Current Events > Is there a way to accurately rate intelligence?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I think IQ tests are stupid. Arent they basically testing how people solve certain puzzles and problems like that?

sure, they may test one kind of intelligence, but I would argue that puzzle solving is not a measure for all kinds of intelligence. Some people can learn languages really easily but are terrible at math. Some people are great at math but are very uncreative or terrible at the kind of skills you need for languages or critical (but not mathematical) thinking, etc.

but the biggest problem IMO is that test are good for measuring... how good people are at taking tests. People with lots of practice taking a specific kind of test or who can take prep courses will obviously excel at specific tests. Once you learn a pattern (usually if this question looks like X, then theyre probably looking for Y, so look out for and solve Z) youre half away there, and there are only so many question types and patterns out there, this is why you can train for the SAT/GMAT/GRE/LSAT (which are not IQ tests, I know).

what is your take, humans/hylians/Gorons/zoras?

---

bump, I tagged this earlier and am surprised no one has posted yet. I do agree that we dont really have a way to objectively measure intelligence or even a proper way to define it.

---

Have a conversation

---

not really. What you can do is quantify it to how much someone knows about certain subjects but intelligence is subjective otherwise

You can probably test for some specific kinds of intelligence(assuming you can control for the fact that the test itself may be affecting outcomes and you accept a certain level of error), but there are a lot of kinds of intelligence that I'm not sure how you could test for. Emotional intelligence comes to mind immediately.

Revnir posted...

If you can't define it, then you can't measure it.

This.

Like, it's not surprising that modern IQ measures relate largely to educational attainment and things that covary with it, given that it was developed as a way to measure the covariance across educational subjects.

But if that doesn't represent what you think "intelligence" should mean, then you need to start defining what you mean by intelligence.

---

Revnir posted...

If you can't define it, then you can't measure it.

I feel it could be defined but we dont because we somehow came to accept an old school concept of intelligence that isnt too realistic

---

taste in anime

---

I recently had a psych exam and IQ test and scored high above average but a few parts of it were things Id never seen or heard of in my life...if Ive never come across a word before, how would I possible be able to define it or use it properly? It wasnt some rarely used word Id personally have trouble with, either, it was two words Id never seen or been taught and googled later and still was like...huh, definitely never seen those.

If you arent taught something, how would you possibly get it right on a test?

I skipped two questions relating to the words and passed on a couple other questions as well relating to math I havent done in 15 years.

Everything else I scored exceptionally but it brought me down to 120.

Back in college I scored a 138 on an IQ test and 34 on the Wanderlic from an employer (I know its based on specific fields but still pretty good).

Yet, I basically failed the ACT/SAT (I think thats what theyre called) back in high school because of a lack of caring and no prep.


---

While it's true that there are different types of intelligence, there is also a general level of cognitive ability. The kids who were great at math at my school were generally also great at other subjects as well. It wasn't like a kid put all his skill points into math so he can't be great at languages. The problem solving skills and the ability to pick up things quickly all carry over.

---

Squall28 posted...

While it's true that there are different types of intelligence, there is also a general level of cognitive ability. The kids who were great at math at my school were generally also great at other subjects as well. It wasn't like a kid put all his skill points into math so he can't be great at languages. The problem solving skills and the ability to pick up things quickly all carry over.

Ive seen many kids who excel at math but struggle with grammar or geography or learning foreign languages.


---

By languages known for example if you only speak English and I speak both English and Spanish I will assume that I have about double your knowledge at least communicating wise. If I can count to a billion in Spanish and you can't that means I know 1 billion more words than you know

---

El Mexicano Texano posted...

By languages known for example if you only speak English and I speak both English and Spanish I will assume that I have about double your knowledge at least communicating wise. If I can count to a billion in Spanish and you can't that means I know 1 billion more words than you know

what I meant was more like, you take two monolingual kinds and they teach them a foreign language at school and one kid cant wrap his mind around it and one can, for example


---

I'm not even entirely sure I believe in intelligence as a concept, let alone the idea that it can be measured

---

Did that country-ranked IQ topic get deleted?

---

SPE posted...

Ive seen many kids who excel at math but struggle with grammar or geography or learning foreign languages.

How many of those kids who exceled at math but struggle with other subjects were also among the top 5 or so at math in the class?

I've seen kids who were on AP Calculus BC, and only in regular English, but they weren't top of the pile in AP Calc. They were middle of the road in the class while the top kids in that calculus class was also the top kids in other classes.

And even if they weren't the top kids on other classes, they'd still be in AP and be acing the class. They're not going to be struggling in regular.

Ofc there are exceptions, but if you're a generally intelligent person, you're not going to be struggling. Apathetic maybe.

Also want to add the science behind emotional intelligence is pretty weak. I read the Daniel Goldman book that started it all, and it basically conflated a whole bunch of stuff together to make their case.

Hey you know the marshmallow test? That's EQ too! Nevermind that introvert kids probably do a whole lot better on stuff like that. Or that rich kids tend to do better on tests like that. It isn't just reading emotions and people as many articles lead you to believe. A lot of it is being a responsible adult. Another bit is nepotism.

---

Squall28 posted...

How many of those kids who exceled at math but struggle with other subjects were also among the top 5 or so at math in the class?

I've seen kids who were on AP Calculus BC, and only in regular English, but they weren't top of the pile in AP Calc. They were middle of the road in the class while the top kids in that calculus class was also the top kids in other classes.

And even if they weren't the top kids on other classes, they'd still be in AP and be acing the class. They're not going to be struggling in regular.

Ofc there are exceptions, but if you're a generally intelligent person, you're not going to be struggling. Apathetic maybe.

Also want to add the science behind emotional intelligence is pretty weak. I read the Daniel Goldman book that started it all, and it basically conflated a whole bunch of stuff together to make their case.

Hey you know the marshmallow test? That's EQ too! Nevermind that introvert kids probably do a whole lot better on stuff like that. Or that rich kids tend to do better on tests like that. It isn't just reading emotions and people as many articles lead you to believe. A lot of it is being a responsible adult. Another bit is nepotism.

yes were on the same page. Kids who get private tutors, test prep courses, etc will do better.


---

Yeah private tutors and test prep courses are bullshit. I remember after taking the SAT, there was one problem that I was stuck on for ages. I asked the other kids about it afterwards (I was a poor kid living in a rich area), and they were all like, yeah my test prep course taught us the formula for that. I was like MOTHERFUCKERS! I wasted a good ten minutes on that shit in a time intensive test, and you had a fucking formula in your back pocket?

Anyways...

Some additional research on the lack of credibility of multiple intelligence so I'm not just citing anecdotal evidence
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00131880802082518?journalCode=rere20
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-else/201311/the-illusory-theory-multiple-intelligences


---

I know a good way to tell if a person is stupid: How much of what they believe came from webpages full of BOLD CAPS?

---

The "recruitment" scene in the first Men in Black.

The proper tests are definitely a good way to measure general intelligence. The issue is that we put way too much importance on that measurement, as if that inherently makes someone better or worse.

I think there's different types of intelligence, but the most common ones are obviously book/test taker smart and mechanics.

---