intelligence

[pianistimo]

to me, tests of intelligence can be markedly different for the same person on two different days.  but, what stays consistent for most very smart people, imo,  is the ability to remember information and use it later.  this ability to process information and retrieve it is much different than looking at new information and processing it once.

[steve jones]

You know, my girlfriend used to be a member of Mensa. I figure she must have tested pretty high on the ole IQ'o'meter.

Yet her memory is terrible! And her mental arithmetic is far from great. Admittedly, she makes short work of these heavy duty scientific formuli and such like. But still, it seems that even something as apparently consistent as the 'IQ' is in reality, anything but!

Personally, Im of the belief that current IQ testing methods should be scrapped. Im no boffin, but it seems abundantly clear that these tests are ineffective. As you say, on a bad day you'd far lower. Some people have exam anxiety. And for some, the tests simply arent adequate in demonstrating their particular intellectual qualities.

However... when you consider that IQ tests are really just an entrance exam to these societies, the format of testing begins to make a little more sense 


Pianistimo,

Id be interested to hear your thoughts on that guy, the Rain Man.

He has an incredibly low IQ. Well, he is mentally deficient! Yet, he is able to remember and retrieve information care beyond the average person... or even the greatest of boffins come to that. I might argue that memory and retrieval are more attributes aside from intelligence. Indeed, the cases of savantism clearly show that memory and intelligence work seperately. That said, I believe that many IQ tests use short term memory as a criteria.

Personally, I think the ability to process AND comprehend is what makes intelligence (in the IQ sense of the word). Being able to process information but then to make sense of it in the real world has to be the important thing. I remember seeing on TV this doc intelligence testing a young child prodigy. He was asking him to describe objects... such as a straw for instance. What was remarkable was that the kid seemed to not only describe the physical appearance of the straw and its function but also HOW it functioned (ie, the physics behind it). You might say that he was simply repeating what he'd been taught, but there seemed little doubt that the kid was making sense of this object on a different level to what a normal child might.

T'was interesting!

SJ

[teresa_b]

There's a lot of controversy over whether IQ is truly a measure of any sort of real "general intelligence".  There is some correlation of scores--i.e., people who score highly in one section tend to score higly in others, and vice versa.  But there are more ways than one to analyze data. 

IQ tests seem to measure fairly well the chances of someone having academic success--not so good at predictiong success in other endeavors.  Gardner's theory of Multiple Intelligences is a very reasonable alternate way of looking at intelligence.  This viewpoint splits "intelligence" into many categories, such as mathematical, musical, physical, etc. 

My personal thoughts are, if you're a Mensan, it still doesn't guarantee you can live in the world! The tests measure a sort of logical and spatial thinking, but where does that leave creativity, intuitive abilities, empathy, compassion, musical talent, artistic talent, and others I can't even think of at the moment?

Teresa

[lmpianist]

Most IQ tests I've taken seem extremely limiting.  I think intelligence can be determined by how well you can not only recall but also apply and evaluate the information you have learned (not just the information that IQ tests ask!)  One of my college professors would always talk about Bloom's Taxonomy, which is basically a hierarchy of intellectual levels that all require increasing understanding and ability to apply knowledge of a particular topic.  The lowest level is memorization (which is what most test questions require you to do).  The higher levels require you to analyze, compose, criticize, defend, compare, evaluate, etc., which all require a much higher level of understanding than memorization.  Some people can do this very well in certain areas - music, quantum physics, linguistics, philosophy, etc or in whatever subjects they study which would probably indicate higher intelligence.

https://www.officeport.com/edu/blooms.htm

[steve jones]

IQ tests seem to measure fairly well the chances of someone having academic success--not so good at predictiong success in other endeavors.  Gardner's theory of Multiple Intelligences is a very reasonable alternate way of looking at intelligence.  This viewpoint splits "intelligence" into many categories, such as mathematical, musical, physical, etc. 

True. But that said, I read somewhere that the average academic (PhD upwards) has an IQ in the mid 120's.

These days, I believe far more that academic success is in the graft above all.

SJ

[wotgoplunk]

IQ is not an accurate measure of intelligence.

There is more than one kind.

My IQ came out as 156 on the Stanford-Binet test. But it's all subjective, as that doesn't measure anything but my ability to retain knowledge.

I remember a lot of stuff, but struggle to use it.