Is an IQ test a valid test of intelligence

I think my IQ just got a bit higher from reading that.

PS: Where's your fitness thread?

 

It is valid for intelligence.your IQ improves as you get older also.People seem to forget that intelligence doesnt mean knowledge.You can be very intelligent(able to grasp concepts quickly) but have little knowledge.AN example,kids in 3rd world countries.Im pretty sure there are plenty of really smart kids there but because of the countries inability to have a good education system most of them are not able to learn,thus they have little knowledge,but that certainly doesnt mean they are stupid

Well,I believe in something called evolution.Today humans are much smarter than they were in ancient Greece...so testing him with a modern IQ test would really be fair imo

 

Whats considered genius level? I.Q. or 130 to 140?

 

I think its 140 and up...which I know is a lie,I got a 156 on one before, those crappy internet ones,so if anyone wants to check their IQ I recomend get a professional to help you

 

Children in third world countries are less likley to be highly intelligent than children in more prosperous, industrialized countries. That is to say, less likely to become highly intelligent. It's a matter of not only education but nutrition as well.

 

I think that this argument is somewhat flawed. While I agree that knowledge and intelligence are not one in the same, I do not believe that IQ necessarily improves as you get older (as a matter of fact, it can easily go down). The, "forumla," for calculating IQ takes age into account (conceptually and mathematically) so that it is not always improving nor always declining (in other words, it remains fairly constant over time, with inevitable variation).

Beyond that, there is the matter of the standardization of IQ tests. It is not a valid test of intelligence, in my opinion, because there are so many types of intelligence. If somebody is not very good at math, reading or spotting patterns (a large part of IQ testing as it stands today), this does not make them unintelligent. For all the test knows about the person (which is essentially nothing), they could be the greatest musical genius in history. Would the test pick up on it? Not likely.

Even then, there's the issue of defining intelligence (and please don't give me some dictionary definition); what is it, really? Not to mention the definition of genius. For all of the input on an IQ test, there still is no clear-cut definition of these things.

I suppose this is my long-winded way of saying that all IQ tests do is grasp at straws when it comes to intelligence, but can never truly get it right. Assigning some asinine number as a designation of intelligence? Please...

 

You are borderline genius. Although i really don't believe genius is something anyone can categorise. IQ tests are reasonably valid, except they don't consider artistic intelligence, and in the long run i think it really means *** all, but you are obviously way above average in terms of intelligence, spacial awaerness etc. The average is 100. Apparentley einstein only had an IQ of 150.

I've taken 4 IQ tests in my life-at the ages of 11, 17, 20, 20(my age now). The scores in that order were

11 yrs- 115(professional, licensed test)
17yrs- 124(Internet test)
20yrs- 134(Internet test)
20yrs- 136(Professional licensed test)

The licensed ones i was forced to take, the others because i was bored. In conclusion i think IQ tests are a load of ***in balls.

 

I agree 200%. I am terrible at maths and i think my tests scores were a fluke considering it was the most boring thing i've ever had to do in my life and subsequentley gessed most of it.

 

I can't understand IQ. Licensed tests say I've got 115-120 (it depends of the test) but my marks are really average. I think they just size the capacity of working your brain has got, but it doesn't size your ability to explain your ideas or your capacity to concentrate.

There's many different types of intelligences and I think those IQ are getting outdated, they just center in the capacity to resolve problems, not in the rest of aspects.

 

it's just a number to gloat about.

 

But this has been scientifically proven...As you get older your IQ rises...for the most part.Of course there will always be exceptions.If your IQ can go down it can also go up when you get older...not drastically like in Flowers for Algernon ...but by a few points,yes.Theres been people with a life sentence...because their IQ has risen a few points they became elligable for death row....since they were no longer concidered mentally disabled

 

I think IQ is the intelligence potential that gets higher as we get older.
Someone could have genius-level IQ, but be as dumb as a rock.

 

Actually,your I.Q increases with age only if you have proper mental stimulation,else,it drops drastically.

 

You just described most successful people. Congratz.

I think most IQ tests are jokes. People have certain natural talents, and must work diligently to master other things. General IQ tests really aren't worth much.

Which specific one did you take? Aside from that, an IQ test is never a factual barometer. You mentioned Socrates. Like him and other men of high esteem, would his level of knowledge, logic, wisdom parallel itself in young adulthood vs. middle age vs. world weary elderly years? Most of us continue to learn as we age, and wisdom we obtain merges w/ the collective knowledge which education provides us w/.

Imo, the tests are jokes because the human capacity to learn and evolve never stops. Granted, we don't retain 92 - 95% of the information we garner over our lifetime, but we still can learn a great deal on a daily basis w/ normal regularity, unless there's some type of mental impairment.

Judging human intelligence isn't concrete. It's just another form of elitist estimation.

Ex: You have two different people. One is a mathematical genius who possesses incomparable mental brilliance, numerically speaking, but he is not well spoken.

The other is verbal onslaught w/ razor sharp wit who gets by on common sense, and arguing points based on others lack of supportive reasoning.

Which one is more intelligent? Well, that would depend on which IQ test they were assessed by. Language development / Numeric est. ? IQ tests also gauge how well you fit into the respective national scheme of an organization, country, co.

Who's more intelligent: An ivy league graduate who works 60-80hrs / week w/ a six figure income, and a worldly sense of accomplishment or a family oriented person who is lower-middle class w/ a happy family life, common sense/practical every day home skills-knowledge, and a firm scope on their reality?

Intelligence, the lack of it, the misdirection of its use, and the speedy acquisition of it are double-edged blades imo. You mentioned Socrates ability to 'convolute' the truth, reality, accepted fact. Intelligence, the lack of it, the misdirection of its use, and the speedy acquisition of it allow people to convolute truths, reality, and accepted fact everyday, so I'd view IQ exams as another form of this. I score very high on every one I take, but I take those calculations w/ a grain of salt; it's just another way to promote scientific classification, but is it really accurate? It's probably accurately inaccurate.

 

I heard that I.Q. tests were originally formed to assert social dominance over minority groups and subordinate them with what would be claimed as "scientific evidence."

I mean, that's just what I heard...but you know, I don't really doubt it either.

 

Would Michael Jordan or Mozart or Ray Charles be considered genius?

I mean they all are like way above and beyond what ordinary people do.

 

Well,really,when you say I just make dumb **** sound intelligent ,you basically answer your own question.Absolutely any opinion,if reinforced with valid,believable arguments,can be considered a version of truth,seeming as an absolute answer does not exist.If you catalogue somebody as a pillar of objectivity,like Socrates,well,bad example,let's say Kant,it's basically saying nothing else than the fact that throughout his lifetime,by stimulating his already great mental capacity and acquiring more and more information,he had become the most reliable source of knowledge,seeming as nobody had the ability to counter-argument him during his age.If one person is,shall we say,prone to resolving complex mathematical equations at a remacable speed and another is oriented to writing sublime poetry,can we really say that the first is obviously a better man than the latter,seeming as his mathematical abilities would demonstrate that he has a greater I.Q?I doubt it.I'm not a fan of such labellings.

 

Ah,yes,but consider the cultural background we can now benefit from.I wouldn't venture so far as to say that we were more intelligent than presocratics and socratics at all.They were,what you might call,pioneers.It would be logical for their theories to appear somewhat...simple (not the right word in this context,I know) ,compared to later ones,but most phylosophy,geometry,algebra,an so on and so forth revolves around them.

 

Indeed.

 

IQ tests do have a class bias and they are also really just about problem solving. Multiple intelligences etc. are a superior albeit also flawed method for measuring intelligence.

- Whirly

 

All the "intelligence" in the world means nothing if you lack common sense.

 

I mean book intelligence and measured IQ in this case.