IQ tests clearly measure SOMETHING and whatever it is, it is closely related to what we generally think of as intelligence. If you speak to someone with an IQ of 60 and then speak to someone with an IQ of 140 the latter will obviously be much more “intelligent” than the former
Quicker, smarter, better with words and ideas. Faster on the uptake. Able to do difficult tasks at speed.
“Speed of successful information processing” is, in fact, a pretty good definition of “intelligence”
And it is commonly reckoned genetics accounts for about half of this faculty
I don't question any of that. I question the ludicrous assertion that you can't train someone to do well at IQ tests. As if they are some magic oracle completely void of learnable material.
There are a lot of interests in preserving the idea that IQ is an completely objective test, but my suspicion is that you are right.
I would guess that it is essentially a matter of practice. You would eventually speed up in being able to answer the questions, meaning that you answer more and get a higher score. However, I doubt that you could go from a really low to a really high score.
I think there is a real danger in assuming that IQ is an absolute measure of intelligence. People can be intelligent in ways that are not picked up in an IQ test. Similarly, people with supposedly high IQs are as susceptible as everyone else to doing stupid things. Some people with high IQs do nothing of significance with their lives. Trying to stratify people by IQ level is a very bad idea.
Having worked for a few decades around highly-intelligent and qualified people, we have developed a rule of thumb: the more educated someone is, the less able they are to function in the real world.
I know plumbers with more common sense than almost all the people with doctorates I know, yet alone the couple of professors I've known. Geniuses in their field, but rather lacking in simple skills, like the ability to pick their kids up from school ...
I actually haven't noticed this. There are people better with brain than hand but I'm not sure about the correlation to a lack of commonsense.
An example: two eggheads whose brains were so deep into code they ignored a fire alarm going off. When there was a real fire.
Fried eggheads?
Nearly. If a certain wise, heroic and *devilishly* attractive fire marshal had not got to them.
From memory, an environment chamber had caught fire. Which was not quite the environment it was supposed to replicate ...
Personally I think IQ tests should be consigned to the waste bin of history. [And I excel at them].
They belong to a mindset that the purpose of an education system is winnowing - to remove the chaff from the kernel in order to select who should proceed to higher levels of education.
Particularly now that we are in a knowledge economy where information is a commodity, I think education systems need to concentrate more on helping everyone learn* to their fullest potential, rather than stratifying pupils in arbitrary ways using proxy tests that don't align with real world requirements in order to give them a one score fits all number.
* by learn I mean knowing how to identify the right questions to ask and how to go about getting the answers.
IQ tests clearly measure SOMETHING and whatever it is, it is closely related to what we generally think of as intelligence. If you speak to someone with an IQ of 60 and then speak to someone with an IQ of 140 the latter will obviously be much more “intelligent” than the former
Quicker, smarter, better with words and ideas. Faster on the uptake. Able to do difficult tasks at speed.
“Speed of successful information processing” is, in fact, a pretty good definition of “intelligence”
And it is commonly reckoned genetics accounts for about half of this faculty
I don't question any of that. I question the ludicrous assertion that you can't train someone to do well at IQ tests. As if they are some magic oracle completely void of learnable material.
There are a lot of interests in preserving the idea that IQ is an completely objective test, but my suspicion is that you are right.
I would guess that it is essentially a matter of practice. You would eventually speed up in being able to answer the questions, meaning that you answer more and get a higher score. However, I doubt that you could go from a really low to a really high score.
I think there is a real danger in assuming that IQ is an absolute measure of intelligence. People can be intelligent in ways that are not picked up in an IQ test. Similarly, people with supposedly high IQs are as susceptible as everyone else to doing stupid things. Some people with high IQs do nothing of significance with their lives. Trying to stratify people by IQ level is a very bad idea.
Re your last para - agree completely.
Re the rest I also agree. See my much earlier post on techniques on how to improve on the test. The reality is that someone stupid can't improve. Someone very, very clever can only improve a little. However a reasonably bright person can be taught techniques to make reasonably big increases. I don't know how much but I am guessing 10 - 20 points, but not from one extreme to the other.
I put IQ tests in the same category as lie detector tests.
Both wildly inaccurate and yet people believe they are infallible.
Look at the share. 30% for the Tories is absolutely dire.
I cannot believe the failure to understand the direness of the tories' position. I expected them to hold NS by a couple of thousand and that would be a disaster in reality, but a hold is a hold. They have lost 90% of the former tories on this site. They have also lost the shire bumpkin vote, specifically over the hunting issue, because what is the point of an 80 seat majority if you can't overturn the Hunting Act? Nobody who isn't a shire bumpkin understands this point because they think the foxhunting community was a tiny minority, whereas in shire bumpkin terms it's bloody everybody. Lab maj 5/1 is the deal of the century.
Point of order - every poll on the subject shows fox-hunting unpopular in rural areas too (which may be why a significant proportion of Tory MPs are now opposed to overturning the ban). Even in 2015 a plurality of rural dwellers were against repeal:
Not least because many people living in the countryside know that hunts are often the most arrogant, entitled people, who think nothing of trespassing on land they haven’t permission to enter, and have been known to trash gardens and kill domestic pets. Look at the way that woman recently videoed kicking and slapping her horse after it stepped into the road behaved.
On the other hand: years ago I was walking early in the morning. I passed through a farmyard on a footpath. Someone on a horse came to chat to me and, mucky and dishevelled as I was, when they worked out I was not a sab, they invited me over to the main group and pushed a glass containing something nice into my hand.
It was a very pleasant time.
In addition, and although you don't need a hunt for this: there is nothing quite like seeing horses go all-out cross country. I've seen it several times when out walking, and it's breathtaking. I've been to the races once, and it seemed kind-of sterile in comparison.
I've just been sent the Raab on GMTV interview as he doggedly lies through his teeth insisting that the Downing Street garden party was a work meeting and allowed by the law.
Great news for people who want the Tories gone if the '22 are to leave Peppa in place until after they get demolished in the locals. We're down to only the most cultist devotees of Peppa believing the excuses. The longer this goes on, the worse it will get. For the Tories. Or they could remove Peppa and No Brain Raab and the rest of them and have a fighting chance of re-election.
The first point is debatable, I'm sure work was being discussed, but on the second point isn't he right? There was a twitter thread a few days ago demonstrating why it wasn't contrary to the regs.
If it is Work then you have a secondary question - why is Carrie in a business meeting with 2 senior Downing Street workers.
Because (a) it isn't a business meeting and (b) they're taking the absolute piss and (c) they still think people are gullible enough to accept any old crap as an excuse.
The problem is that no one has been able to ask 2 questions to get the point over.
Why were you in the Garden - business meeting
Why if it's a business meeting is Carrie there
At which point the cogs should start whirring.
I think you could just (just) about excuse it as giving Johnson an opportunity to spend time with his newborn.
Yeah, when my children were born my employer wouldn't have any problems with me, as the Manager, bringing alcohol into work, and bringing my wife and kids along too. It happened all the time...in some parallel universe!
If you are that easily persuaded, Johnson has a £63m invisible Garden Bridge he would like to sell you.
How many staff do you have that live on site, with their families?
Comments
NEW THREAD
Clearly we still have a problem if booed by the Sunderland fans. It is always applauded by both sets of fans at the King Power.
From memory, an environment chamber had caught fire. Which was not quite the environment it was supposed to replicate ...
It was a very pleasant time.
In addition, and although you don't need a hunt for this: there is nothing quite like seeing horses go all-out cross country. I've seen it several times when out walking, and it's breathtaking. I've been to the races once, and it seemed kind-of sterile in comparison.