion.
This one is one of those numbers, which are useful for describing the general intelligence of the population. Unfortunately, high IQ doesn't mean that the person will do excellent in life. IQ tests are also statistical in nature, so it's highly likely that your own score will vary of test to test. You can even improve your score by going through a number of IQ tests. My point is, don't stress yourself over it. The number describes only one part of you, but not the whole you.
This is actually the premise for the concept of the g factor in psychology. Researchers observed that students who perform well in one area also perform well in other unrelated subjects. Hence the concept of general intelligence. General intelligence is essentially a persons most fundamental level of cognitive ability. While it is certainly possible for a person with lower "g" to be able to work hard to be able to achieve a high level of skill in a specific field, a person with high "g" has to put in comparatively less effort to reach the same level of proficiency, meaning that with equal effort the high "g" individual will outclass the low "g" individual. They are just naturally superior thinkers and will be able to pick up and become proficient in most mental tasks faster than someone with lower "g". I know all the smartest friends of mine studying Nano-Technology and Bioinformatics and such aren't only good at school subjects. They play one if not two musical instruments with a high level of proficiency and have also won local/provincial chess tournaments and such. In any subject that requires complex thinking they naturally perform very well. A higher level of general intelligence is positively correlated with superior performance in all manner of tasks. When it comes to IQ, it has been shown to be quite strongly linked to "g" so it is a decent measure of how capable a person is at reasoning. People may not like the idea but across pretty much everything, higher "g" individuals tend to do better than their lower "g" peers. Higher academic achievement, higher income, more prestigious job positions, less likely to be criminals (even adjusting for socio-economic status). It may not be what some people like to hear, but some people are simply cognitively superior to others. So in summary, I wouldn't put a tonne of wait in an IQ score in isolation. However someone with a high IQ is likely to be a higher achiever all around and that is simply a fact. So yes I do think IQ is a fair indicator of intelligence on average.
I believe that everyone has their own kind of intelligence. IQ just measures one's ability of quick logical thinking.
There are so many different areas people can excel in that I hardly think there can be one test to define intelligence. Some people may be naturally gifted and are quick to learn new concepts and processes in school. But I believe others develop intelligence through life experience. Someone could be off the charts smart in logic but not know how to change a tire in real life. Someone else may not have done well in school but have unbelievable empathy and understanding towards others because of their social acuity. Others still are exceptionally bright but struggle with performing under pressure (i.e. on tests) so their intelligence cannot be properly measured. I watch Jeopardy almost every night (#nerd) and one thing that always baffles me is that there are so many great minds on that show who can memorize just about every fact, and yet they almost always struggle to tell a basic "fun" story about their lives. These are all semi-extreme examples, but I think it's safe to say personal intelligence is so varied that I can hardly see how one test is expected to properly gauge that factor.
For teens and adults the WAIS is a better proponent of intelligence than the Stanford-Binet which measures mental age over chronological age times 100. This calculation eventually hits an average because the numbers "catch up" and become average for most who take it. Not so accurate considering that. The WAIS measures a multitude of skills in various subtests and has better divisions of skills so it becomes easier to access unique talents and weaknesses. I think IQ does to a certain extent measure personal intelligence, but not exactly how proficient one truly is because the higher your score, the harder it is to assign what contributes to that. It's much better for proving someone is mentally retarded. A savant may score really high and yet be so incapable of practical life that he cannot depend on himself to live. Creativity is much the same. To be creative you need an intellectual foundation from which to draw inspiration and novel associations. Without knowledge of the world there is nothing to stimulate that.
This. I'll add: Many of these tests don't measure cleverness, which in itself, is a unique breed of intelligence. Personally, I believe myself more clever than intelligent, but a test of this sort would not accurately capture or define that.
It depends. I don't think it's too accurate for me because I have chronic fatigue and depression. I also have OCD and I obsess about getting the right answer. That really slows me down on IQ tests.
