IQ Tests

[Lady Arwyn]

What do you think, are IQ tests a realistic reflection of a person's true intellegence?

[Ravien Coromana]

I chose innaccurate, because if someone is in a bad mood or is sleepy, they arent going to do good, and thus it does not pic the true intellgence. Like us on here when we'er tired and keep doing typos

[Tony]

I picked the same, but then, I'm as think as pig s**t! so what do I know? :D

[Xhack]

They give a clue to cognitive skills, but probably nurture, socio-economic group and life experience determine the final person.

So, not very important overall :2cent:

[Mausey]

I'm guessing they can give a rough idea of what end of the scale you're at but there are too many other factors that can skew the results.

[Madrigal]

Only if they come from an extremely normalized (at least) middle-class background, and are very average. It doesn't test how likely you are to suceed.

For instance... yeah, I'm supposed to be a genius, but I'm terminally clueless.

[granath]

A general idea of one kind of intelligence, although the results are often skewed by so many other factors that it should never be used as more than a general indication.

[Bertrand]

I think IQ tests are rubbish. Degree of intellegence is not important, its how one uses it that matters. No written test can measure that.

[Linmag]

I think IQ tests can give a rough idea of whereabouts on a scale a person is, but they need to be treated with great caution, as so many factors can affect a person's performance on a given day - and you still can't measure 'common sense'!

[C_ris]

IQ tests are vaguely accurate, placing people in a 'range' ie low, middle, high.

But IQ tests test problem solving abilities, rather than intelligence, Some people get the wrong idea about them though.

And on another point, 'intelligence' itself is a varied thing. There are some EXTREMELY intelligenmt people in their feild who wouldn't be able to go shopping properly on their own... as that requires common sense. :crazy:

:whee:

[woollymouse]

Having a high IQ doesn't necessarily mean your intelligent. The tests themselves can be beaten does that make you any more intelligent than the guy who works best with his hands doing things. I would much rather see someone do well through hard work than someone who has it given to them on a plate because they have a so called high IQ. You can have the highest IQ in the world but with out common sense you are nothing.

[JayEgo]

IQ tests are an interesting tool, showing a good degree of someones inteligence from this point of view but can also completely miss out on several areas of cognition and inteligence IMO.

They're a vaguely usefull tool in assessing inteligence but I would hope that folk take more into account than an IQ score...

Ja¥son xx

[Beisla]

I think IQ tests (the good ones) can give quite a good reflection on one part of a person's intelligence, but there are many points which an IQ test doesn't cover.

[j_mercuryuk]

i didn't vote, but i believe that the only thing IQ tests show is how good atr IQ tests you are.
there are people whom seem very clever, but are, in fact, just good at remebering/learning things. also in my experience, clever people very rarely have common sense.

[wulfin]

i don't put much faith in IQ tests myself. I've taken numerous ones over the years and tend to score very high, but there are so many factors that can influence it. Most IQ tests are written for: someone in the white collar industry, caucasion, middle class. Many i've encountered are also *american written*. And i'm sorry, i dont know how many ounces in a pound, or pounds in an american tonne. I don't use imperial so i always fail those questions miserably.

Also, IQ tests are generally for those with at least a high school education if not better.. i know MANY people way more intelligent than i am that never went further than junior high or high school that wouldn't score high because of it.

And of course, tehre are many many factors that i havent gotten into that are there.. i just don't have time.. (man, i've taken a few too many psych courses along the way)

[carmella]

I had to take an IQ test (non reading ) to go to Kindergarten early. I went Bad idea. I didn't do well as the youngest in the class. n

In college as part of a testing class I took about 5 IQ tests. The results were all different. Depending on how much effort I put into each test. The ones I put effort into were all about the same.

Do not gage success in school. Many genius level IQ folks do not adjust well to school. In this area we tend to ignore the gifted and actually put them down. Where I grew up they were admired.

[bisb]

I think they are a tool to be used like anything else. But if you don't have any common sense. . .
I have a neighbor who is very intelligent BUT when it comes to common sense he has none. He will drive his tractor with a mower deck under up and down hills in 3rd gear when first would be better. He doesn't understand why the tractor tips backward going up the hill. I no longer watch him mow his yard. He has also driven into a swamp with his tractor because he didn't think he would sink if he stayed on the foot path. :roll: :roll:

[Faren]

I think it's an indicator of a person's potential, but that's it. It shouldn't be taken too seriously.

I mean, if Madrigal's a genius.... :faint: :devil:

[Madrigal]

I think it's an indicator of a person's potential, but that's it. It shouldn't be taken too seriously.

I mean, if Madrigal's a genius.... :faint: :devil:

Madrigal's also massively learning disabled. :redfruit:

[Bronze-Dragonrider]

Well I basically agree with most everyone here. Basic idea of one aspect of intelligence, bit a person given an IQ test on a different day and different mood could change the results at least a little bit. But I still like to take them just for fun.

[Sandi]

IQ Tests were invented as a joke by PMDs :evil:

[TamTam]

IQ tests are vaguely accurate at best. When I was young, I was tested at 110. Later on, I took a test on the internet. It told me I was at 150, which is surprisingly good considering the last third of the test was in Czech! In order for a test to be accurate, the source must be accurate.

Frankly, I put EQ (emotional quotient) far above IQ.

[Bardmaiden]

When I was working at the pesticides place there were a few very intellgent scienists but if you asked them what day it was or where something was they were lost! So it depends on the person as sometimes being very good in one area means you can be totally lost in another or even (as one of them was) have no common sense what so ever.

[Bamy]

IQ tests generally give a good idea of a person's intellegence, but the results can be skewed.

[Kath]

IQ tests tell you how good you are at answering IQ test questions. For people of practically identical backgrounds, yes, they may give you a handle on intelligence as well, but what they DON'T give is any information on potential future mental development, or indeed, functional intelligence in the workplace.

[Kath]

intellegence?


You may want to do some editing there...

[GR'ass]

snigger. .. .since the last time I did an IQ test i had a migraine, and still managed to score high, I think they are a load of crud. I mean, really, intelligence and intelligence levels differ from person to person, depending on the area.
Kind of like landing in the top 2% of an aptitude test. I mean, hell, if I was that smart, don't ya think I'd be able to dfind a career that I am happy in. One that after 6 months I don't get bored with? Or at least finnish a course? Guess I am just an under achiever.

[Hans]

There's many different IQ's, so 99 percent of the general test are crap.

[Bobbsy]

I said "generally accurate" but just to clarify, I'm talking about a properly designed, properly administered test. The multitudes of on-line IQ tests are generally pretty poor and can be seriously skewed by all sorts of factors.

For example, I saw one that purported to be a general IQ test, but unless you had a knowledge of certain American TV shows and sporting figures you were lost!

Bobbsy

[jan55]

I posted the last option as the tests are subjective. I agree with a lot of the posts here about intelligent people who have no common sense. I have an IQ high enough to get into MENSA, but if I'm that clever why am I in a low paid job and make daft mistakes all the time?:roll:

[Master Harper Andrea]

I'm with y'all. I think the "normal" IQ tests test for something else other than IQ. For example, I don't consider myself exceptionally brilliant, but I am great at taking standardized tests, because I can eliminate the bad answers most of the time. Does that make me intelligent? Maybe...

Tests are only as accurate as the person who makes them. And what they are supposed to measure for. Some tests are a load of poo.

And I know someone highly intellegent who once tried to iron a shirt on his body, and opened a hot radiator cap. Amazing. He has grown up a bit since then.

[sglandon]

In our county, when we give children an IQ test, it tests several different areas, and gives them a rating in each area, and then an overall. Usually, the test is a pretty good reflection of the child's strengths and weaknesses, but as many others have said, they are not always accurate for one reason or another. When my older son was tested in kindergarten (for the gifted program) he scored an 80 on his IQ test. :roll: They threw out the results, of course - he didn't want to take the test and just colored in dots.

I am in the category with Madrigal - my IQ tests always come back very high, but what difference does it make? I am as blonde as a natural brunette can be, and forgetful as the day is long. Having a high IQ is just a number on a paper somewhere. :roll:

[Lady Arwyn]

There is a difference between *having* intellegence and *using* it. :laugh:

[elfycat]

What about those people who do badly at school, can barely read or write and can't do maths. I've known people who are like this but are so clued into the rest of the world.

My parents left school early - my Mum at 14 and Dad at 16. Dad had the highest qualification and it works out at GCSE Gardening.

They worked hard and retired in their early 50s. Both would score low on an IQ test, but they are very intelligent, sucessful people.

I can see how IQ tests work, but quite often the information is irrelevant.

[Rinoa]

We use IQ tests to see which kids need special services (learning disabled classes, etc.) Unfortunately, it sometimes backfires. I've had at least 2 students (one currently) who had IQ scores that were too low to qualify for services. If it was a few points lower, they would be MR, if it was higher, they would be LD. As it is, they are simply "low functioning" and all those D's and F's on the report card are the best they can do. (How can I follow No Child Left Behind with that? :roll: ) We can sometimes get around the system and give the child other qualifications, but the government will audit us if we have too many kids qualifying for special ed.

Anyway, sometimes IQ tests are useful, but for most people the information doesn't do anyone any good.

Rinoa:note:

[sglandon]

Rinoa, those kids that fall in the gap break your heart, don't they? I HATE that. We do have what we call EIP classes, and that does allow some of them to get extra help (smaller class sizes), but sometimes, it is not enough. NCLB, indeed! :roll: How are we going to make AYP consistently when we don't have MORE (or maybe different?) for the kids that need it ?

[Lady Arwyn]

My grandparents too failed to finish school, they had to quit to support the family during the Great Depression. Grampa was a floor layer for the rest of his working life and Grama never worked but both are VERY well read and obviously highly intellegent.

The "good" IQ tests don't require any education level, they only test your ability to think your way out of a paper bag.

My oldest son repeatedly tested in the "borderline retarded" range... until they realized that he had autism and his autistic behaviors were causing him to pay little attention to what was going on. Also, they were using a language based IQ test and one of the hallmarks of autism is language problems. Finally they realized that he simply didn't test well and stopped testing him. They just let him succede or fail at his own rate and in his own way. Now he is in 10th grade, in Geometry (they said he would never reach basic high school math) and is a pre-engineering student.

Recently they retested him using a non-language based test and allowing him to procede at his own pace, etc. He scored VERY high.

Often these tests are given without consideration for external factors, or without knowledge of them.

When done and used RIGHT they can be valuable tools in education and fairly accurate, when done and used wrong they can irreparably harm a child's chances to succede.

[Weyrwoman Kalina]

I say they're vaguely accurate, being influenced by too many factors to properly account for.

[Madrigal]

I've scored between 120 and 180 in five different testing sessions (Stanford-Binet and Weschler, both administered by psychologists) over the course of my life. I haven't gotten noticeably smarter or dumber.

Oh, and I've tested as LD for no better reason than that I had excellent skills in one area. These disabilites were supposedly severe. The scores in the 'bad' parts, on that test? Between 120 and 150.

The tester's best explanation for my vastly varying range of scores on the last exam (two years ago) was "Umm... they aren't reliable when you get past 135."

I don't like labeling people as LD or not based on the IQ test. On a battery of tests, possibly including an IQ test--OK. But it should *never* be one test alone. How do you know the kid just wasn't distracted because of personal matters that day?

[Falcon Muse]

A couple of years ago certain events(nothing serious, just little things) led to my high school's IEP/Pysch department executing various tests on me for two weeks. This was also the same time that I was recommended to a pyschiatrist where I was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder, or manic depression.

Alot of the testing the school gave me was apparently to test my IQ - I hadn't been doing homework for years and they were concerned I was LD. I just have a bad habit :roll: But I digress. In the end of the testing, my case-manager told me the results and explained a new scale.

IIRC, it ran thus:
below 90 = below average
90-100 = average
110-120 = above average
above 120 = exceptional/'genius'/blah blah blah
The woman said I fell somewhere around 136

I've never thought very highly of IQ test - and I've taken several through various therapists, etc. I usualy test in the range of 'above average' bordering 'exceptional.' And we are all left wanting.