Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Unbalanced tested IQ's (Like Einstein's) show that popular IQ testing is innacurate


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Kriminal99

Kriminal99

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 815 posts

Posted 17 April 2008 - 05:36 AM

Einstein was one of those people who had an unbalanced tested IQ. I am going to argue that the existence of such people invalidates many popular forms of IQ testing.

A general idea in the field of IQ testing is a factor called "g" which is supposed to represent your overall ability to learn.

For most people, there is a correlation between the amount of information they have collected in all fields. The general idea is that there are biological factors controlling the speed at which they extract information from their surroundings.

I believe an important assumption in this thinking is that people use this biological capability in a manner that is similar to how everyone else uses it.

Consider extracting IQ's from a Verbal/Quantitative test. Verbal reasoning measures one skill that helps you to persuade others. This is why the test assumes you have used your biological capability to gain skill in verbal reasoning - humans are social beings and it is hard to get far socially if you are not good at persuading other people.

However, metaphor is not the only means of persuasion nor is it by any means a measure of logical reasoning ability. I believe, in fact, that a particularly logical minded person would reject this kind of "skill" altogether because of its complete lack of connection to understanding and creating understanding in others.

The metaphor as a means of expression is capable of supporting any side of an argument and its opposite at the same time. It can be used to convince anyone of anything true or false and therefore has no value other than to open someone's mind to something.

If what I say is true, then it might be a poor measure of biological learning ability to gauge the IQ of a person based on their ability to use and distinguish metaphors. Anyone who comes to understand logical thinking will reject the use of metaphors as a substitute for understanding.

Einstein for example scored much higher on math IQ tests than he did on verbal.

However, why stop there? Who is to say that we have any idea what a person applies their biological ability to? Logical reasoning skills are similar to math skills, but past a certain point math skills become very specific to dealing with numbers and mathematical concepts. In other words, it is like logical reasoning applied to numbers.

Other tests attempt to measure more abstract abilities perhaps hoping that everyone is equally untrained in the field of question. Consider the case of spatial reasoning. A sailor would obviously have more concern for this capability than would an accountant. Low and behold, sailors have been tested to have higher spatial reasoning ability.

There is a separate field of IQ testing known as Chronometrics. This field of testing revolves around using measures of "Complex reaction time" to directly test a person's natural ability to extract information from their surroundings. It is my belief that this should be considered a direct measure of IQ and that the other forms of measure should be forsaken.

While it does make sense that we try and find the type of "Complex reaction time" test that is best correlated with a person's ability to learn whatever they are interested in, in order to do that you really need to know what they have applied themselves to.
  • Kayra likes this

#2 Ahmabeliever

Ahmabeliever

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 18 April 2008 - 04:54 AM

Take a look at Gardeners Theory of Intelligence.

#3 nutronjon

nutronjon

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 619 posts

Posted 19 April 2008 - 09:58 AM

I know a mechanic who took a class in physics class and failed miserably, because he could not grasp the abstract concepts of theory. However, he was the only student in the class who could solve a practical problem, presented by the teacher. Solving the problem required hands on work, making a real object do the desired thing. Those who understood theory could not do the practical problem solving. Some of us have the ability to do this with no training, as our mind just realizes the practical solutions intutitively. It has been said, if we needed to invent the bridge today, it could not be done, because education has destroyed this innate ability. It has at least put those with this ability on the margins of society, because they can not make it through the formal education system.

Newton was put in the back of his class and everyone thought he was stupid, until an event determined him to prove he was as intelligent as anyone else. Einstien had trouble in school, and I expect this thread to address that, because his name was mentioned. Many out standing people had trouble in school, and in the past, 8th grade drop outs started their own businesses. They could not depend on industry to provide jobs for them, and had depend on themselves in a climate that didn't that, as our present climate does.

We have created for ourselves a contrived reality, separate from nature and with such contrived ideas about intelligence and what is important. We are so disconnected from nature, and true selves, it has been argued our morality is not connected to our human nature. An arguement that caused my jaw to drop. We are so disconnect, and so into our heads, which are full of such a contrived ideas of what is sol and is important, that surely, what we have built for ourselves must fall. It is just too disconnected to not fall. Those who could save us are locked out of the contrived reality and hopefully with the Internet we will get connected and we will balance out the problem and come back to a healthy culture.

#4 nutronjon

nutronjon

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 619 posts

Posted 19 April 2008 - 10:14 AM

Take a look at Gardeners Theory of Intelligence.


Obviously Gardener is correct. Have you met many geniuses? The geniuses I have met have no interpersonal or social intelligence. Then there are people with extremely low IQ's and amazing ability in one form of intelligence such as numbers or music.

Really, really important to this intelligence thing is our language. Hebrew and Arabic languages have a connection with numbers. I am meaning to do some research on this, as surely if we are thinking in numerical terms when we speak or write, that has to do something powerful to our brains.

The Chinese still use picture language, and that gives them a head start when it comes to thinking quantum physically, compared to those of us who, through language, have become rigid linear thinkers. Chinese board games force a person to think multidimensional, instead of linearly, unlike Monopoly that is very goal orineted, narrowing the focus.

Our different languages mean developing different neuron connections in our brains, and therefore, different mental skills.

#5 Tolouse

Tolouse

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 106 posts

Posted 19 April 2008 - 10:33 AM

it is pretty interesting though

#6 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 19 April 2008 - 12:52 PM

Take a look at Gardeners Theory of Intelligence.

Obviously Gardener is correct.

I think we should not be so quick to conclude this.

Consider the summary and references given in the wikipedia section on criticism of Gardener’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences. In short, MI is not supported, and in some cases contradicted, by data. Although Gardener has stated that he would be "delighted were such evidence [supporting MI] to accrue", his approach has been to advance and explore the theory as an alternative, not attempt to design and conduct actual tests of it and refine it into a practical psychometric tool.

MI appeals to our intuitive, anecdotal idea of what intelligence is, and also to stereotypes such as the socially incapable scientific genius and the socially adept but vacuous socialite and the dumb elite athlete. It’s important to note, however, that these stereotypes are not based in sound scientific data, but are largely products of selective “cherry picking” of individuals who appear to validate these stereotypes, often without actually testing more than self and other reported assessments of their various aptitudes. When one actually test the socially incapable genius, or examines his academic performance, one often find mediocre scores even in his scientific area of specialty, while the vacuous socialite and dumb athlete score well. Those we deem “genius” not infrequently score lower on conventional intelligent test than those we deem average or even dumb.

Empirical Data continues to support models such as Spearman’s g factor, where performance in many testable areas of intelligence are strongly positively correlated. As neurological research increases our understanding or the biological basis of thought and intelligence, it tends to support these empirical models, as many kinds of cognitive and kinesthetic ability are revealed to involve common brain structures and chemistries. Although outliers, such as savants, exist, they appear to involve atypical conditions resulting from brain malformation, injury, and/or disease, and be poorly applicable to theories of intelligence describing most people.

It’s important, I think, to examine the appeal and apparent validity of MI theory. In large part, I think it appeals to our ingrained sense of fairness. Smart people must, according to this belief, “pay” by being less socially adept, physically attractive, and athletic. Attractive and/or athletic people must pay by being less smart. However, if one looks at actual data, one finds that high-performing intellectuals are often attractive and athletic, professional actors, models, and elite athletes are usually above average in tested intelligence and academic achievement, while people with low intelligence test scores and academic achievement are rarely considered highly attractive or elite athletes. Biology, it seems, is not constrained by our beliefs concerning fairness and balance.

Both intuitive ideas and rigorously tests of intelligence are confounded by our ability to learn. A person with a strong work ethic and sound study habits may seem and test an adult “genius”, while a person with genius level early SB IQ test scores may seem and test an adult “slacker”. As with any discipline, people who studies and practices taking aptitude and achievement tests tend to score significantly higher as a result. And, in my personal experience, people who identify and practice a small collection of what I like to call “smart person tricks” tend to be widely considered smart people, or even geniuses, by those on whom they ply these tricks.

It’s important, I think, to understand what intelligence testing is, and is not, and its usefulness and limitations. It was, and to a great extent remains, a tool for assessing how best to educate children, both by providing “gifted” children with advanced instruction, and providing remedial instruction as needed. It is also a potentially powerful tool for egalitarianism, providing justification for providing people of low socioeconomic status with education and professional opportunities once available only to the people of high socioeconomic status.

#7 Kriminal99

Kriminal99

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 815 posts

Posted 19 April 2008 - 01:38 PM

G Theory says that subtest scores can be broken into G and subtest specific factors. And this breakdown was determined based on who? The average person?

So for a person who applies their intelligence in a non average manner, G would have different levels of correlation with each test score.

A person lost at sea most of their life for instance might have a really high Spatial reasoning score and poor Verbal reasoning score. Using the standard breakdown of the verbal test between G and test specific factors, we would believe he had a low G.

However obviously he scored poorly on the verbal test because he didn't have anyone to talk to most of his life. The score probably doesn't correlate with G at all. Further more using just his spatial score would probably cause us to overestimate his G because all he did all day long his whole life was use spatial reasoning.

Now consider a person who appears normal but who mentally blocks out everything that goes on around him and spends most of his time processing data related to intelligence type X. The normal breakdowns between G and test specific scores are useless for this person as well, and we haven't even invented the way to test the standard amount of knowledge of this type. Even when we do, we can't compare him to everyone else to determine his G, because we need to use other people who have chosen to do the same thing for whatever odd reason. Its just like the sailor case, only this person could be anyone in the general population that didn't just wash up on shore one day.

So MI theory could be supported by data by saying that people apply their G differently.

#8 Ahmabeliever

Ahmabeliever

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 19 April 2008 - 03:43 PM

I raised my IQ to above genius. I know, I know, you can't raise it, or can you...?

1 year ago. 142. Today 147. I know, it's only borderline.

The difference, I 'believe' in my athiesm today so my head is not cluttered with God nonsense and the constant self analysis that went with it. Took a lot of mental energy and converted it to noise.
Hypography forum has forced me to be critical and this skill has me ace most questions presented to me, unless I've no knowledge of the subject...

And if you care, I topped english science math everything except sports as I was not allowed to play having athsma (and living on top of a coal mine!) and when I hit 13 I became one of the worse behaved children in school, ultimately asked to leave. A drop-out.

Since then I've schooled up in gym instruction and so now can run physical rings around younger guys. I was not lacking 'intellect' in this area, I was lacking instruction. I got accused of taking steroids I got so fit so fast. How, it's a science, a formula.

I've learnt to build, and my boss said - you're as good as a 2 year apprentice - at 2 months. I've since been able to draw up plans without ever having learnt any technical drawing. I drew up and built a building by myself including several ropes and pulleys to pull it off single handedly. My boss at the time said to the boys next door in utter disbelief - that building he made is really really good. I included a retaining wall on one side, wiring (never done before) drainage (same) an internal pond (first pond) and more features.

But! There is a downfall, boredom comes fast. Learn something, move on.

Gardeners theory of intelligence is all good and well, I put it up as food for thought for the topic at hand, I don't think everyone's a genius, I think the world is filled with ID-iots.

A genius will get better at building much faster than an average iq. Unless the genius has a bit of the savant in them. My ability to assimilate information and then use it, that's intelligence, not being able to put theory into practise, well, the theory is intelligent, not doing the practical is less intelligent, imo, than the person who can do both.

Musically I suck, so, I need another approach, I learn one classical piece so often it looks natural and add funny words to it. Results...

Look Ma - I'm on the telly!

Intelligence is knowing your weak points too, and having this knowledge finding ways to overcome it, not giving up but trying to work it out. intelligence works on the problem, ID-iots say unpossible!

So, sorry for blowing my own horn so loud and long. :roll: I'm fully aware there are many here who could run circles around me. Intelligence is also seeing a gift as a gift, to enhance community, not compete against.

Einstein was probably completely unimpressed with all the bulldust posing as education in his time. Ten minutes into an hours lesson he's at the - next! - stage and so acts out of boredom. Seen it all too often.

Gardeners theory of multiple intelligences is likely influenced and backed by the christian belief we are all special and equal bla bla bla.

IQ tests might not be entirely accurate, but brainpower ability in many fields, not just ability to do, ability to shine.

As for me and Alfred, no comparison, not only am I on an entirely different playing field, I've worn the wrong shoes! :shrug:

#9 Ahmabeliever

Ahmabeliever

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 19 April 2008 - 06:55 PM

We have created for ourselves a contrived reality, separate from nature and with such contrived ideas about intelligence and what is important. We are so disconnected from nature, and true selves, it has been argued our morality is not connected to our human nature. An arguement that caused my jaw to drop. We are so disconnect, and so into our heads, which are full of such a contrived ideas of what is sol and is important, that surely, what we have built for ourselves must fall. It is just too disconnected to not fall. Those who could save us are locked out of the contrived reality and hopefully with the Internet we will get connected and we will balance out the problem and come back to a healthy culture.


'Nature', 'true selves', 'morality', do not fall into my definition of intelligence.

Nor does a person as a computing automaton. We are a sum of parts. The discussion is about intelligence.

One might look at what intelligence is not, and define intelligence further in that manner.

I argue

It is not emotional. But it can be used to process emotions. Intelligence can be used to 'know thyself'. Faster processing speed means faster resolution.

It is not moral. Though an intelligent person should 'know better'.

Some very intelligent people can easily be mistaken for idiots due to the stuff they process, their interests, being abstract or advanced to the norm. Their frames of reference do not make sense to others.

Intelligence is not language. Language is a vehicle or tool for expressing intelligence.

It is not nature - as in human nature. It is not instinctual.

It is not moral, but assists in moral judgement.

Intelligence is the ability to asimilate information from the senses and retain the information in the memory and access the information when needed.

It is measured as faster and more complex problem solving in many areas as this is what it is.

Evryone is special, why be bothered by high IQ, I don't find Arnolds muscles a threat to my ego, or Newtons math, I just freakin love being human and trying all sorts of stuff. It's good to suck at things too, you should hear me singing, which I do a lot of ;)

#10 Kriminal99

Kriminal99

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 815 posts

Posted 21 April 2008 - 06:45 PM

One recent approach to the idea of intelligence is to reduce it to something called complex reaction time.

This is where basically the time for you to make a decision is measured. You wait for some kind of question or mental task to pop up and when it does you do it as quickly as possible.

Some people believe it IS intelligence because of it's strong correlation with G but logically it can be looked at like this. If you are in a classroom where a teacher is lecturing and and you have a window of 10 seconds to process an idea before he moves on to another idea that you would have to process, then if you can process that idea in time you will learn it and if your brain cannot do that fast enough you will lose out. Or a better example is if you are in a room and the tv is on, while your brother is asking your mom what a word he read about means. If you process things quicker, you might learn the word you overheard and something from the tv at the same time.

They brain does grow and adapt during our lifetimes. I believe there is a possibility that by giving people games to practice our complex reaction times it is possible that we could cause our brain to increase it's IQ. This wouldn't occur naturally because we do not normally feel compelled to react faster...

There is also a possibility that the more we identify and comprehend what we need to be able to do, the more our children will be capable of doing it. This is one possible explanation of the Flynn effect, whereby IQ's raise approximately 3 pts per decade on average.

One thing I don't understand is the difference between systems thinkers and... what to call them... instinct thinkers. I feel I learn very quickly because I have built a system of understanding my whole life and each new piece of information fits perfectly into this system.

Other people have collected sums of unconnected information rife with metaphorical reasoning such that every thing they know applies to a specific situation and conflicts with other things they know.

Various tricks that I have learned seem to make me able to learn much faster, yet I could communicate these tricks to anyone and it would seem allow them to learn faster as well. So how is it that IQ is so stable during a person's life time.