Thread: Do tests measure intelligence?

Originally Posted by DELFIA

Tests measure intelligence? You don't have to answer this if you don't want to.

I'll answer that one! Tests such as college exams measure the accuracy of acquired knowledge about a specific topic. Sadly, most knowledge on tests is from rote memorization of facts. So...no, they don't.

However, part of intelligence is the ability to retain information. That part can be measured by tests. How long do you have to study to make a good grade on the test? It's not so much how one does on a test, but how much effort it took to get the score compared with the rest of your peers.

While I'm bored, let's define intelligence: Intelligence is the ability to process, retain, and apply knowledge. In short, it's not how much you know, it's how well you think. How about a car metaphor? That seems just dandy right now.

Your brain is the car, mainly the engine bit of it. Some people have brains built like a Mustang, some like a Kia. They can both make a 500-mile journey, it's just that the Mustang runs the trip faster. Also, both cars and intelligences can be modified one way or the other, with the right tools and parts.

That's a good analogy and you're spot on. Tests, from grade school spelling tests to college exams is all about the memorization of facts.

And I'm not sure there is such a thing that measures intelligence.

There are several IQ tests in standard use today, but I don't know if I'd take them seriously.

It's a little tricky to judge intelligence, but possible. Generally it's not a first impression sort of affair. Going back to the car metaphor, even if you don't know the exact horsepower of a car, you can listen to the roar of the engine and get a fair idea. =)

I believe intelligence is subjective, therefore in the eye (or mind) of the beholder.

Originally Posted by DELFIA

I believe intelligence is subjective, therefore in the eye (or mind) of the beholder.

I'd have to disagree with you there. Intelligence is objectively measurable. Malleable, yes, but quantifiable.

Originally Posted by Elric Randall

I'd have to disagree with you there. Intelligence is objectively measurable. Malleable, yes, but quantifiable.

I think there are components that go into intelligence that others may hold in higher regards than others, which would make it subjective.

And I'm not claiming to be right, you won't get that with me. I'm open to enlightenment, even on forums.

I kinda get where you're coming from now. What components may be held in higher regard?

Some people may deem a no-name author of a 500 page mystery novel with a thick and winding plot more intelligent than a big stud computer software founder. Or a guy like Eddie Van Halen more intelligent than a famous philosopher.

Do you see where I'm trying to go with this?

So what you're saying is that the products of intelligence are valued differently, right? A person could be a regular genius, but if he becomes the greatest toothpick building designer in the world, he might not seem as smart as the person who designed the magnetic Bullet Train.

I don't have the experience to say this, but it feels right. Intelligence applies to every field, but human interest does not. People become knowledgeable about things that interest them, and maybe neglect the boring topics. Not to say that they couldn't understand the boring stuff, just that they're less motivated to.

So you're saying if the designer of the magnetic Bullet Train was asked to write a novel, with strong and compelling characters intertwined in a mind-bending plot he could do it? Maybe, but probably not, because there are different qualities that make up intelligence that some posses a great deal of and some do not and it comes down to what people think is the greater quality based on successes, failures and other life experiences.

Now, I think I may be confusing myself by confusing talent and intelligence, but I think they're related.

That's just my two cents.

That's actually exactly what I'm saying. Granted, it might take him ten or more years to learn how to write a novel, but the reverse is also true: an intelligent author would have to basically get an engineering degree and years of practical experience before he/she could design something like the Bullet Train.

The genius part is where they shave a year or two off the time it takes to learn all that carp. They get to the destination faster.

IMO it is a mixed bag.

IQ tests test how well you do on IQ tests.

But not entirely.

And to further confuse and compound the scatter, there are portions of IQ tests that look for talent, not intelligence... yet are quantified as intelligence.

Case in point: We have all seen them -- representations of, say, folded boxes -- with four choices of what they would look like UNfolded. This diverts from measuring intelligence in two ways.

1. Blind ass luck in picking the one out of four (or maybe just the one out of two if the other two have some glaring clues).

2. Mental imaging talent (not intelligence). <-- Lemme 'splain thataone... Remember that dimwitted guy with the VERY low IQ that was flown for an hour over Rome? He was then handed a pencil and a forty-foot canvas diorama-thingy. And he proceeded to draw EVERY building, EVERY window in EVERY building in all of Rome. He (natch) totally aces those "what comes next" questions you find on absolutely every IQ test.

Prima facie, this negates the value of all those questions (and there are a lot of them). And renders the IQ test itself as being inaccurate to the bone.

All that said, a smart person will consistently do better on these tests than a dumb one. But! A fairly dumb person with social standing such that said person has had regular and superior schooling will do better than a naturally gifted, but ignorant person from a lower social structure who has only been exposed to the best way to change tires in a tire shop.

In sum, the concept needs work. A LOT of work.

One mo' thang...

Lumping brain activity to a number simply ain't fair. I see both of you guys above throw in talent as comprising a portion of intelligence.

Yeah... and it is NEVER measured or quantified justly.

Let us look at that guy that can remember every doorway, alley, rooftop, window, column, yadayada of Rome and draw it perfectly -- in perspective to boot. So in that area, his IQ is in the 900 to 1200 range compared to the rest of humanity, right?

Yet, on the IQ tests that exist, he comes out a moron. Here he is, several orders of magnitude more capable of assimilating data, processing it, and proving his processing of it... and the rest of the IQ people call him a dunce.

Same with the guy that can tell you in two seconds that April 17, 2395 falls on a Tuesday... Any number of savants (what a convenient pigeonhole THAT word gives the IQ people!) are so superior to the rest of us that if they were "complete", they would be gods on earth.

Savants destroy the very basis of an IQ test... invalidating it for its clearly exposed limitations -- there are semi-savants***, too. They come up average on IQ tests. Except that they have areas that make the rest of us exactly equal to chimpanzees in comparison.

***Ever see that totally blind guy who is articulate and "normal" (read IQ test average) who can be taken on a tour of a building, and later draw that building in perfect perspective?

What's his IQ? I'd have to put it in the multiple-hundreds range...

Hi there Eric, and welcome to the forums. I know I'm highly intelligent (which can be a nuisance at times, because most of the world's population is dumber) and I can always get the upper hand in a debate. Should have become a lawyer! I came here to learn things about publishing, but as it proves you can best learn by experience alone.


Nickie

Thanks Unca Walt. Those are some awesome posts there. There are definitely myriad exceptions that can throw off an accurate IQ test, and intelligence isn't much of a measure of career success. I think people still use them because, as you said, smarter people will average out better, provided that the test is relatively free of bias.

Hi there Nickie, and thanks for the welcome. How is it a nuisance for you that most people are dumber? Kinda not knowing how to do their job, or because they can't hold a conversation, or something else?

Challenge accepted.

Your claim that you can always get the upper hand in a debate is currently unsubstantiated, and is a large generalization.