Jump to content

IQ Testing in Relationship to Real-World Achievement


ℕ Hilbert-WARing Theorem™

Recommended Posts

This is a general subject I have been interested in for several years, ever since my elementary school days.

 

IQ is a fascinating subject, although many of its principles and methodologies are antiquated. The meaning underlying IQ is itself an antiquated convention. IQ, standing for Intelligence Quotient, was originally formulated as the quotient of a person's intellectual age over their physical age multiplied by 100. For example, if you had the intellectual age of a 15 year old on a test and a physical age of 10 years, your IQ would classically be 15 / 10 * 100 = 150. However, that is no longer practiced, as it is not very accurate, especially over time as a child progresses into an adult and their childhood IQ is invalidated by the passage of time. Today, the modern IQ consists of a statistical analysis in which your performance on a standardized test is compared with the normal distribution of test results for a generalized population. A normal distribution is a continuous probability distribution in which most scores lie near the middle, the "bulk of data points", and scores that are further and further away from the middle become ever less frequent or common. Consequently, an average IQ is always the most common and the closer to the edge you get, the less common it is. The average IQ is always 100. Half of all test takers score less than 100 and the other half, by definition, scores more than 100.

 

IQ tests are, in theory, designed to measure your intellectual capacity for adaptive reasoning and logical abstraction, things which are predictors of success in numerous walks of life. IQ, in the simplest terms, is an attempt at quantifying intelligence, which is a fundamental criterion of proficiency in academics, as well as beyond, in the professional world. When you measure traits that are predictive of success, they are often normally distributed in such a way that they correlate positively with the normal distribution of data points on the IQ spectrum for an arbitrary population. Thus, it would strongly appear that IQ and indicators of success in life are positively correlated.

 

Nonetheless, IQ tests are highly controversial, in theory and in practice. Many IQ tests have been found to be culturally biased, being specifically constructed according to the footprint of one culture. Not only that, fundamentally, it is questionable as to whether IQ tests accurately quantify intelligence. It is not always possible to distinguish intelligence from motivation, as intelligence tests empirically measure achievement, not purely aptitude. A truer test of intellectual aptitude might come in the form of MRI scans, which can stimulate the brain to intellectual activity and measure intelligence as a function of neural efficiency. This may eventually render the IQ test obsolete or at least second-rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IQ is your mental capacity at the time of the test, it doesn't reflect you actual intellect nor is it a accurate measure of how well you will do in school/life.

 

 

It ignores the motivation and drive of the person taking the test I.e. some people maybe smarter than others but will never be able out perform those who are "less smarter".

 

Also the intellect of the person changes greatly over time, your exposure to certain type of questions an how you solve it changes. E.g simple maths question what is 6*9, some people would just think 6*9 = 54 OR 6*10-6=54 OR 5*9+9=54

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Just the fact that you can practice taking IQ tests enough to improve your score should show you that they're basically meaningless and extremely culturally biased.

 

Your IQ is a measure of how good you are at taking IQ tests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IQ is your mental capacity at the time of the test, it doesn't reflect you actual intellect nor is it a accurate measure of how well you will do in school/life.

 

 

It ignores the motivation and drive of the person taking the test I.e. some people maybe smarter than others but will never be able out perform those who are "less smarter".

 

Also the intellect of the person changes greatly over time, your exposure to certain type of questions an how you solve it changes. E.g simple maths question what is 6*9, some people would just think 6*9 = 54 OR 6*10-6=54 OR 5*9+9=54

 

I discussed all those points in my introduction to this thread. It is true that an IQ test is only necessarily valid for the time of the test and may not extend elsewhere into how you think. However, one would assume that your performance on the test is correlated with your abilities of logical abstraction and adaptive reasoning. I also mentioned how IQ tests were not only measures of aptitude, but empirically a measure of achievement, which of course is a combination of intelligence and motivation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just the fact that you can practice taking IQ tests enough to improve your score should show you that they're basically meaningless and extremely culturally biased.

 

Your IQ is a measure of how good you are at taking IQ tests.

 

IQ tests highly vary from one test to the other. Every battery of problems will be very different from its peers. Thus, it is difficult to train and prepare for an IQ test. The best preparation is simply understanding the general format of the test, in how the questions will be laid out and how one is expected to answer the questions. IQ tests are standardized and results reasonably approximate a bell-shaped curve or normal distribution, so high performance does have some kind of significance in regards to deviation from the average. I also pointed out that IQ does correlate to some degree with other predictors of future success in life, even though it of course does not exactly quantify intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just the fact that you can practice taking IQ tests enough to improve your score

Is this true? Or only when you practice questions you know will be on test?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

IQ tests highly vary from one test to the other. Every battery of problems will be very different from its peers. Thus, it is difficult to train and prepare for an IQ test. The best preparation is simply understanding the general format of the test, in how the questions will be laid out and how one is expected to answer the questions. IQ tests are standardized and results reasonably approximate a bell-shaped curve or normal distribution, so high performance does have some kind of significance in regards to deviation from the average. I also pointed out that IQ does correlate to some degree with other predictors of future success in life, even though it of course does not exactly quantify intelligence.

 

They're generally not that different, that's the point. They're designed to measure different methods of reasoning, so while the questions may appear different on some tests, you can definitely train your brain to think in particular ways and practice different types of questions that will improve your ability to answer questions requiring the same style of reasoning.

 

How do IQ testing results correlate to success in life? Barely anyone is even IQ tested, what is the sample for this observation of yours? What's even the metric for success in life, anyway? Money? Recognition? Happiness?

 

I measure success by number of cats, personally. I'm doing better than average. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a 2020 on the SAT, running on 3 hours of sleep, no breakfast, and an adderall (which admittedly was a bad idea, it gave me the shakes). Some would say that's pretty great, yeah? But I'm socially dysfunctional and suffer from a degree of autism. I'm not running a business or making big bucks anytime soon, not until I escape it. My point is that standardized tests in general aren't always great indicators of intelligence, not only are there areas they don't/can't test, but there are areas that they test inefficiently or incorrectly. My 2020 on the SAT means nothing if I can't overcome my very severe inability to mesh well with others in real life (being online eliminates that barrier, so I'm pretty normal here). 

 

IQ is very similar. While it's nice to have a high IQ, and I think an IQ test can be a general indicator of aptitude, I don't believe at all that it is the be all end all of intelligence testing. If someone got a 50 on the IQ test, I doubt I'd be hiring them, and by the same token a person having scored 150 would probably be of great interest (assuming they didn't suffer from any mental conditions. I think that a good degree of people who score well on the IQ test are mentally unstable/abnormal). 

 

 

Either way, I think most telling factor in real world achievement is motivation. Stupid people with an idea and motivation get much farther than brilliant but lazy people. Intelligence, quantified or not, only gets you so far. You have to be willing to strive to achieve greatness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Either way, I think most telling factor in real world achievement is motivation. Stupid people with an idea and motivation get much farther than brilliant but lazy people. Intelligence, quantified or not, only gets you so far. You have to be willing to strive to achieve greatness.

 

I mean, if we're gonna be realistic here, the largest contributing factor to "success" (in the silly judgmental way y'all are thinking of it) is money. If you grow up well off you live your entire life with better education and opportunities than most of the people on this earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, if we're gonna be realistic here, the largest contributing factor to "success" (in the silly judgmental way y'all are thinking of it) is money. If you grow up well off you live your entire life with better education and opportunities than most of the people on this earth.

I was more thinking of going from nothing to something, real life style. Not necessarily simply living on old money, but actually building something for yourself. That takes motivation and dedication, not just smarts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I was more thinking of going from nothing to something, real life style. Not necessarily simply living on old money, but actually building something for yourself. That takes motivation and dedication, not just smarts.

 

The vast majority of people don't really get the opportunity to do that though. And yeah, it has basically nothing to do with IQ score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"..... the link between, say, I.Q. and job performance is distinctly underwhelming. On a scale where 0.1 or below means virtually no correlation and 0.7 or above implies a strong correlation (your height, for example, has a 0.7 correlation with your parents’ height), the correlation between I.Q. and occupational success is between 0.2 and 0.3." Taken from a Malcolm Gladwell article. 

Source: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent-myth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, one would assume that your performance on the test is correlated with your abilities of logical abstraction and adaptive reasoning. I also mentioned how IQ tests were not only measures of aptitude, but empirically a measure of achievement, which of course is a combination of intelligence and motivation.

 

Which is why you're right on the part on being controversial. You are aware of taking an IQ test, assuming you are taking a serious one from a psychologist. Its good to an extend when you practice your academic skills, pattern tests, timing and such, but that's as much as one would take in terms of credibility. There are so many various factors that people had success in life that an IQ test would limit those factors to the ones that are implemented in the tests, which is why not many take them as serious as they would otherwise.

 

It also gives you that anxious feeling of failure. Some are afraid to take one in hopes that they won't think themselves even more stupid that they were if one would have a low score.

 

It reminds me of some people that i knew who where very anxious on the fact that they were in their early 20's but they didn't get married  :lol: or they didn't get a job because of the thought of failing it. The reason being is, statistics say that people usually get married between 27-29 years old, or how being married early gets you more financial success in the long term or such.

 

I really think the biggest motivation in life at an early age is when you stop thinking that failure is your personal quirk which limits your thought of being just your fault thus making you reluctant of trying to do anything because of that, and regard it as just another part of life. If you do that, then you will automatically stop being greatly influenced by online statistics that dictates what your life should be, and having the experience of trying it yourself will really boosts your confidence further in trying many other things in life that would've been otherwise closed for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Keep reading the shortened topic on the main forum page as "IQ testing in relationships" and being like.... what

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also mentioned how IQ tests were not only measures of aptitude, but empirically a measure of achievement, which of course is a combination of intelligence and motivation.

The thing is with today's society IQ does not play a significant factor but rather your personality and the opportunities which are presented to you. Even just taking normal job seeking as the standard the person with the "better connections" will find a job much more easier that the person with a high IQ.

 

"Success" in life by today's standards is generally measured by the amount of money you have made and IQ has next to no correlation to this but rather personality. The "rich" tend to have a very entrepreneurial take on life coupled with a somewhat obsession in their field of work rather that have a high IQ if anything the "rich" dont have a high IQ compared to that of an average researcher/engineer.

 

A simple IQ test and in relation to success in life is not accurate at all since it ignores many factors. This is similar to the belbin self-perception inventory test which in theory is correct in expanding team work but it undermines many key factors.

 

Is this true? Or only when you practice questions you know will be on test?

 

The "standard" IQ test which is generally accepted is the Mensa Test, if you do the test a few times you start to understand the "type" of questions and you will get progressively faster. Kinda like that Nintendo brain training, you do get faster and faster but not exactly "smarter" it's more like you're getting more familiar with they type of questions presented to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The "standard" IQ test which is generally accepted is the Mensa Test

The Wechsler and Stanford-Binet are by far the most prominent and popular IQ tests.

 

IQ has a correlation with success, but it is not definitive. IQ has more of a correlation with success in school, or "academic potential."

 

There have been many studies on IQ/success but none without caveats. I could go on and on all day about IQ's history and application but the only thing one really needs to know is this: it's only one piece of the puzzle of intelligence, and an even smaller piece of the puzzle "success."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

it's only one piece of the puzzle of intelligence, and an even smaller piece of the puzzle "success."

 

I'd say you have this backwards, personally. Success as defined by western academia (ie - be rich or have a prestigious job) has a far stronger link to IQ score than innate intelligence does, as your ability to perform well in both (success and IQ) are related to the same things - the type of education and opportunities you have. Intelligence as any kind of innate quality has nothing to do with education or success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say you have this backwards, personally. Success as defined by western academia (ie - be rich or have a prestigious job) has a far stronger link to IQ score than innate intelligence does, as your ability to perform well in both (success and IQ) are related to the same things - the type of education and opportunities you have. Intelligence as any kind of innate quality has nothing to do with education or success.

I don't see any distinction of yours between IQ and "innate intelligence." When I said intelligence, I included crystallized intelligence, emotional intelligence (introspection), empathy, spacial/pattern recognition, brain elasticity, etc.

 

IQ has nothing to do with education-- you don't get taught IQ.

 

(pretty incoherent so I replied as well as I could)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's just one thing I don't understand.  What the hell is your point?  If you want to correlate IQ with real world achievement, there are so many articles and experiments done to prove that IQ matters, but so does dedication, goal orientation and self-confidence and a host of environmental factors.  It's not a giant leap of logic to then conclude that IQ tests are effectively redundant for reliably measuring success.

 

This thread is pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I don't see any distinction of yours between IQ and "innate intelligence." When I said intelligence, I included crystallized intelligence, emotional intelligence (introspection), empathy, spacial/pattern recognition, brain elasticity, etc.

 

IQ has nothing to do with education-- you don't get taught IQ.

 

(pretty incoherent so I replied as well as I could)

 

IQ tests measure your ability to perform specific reasoning tasks, which is something you absolutely are taught to some degree if you are brought up in certain cultures and absolutely can improve with practice.

 

(Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's incoherent.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a general subject I have been interested in for several years, ever since my elementary school days.

 

IQ is a fascinating subject, although many of its principles and methodologies are antiquated. The meaning underlying IQ is itself an antiquated convention. IQ, standing for Intelligence Quotient, was originally formulated as the quotient of a person's intellectual age over their physical age multiplied by 100. For example, if you had the intellectual age of a 15 year old on a test and a physical age of 10 years, your IQ would classically be 15 / 10 * 100 = 150. However, that is no longer practiced, as it is not very accurate, especially over time as a child progresses into an adult and their childhood IQ is invalidated by the passage of time. Today, the modern IQ consists of a statistical analysis in which your performance on a standardized test is compared with the normal distribution of test results for a generalized population. A normal distribution is a continuous probability distribution in which most scores lie near the middle, the "bulk of data points", and scores that are further and further away from the middle become ever less frequent or common. Consequently, an average IQ is always the most common and the closer to the edge you get, the less common it is. The average IQ is always 100. Half of all test takers score less than 100 and the other half, by definition, scores more than 100.

 

IQ tests are, in theory, designed to measure your intellectual capacity for adaptive reasoning and logical abstraction, things which are predictors of success in numerous walks of life. IQ, in the simplest terms, is an attempt at quantifying intelligence, which is a fundamental criterion of proficiency in academics, as well as beyond, in the professional world. When you measure traits that are predictive of success, they are often normally distributed in such a way that they correlate positively with the normal distribution of data points on the IQ spectrum for an arbitrary population. Thus, it would strongly appear that IQ and indicators of success in life are positively correlated.

 

Nonetheless, IQ tests are highly controversial, in theory and in practice. Many IQ tests have been found to be culturally biased, being specifically constructed according to the footprint of one culture. Not only that, fundamentally, it is questionable as to whether IQ tests accurately quantify intelligence. It is not always possible to distinguish intelligence from motivation, as intelligence tests empirically measure achievement, not purely aptitude. A truer test of intellectual aptitude might come in the form of MRI scans, which can stimulate the brain to intellectual activity and measure intelligence as a function of neural efficiency. This may eventually render the IQ test obsolete or at least second-rate.

 

In america, most people have the IQ of 70 my boy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I had my IQ tested when I was a child, and it's above average. On the ACT/SAT, it's above average.

 

However, I have no idea what I want to do, no interest in boring jobs, no interest in doing a lot of things.

Comparing one variable to the entire idea of success is not accurate, it's the equivalent of saying because a plane has a big engine it will fly faster. You need to account for everything else :3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...