Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Living (now dead) proof that IQ tests suck

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 8:36:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org...

" In psychological testing, Peek scored below average (87) on general IQ tests."

And yet, he probably knows more than any single person... ever.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 8:39:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I thought IQ wasn't about memory or knowledge...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 8:48:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 8:39:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
I thought IQ wasn't about memory or knowledge...

They're not, which is precisely why they are not the "all-mighty" indicators of intelligence that people make them out to be.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. IQ tests suck in regard to actually measuring intelligence.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 8:52:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
IQ tests intelligence, not knowledge. Hence the name.
I'm actually surprised that he got that high.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 8:53:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 8:48:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/10/2013 8:39:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
I thought IQ wasn't about memory or knowledge...

They're not, which is precisely why they are not the "all-mighty" indicators of intelligence that people make them out to be.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. IQ tests suck in regard to actually measuring intelligence.

Oh yeah, I doubt anyone disagrees with that. It's hard to quantify intelligence like that while discounting other exemplary cognitive abilities like creativity and memory. But IQ tests do have value in that they seem to accurately point out the geniuses among us. I haven't heard of anyone with an impressive ability that doesn't also have a high IQ - Einstein & Kasparov for example
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 8:53:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 8:53:04 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/10/2013 8:48:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/10/2013 8:39:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
I thought IQ wasn't about memory or knowledge...

They're not, which is precisely why they are not the "all-mighty" indicators of intelligence that people make them out to be.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. IQ tests suck in regard to actually measuring intelligence.

Oh yeah, I doubt anyone disagrees with that. It's hard to quantify intelligence like that while discounting other exemplary cognitive abilities like creativity and memory. But IQ tests do have value in that they seem to accurately point out the geniuses among us. I haven't heard of anyone with an impressive ability that doesn't also have a high IQ - Einstein & Kasparov for example

impressive intellectual ability that is...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 8:59:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 8:48:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/10/2013 8:39:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
I thought IQ wasn't about memory or knowledge...

They're not, which is precisely why they are not the "all-mighty" indicators of intelligence that people make them out to be.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. IQ tests suck in regard to actually measuring intelligence.

Websters:
a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

Intelligence:
Intelligence refers to intellectual functioning. Intelligence quotients, or IQ tests, compare your performance with other people your age who take the same test. These tests don"t measure all kinds of intelligence, however. For example, such tests can"t identify differences in social intelligence, the expertise people bring to their interactions with others. There are also generational differences in the population as a whole. Better nutrition, more education and other factors have resulted in IQ improvements for each generation.
http://www.apa.org...
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 9:02:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
IQ testing does not attempt to measure intelligence in its entirety. It is used as an indicator of an individual's mental abilities in different tasks. Nonetheless, a person with a high IQ will almost always perform better mental tasks than one with a low IQ.

A person should not put too much faith in such a test, because it is easy to fall some points on a bad day. Anything that stresses your mind can eventually bring your IQ down for a while.

Moreover, it does not test learning abilities, nor intuition. Intuition is sign of good intelligence. There are also methods one can learn to perform better at certain tasks found in IQ tests (such as, what to look out for when looking at patterns).
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 9:22:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 9:11:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
How could this anomaly suffice as proof for a claim this broad?

his point was that IQ tests don't consider a lot of traits that demonstrate intelligence in their own rights, and the fact that someone with such incredible recollective power and knowledge can be assigned such a low IQ is a testament to the inadequacy of the test.

I think it's a valid point.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 9:27:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 9:22:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:11:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
How could this anomaly suffice as proof for a claim this broad?

his point was that IQ tests don't consider a lot of traits that demonstrate intelligence in their own rights, and the fact that someone with such incredible recollective power and knowledge can be assigned such a low IQ is a testament to the inadequacy of the test.

I think it's a valid point.

Suck for whom, though? If IQ tests can't measure weird cognitive abilities, does that necessarily mean it's a bad intelligence test in general?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 9:37:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 9:27:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:22:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:11:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
How could this anomaly suffice as proof for a claim this broad?

his point was that IQ tests don't consider a lot of traits that demonstrate intelligence in their own rights, and the fact that someone with such incredible recollective power and knowledge can be assigned such a low IQ is a testament to the inadequacy of the test.

I think it's a valid point.


Suck for whom, though? If IQ tests can't measure weird cognitive abilities, does that necessarily mean it's a bad intelligence test in general?

At what point do cognitive abilities become "weird," as in, what arbitrary line do you draw to determine something as weird? Is a person who remembers X normal, while a person who remembers XY "weird?"
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 9:39:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Concluding paragraph:

""We already know that, from a scientific point of view, the notion of race is meaningless. Genetic differences do not map on to traditional measurements of skin colour, hair type, body proportions and skull measurements. Now we have shown that IQ is meaningless too," Dr Highfield said."

http://www.independent.co.uk...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 9:47:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 9:37:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:27:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:22:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:11:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
How could this anomaly suffice as proof for a claim this broad?

his point was that IQ tests don't consider a lot of traits that demonstrate intelligence in their own rights, and the fact that someone with such incredible recollective power and knowledge can be assigned such a low IQ is a testament to the inadequacy of the test.

I think it's a valid point.


Suck for whom, though? If IQ tests can't measure weird cognitive abilities, does that necessarily mean it's a bad intelligence test in general?

At what point do cognitive abilities become "weird," as in, what arbitrary line do you draw to determine something as weird? Is a person who remembers X normal, while a person who remembers XY "weird?"

I don't need to define it. Inasmuch as an ability deviates (is weird) the inability to accurately gauge it will be less of an issue for the average person.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 10:01:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 9:47:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:37:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:27:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:22:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:11:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
How could this anomaly suffice as proof for a claim this broad?

his point was that IQ tests don't consider a lot of traits that demonstrate intelligence in their own rights, and the fact that someone with such incredible recollective power and knowledge can be assigned such a low IQ is a testament to the inadequacy of the test.

I think it's a valid point.


Suck for whom, though? If IQ tests can't measure weird cognitive abilities, does that necessarily mean it's a bad intelligence test in general?

At what point do cognitive abilities become "weird," as in, what arbitrary line do you draw to determine something as weird? Is a person who remembers X normal, while a person who remembers XY "weird?"

I don't need to define it. Inasmuch as an ability deviates (is weird) the inability to accurately gauge it will be less of an issue for the average person.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but essentially you're saying that whatever deviates from the norm ("weird," according to you) should not be an issue?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 10:06:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 10:01:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:47:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:37:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:27:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:22:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:11:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
How could this anomaly suffice as proof for a claim this broad?

his point was that IQ tests don't consider a lot of traits that demonstrate intelligence in their own rights, and the fact that someone with such incredible recollective power and knowledge can be assigned such a low IQ is a testament to the inadequacy of the test.

I think it's a valid point.


Suck for whom, though? If IQ tests can't measure weird cognitive abilities, does that necessarily mean it's a bad intelligence test in general?

At what point do cognitive abilities become "weird," as in, what arbitrary line do you draw to determine something as weird? Is a person who remembers X normal, while a person who remembers XY "weird?"

I don't need to define it. Inasmuch as an ability deviates (is weird) the inability to accurately gauge it will be less of an issue for the average person.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but essentially you're saying that whatever deviates from the norm ("weird," according to you) should not be an issue?

I'm saying you aren't specifying which people IQ tests aren't reflective of. Just because IQ tests can't tap into the unusual talents of some does not necessarily speak badly of the test. Basically, IQ tests measure how well you can 'create understanding' in relation to your age group. Or, to what extent you can hold things many things in your head simultaneously and all their interrelationships to solve problems. I don't see how the pursuit of that definition is so horribly lacking.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 10:08:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 10:06:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/10/2013 10:01:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:47:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:37:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:27:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:22:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:11:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
How could this anomaly suffice as proof for a claim this broad?

his point was that IQ tests don't consider a lot of traits that demonstrate intelligence in their own rights, and the fact that someone with such incredible recollective power and knowledge can be assigned such a low IQ is a testament to the inadequacy of the test.

I think it's a valid point.


Suck for whom, though? If IQ tests can't measure weird cognitive abilities, does that necessarily mean it's a bad intelligence test in general?

At what point do cognitive abilities become "weird," as in, what arbitrary line do you draw to determine something as weird? Is a person who remembers X normal, while a person who remembers XY "weird?"

I don't need to define it. Inasmuch as an ability deviates (is weird) the inability to accurately gauge it will be less of an issue for the average person.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but essentially you're saying that whatever deviates from the norm ("weird," according to you) should not be an issue?

I'm saying you aren't specifying which people IQ tests aren't reflective of. Just because IQ tests can't tap into the unusual talents of some does not necessarily speak badly of the test. Basically, IQ tests measure how well you can 'create understanding' in relation to your age group. Or, to what extent you can hold many things in your head simultaneously and all their interrelationships to solve problems. I don't see how the pursuit of that definition is so horribly lacking.

fixed
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 10:11:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 10:06:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/10/2013 10:01:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:47:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:37:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:27:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:22:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:11:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
How could this anomaly suffice as proof for a claim this broad?

his point was that IQ tests don't consider a lot of traits that demonstrate intelligence in their own rights, and the fact that someone with such incredible recollective power and knowledge can be assigned such a low IQ is a testament to the inadequacy of the test.

I think it's a valid point.


Suck for whom, though? If IQ tests can't measure weird cognitive abilities, does that necessarily mean it's a bad intelligence test in general?

At what point do cognitive abilities become "weird," as in, what arbitrary line do you draw to determine something as weird? Is a person who remembers X normal, while a person who remembers XY "weird?"

I don't need to define it. Inasmuch as an ability deviates (is weird) the inability to accurately gauge it will be less of an issue for the average person.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but essentially you're saying that whatever deviates from the norm ("weird," according to you) should not be an issue?

I'm saying you aren't specifying which people IQ tests aren't reflective of. Just because IQ tests can't tap into the unusual talents of some does not necessarily speak badly of the test. Basically, IQ tests measure how well you can 'create understanding' in relation to your age group. Or, to what extent you can hold things many things in your head simultaneously and all their interrelationships to solve problems. I don't see how the pursuit of that definition is so horribly lacking.

Read the article.

http://www.independent.co.uk...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 10:24:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 10:11:25 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/10/2013 10:06:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/10/2013 10:01:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:47:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:37:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:27:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:22:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:11:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
How could this anomaly suffice as proof for a claim this broad?

his point was that IQ tests don't consider a lot of traits that demonstrate intelligence in their own rights, and the fact that someone with such incredible recollective power and knowledge can be assigned such a low IQ is a testament to the inadequacy of the test.

I think it's a valid point.


Suck for whom, though? If IQ tests can't measure weird cognitive abilities, does that necessarily mean it's a bad intelligence test in general?

At what point do cognitive abilities become "weird," as in, what arbitrary line do you draw to determine something as weird? Is a person who remembers X normal, while a person who remembers XY "weird?"

I don't need to define it. Inasmuch as an ability deviates (is weird) the inability to accurately gauge it will be less of an issue for the average person.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but essentially you're saying that whatever deviates from the norm ("weird," according to you) should not be an issue?

I'm saying you aren't specifying which people IQ tests aren't reflective of. Just because IQ tests can't tap into the unusual talents of some does not necessarily speak badly of the test. Basically, IQ tests measure how well you can 'create understanding' in relation to your age group. Or, to what extent you can hold things many things in your head simultaneously and all their interrelationships to solve problems. I don't see how the pursuit of that definition is so horribly lacking.

Read the article.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

The article is pretty much a straw man. No one is saying one IQ score can represent what these guys are testing for. They arrive at the conclusion "IQ tests are meaningless" with laughably poor reasons.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 10:25:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Except IQ tests act as great predictors of many different factors:

likelihood of being unemployed,graduating from college or high school, what one's salary will be, one's wage, how well one will perform on the job, and criminality.

The fact that an idiot savant did terrible on an IQ test is proof that IQ tests works, not that they don't. That dude was a moron who only had a good memory, while IQ measures much more than that.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 10:28:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I mean, its been shown that monkeys actually have better short-term visual memory than humans, but they'd hardly be called more intelligent than humans.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2013 12:03:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"He read books, memorized them, and then placed them upside down on the shelf to show that he had finished reading them,"

What, he couldn't remember which books he had and had not read?
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 11:54:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
IQ measure the ability to score well on IQ tests. The reason IQ scores are useful is they are proven to predict performance on a variety of tasks. The first use of the tests was to aid in selecting Army pilots in WW I. In the 1930s a Harvard guy pushed the use of IQ tests to select students for admission to Harvard. He observed that students from privileged backgrounds who went to the best high schools scored better in achievement tests, but very adept students were often overlooked. Up until 1992, SAT tests were IQ tests.

Objections that IQ tests are not perfect predictors are correct, but so what? Good football linemen are almost all large and heavy, but there are some exceptions. So should scales be banned? Everyone is well aware that other things count, so multiple indicators are used.

Objective measures of success (earnings, number of patents, number of published papers) correlate well with IQ scores up to an IQ of about 130, beyond that other factors seem to dominate. Creativity and social skills also correlate with IQ. http://www.businessinsider.com...

It doesn't matter what IQ tests really measure.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 11:58:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Peek would not do well in nearly any job associated with high IQ. He wouldn't be a good student or professor, he couldn't manage complex situations, he couldn't perform scientific research or be an inventor. His case doesn't challenge the predictive power of IQ tests.