IQ Tests: Useful or Useless?

[Alexander Morou]

I've always wondered about IQ tests and those high-IQ societies, like Mensa. Are IQ tests useful or useless, and are high-IQ groups helpful or egotistical?

As a relative example, I'm 27, and I took a test from IQtest.com, which states that its for entertainment purposes only, and I immediately questioned its validity (even for entertainment) on the odds of all points but one being the same:

Do IQ tests have any relevance or value? For kicks, and an attempt to validate or eliminate the test above, if you feel like it, take the test, and post your score (you only have to pay for the breakdown of the score, you should receive an e-mail with your score). If the average of this website is relative to the score posted, then there's a good chance it's an invalid test, even for entertainment.

For discussion purposes if you know of a test that appears relevant, post for others to see and evaluate. As an aside, avoid tests which require knowledge of things not common. As an example: myself, I'm ignorant to history, geography, and other things that require knowledge that must be learned, with an exception to basic elementary mathematics.

I find the High-IQ societies fairly pretentious, why would you pay to enter a society which signifies your importance by a number, and only if your number is big enough (reminds me of e-peen situations)?

 

[dadevvtsvre]

I could see how getting accepted at Mensa could make somebody feel important or something. But I personally don't think it's an accurate method of measuring intelligence. It only takes a small snapshot of somebody's knowledge, a tiny slice of what somebody can do and how fast they can come up with answers to basic questions in mathematics, spatial skill and language. I would never pay to be accepted into something like Mensa, although I can see why others would. I have enough confidence in my intelligence to be able to say I'm smart without having a number to prove it.

Having a "high IQ" doesn't make anybody better than somebody else, or even more intelligent for that matter. You can have a high IQ and be an idiot - likewise, having a low IQ doesn't necessarily mean you're stupid.

I got a score of 141 doing that test, and I know for a fact that I'm not that smart. Obviously, a free test anybody can take won't be entirely accurate. I've taken IQ tests that have asked me questions about historical events, names of people - this has nothing to do with intelligence. It only takes into account what you've learned, and who's taught you what. I always disregard these tests right away because they're obviously bogus. :|

Hybrida should take a look at this thread.

 

[Venetia]

I've always thought IQ tests were bogus.

1. Intelligence isn't what you know, it's how quickly you learn it and how well you can apply it, once learned. IQ tests are all mostly comprised of what you know questions. You have to KNOW how to do certain math problems, you have to KNOW the definitions of a bunch of words. But ignorance isn't stupidness.

2. Intelligence can be measured in a variety of ways. IQ tests rely almost solely on the logic center of the brain. But there is emotional intelligence, creative intelligence, perceptive intelligence, yadda yadda yadda. I, personally, never score that great on those things. I suck at math is why. But if they replaced all the math with English questions, or questions about how to use or repair or manipulate certain things, or puzzles about correlating colors or shapes (which they sometimes have and I always do well with), then I'd score a hell of a lot higher.

I realize it's supposed to be a "snapshot" of your overall intelligence, but their tests always rely heavily on math skills, and being good at math doesn't guarantee brilliance anywhere else.

3. I totally agree that it's just masturbatory ... Why on earth does anyone care, outside of bragging rights? It's not a reflection of your skills. It would have no affect on your ability to do a job. It's pointless.

 

[Alexander Morou]

I agree.

People tell me I'm condescending, even though I'm not intending to be. My mother says it's my unorthodox vocabulary, and my blunt manner of stating things. I work a night shift with a group of people who are all, but one, ranked 140+; and while I know each are brilliant in their own way; each has their own individual pitfalls which make that number as useless as it sounds. The one of the group that's probably below average IQ can do things that I can't, simply because he has far more experience in that area, and his IQ in that area is likely his area of 'brilliance'. He can, and often does, fix any number of things that are broken; whereas I would be unable to do anything for fear of breaking it further.

One of them, who literally states his IQ is over 140, is intelligent, but by no means is that a measure of his success. He's lazy and unmotivated, and is the kind that thinks the number means something. Due to this, IQ is often talked about in low production times at my job (my co-workers often talk about how they greatly dislike idiots, to the point of thinking that third world country problems would be best solved by a neutron bomb, a scary lot they are at times), and when asked what mine is I have to tell them that it's a range of x-y but that I don't put any faith in those numbers due to the lack of consistency in measuring IQ.

I think all of the people I work with on my shift are either psychopaths and sociopaths. They neither care what people think of them, nor do they care about the consequences of their actions, three of them say they aren't racist, but that they hate everyone equally (due to the frequency at which this is said, and the direct manner they state it, I doubt they're joking). Then again, the company I work for is jokingly called 'Last Chance' since most of the people working there are ex-convicts and people on rehabilitation from drugs (ever wondered what it's like when the police arrest someone at your job? Like on TV, they cover all the exits!)

When I started they thought I wouldn't last there because I didn't fit the standard profile, I have no record, though they joke that they can help me change that. -_-

 

[Ellie]

The main thing that strikes me is that one's IQ goes up as one gets older.

I.e. a child's IQ is lower than an adult's IQ.

By IQ standards this therefore means a child is less intelligent than an adult (as Ven said, based on the fact adults know more - they have lived more). They may be more knowledgable, but there are children who can do things far more complicated than adults can.

The true measure of intelligence is not what you know, rather what you do with that knowledge (and what you can do with that knowledge). Knowing formulae for calculus, and then without further research being able to apply that to real world situations, such as noticing the correlation between triangle theory and circle theory - that takes intelligence, not knowledge.

What further strikes me as iffy is that I've never been able to complete an IQ test as my mind wanders or I start just randomly clicking answers out of boredom. Or, I see questions I've seen before (knowledge!). That means my answers aren't truthful or a good representation of my intellect - and yet the number it gives me at the end would tend to suggest I'm dumber than someone else.

What really gripes me is CATs.

CAT = Cognitive Ability Tests

We had to take our CATs at the start of high school. One numeracy paper, one literacy paper (words, seeing how they fit together, etc) and one image based one (patterns in shapes and whatnot).

This was used to decide our target grades in dance, history, geography, maths, science, etc, and those grades stayed with us for the rest of our highschool lives.

I got third highest - 112 points. Friend got 118, other friend got 130. Because of this we were classified as "gifted and talented" and got special days out and special shit. Gifted and talented status stayed with you for the rest of HS life. In other words, if you did badly in the CATs but were G&T, tough. If you fluked the test completely (as the 130 did I'm sorry to say) you were G&T forever.

 

[Venetia]

They used to do something similar to that in America several decades ago, too, but they were straight IQ tests. Kids would be perma-shuffled off to different branches of classes based on that one score. So far as I know, they still do it occasionally in elementary schools, to determine aptitude levels of either the very gifted or the very developmentally-challenged. Though obviously I went to school in the late 80's/early 90's so that might be different now.

I had to take one in 2nd grade because my teacher wanted to skip me up a few grades. When I finished they wanted to bump me up to 4th grade (though they never told me what my score was). But I refused because I didn't want to leave my little friends :P. What was curious was that my parents went along with my decision. (I wish they hadn't :/). (The test, as I recall, was rather creepy. I was shuffled into the school library and surrounded by a bunch of strange adults who watched my every move. I had to get a drink of water partway through and one of the women followed me on my heels.)

I think it's B.S. though--what if you're just having a really shitty day the day you take this all-important exam? There are too many variables to make it a viable system. Which is probably why they don't do it in a widespread way here anymore.

 

[Venetia]

It's also been shown time and again that IQ varies wildly based on social status/income. Obviously, on average, the richer kids get better educations. So it's discriminatory in a big way.

 

[Alexander Morou]

Agreed on that last point Ven.

I'm supposed to have a high IQ (depending on which test I take and how much it relies on what you know in the here and now), but I did poorly in school, not because I was stupid, but because the education system was a complete failure. I stopped caring about classes because I didn't see the point of repeating the same information three days in a row. They do this so no child is left behind, but it hinders the students who aren't rich but have an interest in learning. It's difficult to stay interested when your taught as if you're an idiot.

They even went as far as putting me in a class for people with poor reading scores (because my grades were bad, not because of any test I took), they did an initial test to determine competency and I scored grades above my level, but they left me in the class, because they didn't want to redo my schedule.

 

[Jason]

"I stopped caring about classes because I didn't see the point of repeating the same information three days in a row. They do this so no child is left behind, but it hinders the students who aren't rich but have an interest in learning. It's difficult to stay interested when your taught as if you're an idiot."

Couldn't have said that better myself, which is why my GCSE's were only B-C's, cause we spent most the time recapping everything from the week before cause some retarded fagrat either wasn't here, or just wasn't paying attention.

 

[Glitchfinder]

Hmm. I've never really held much faith in any kind of system that puts something relating to an individual's mind down in numbers. Mostly, that seems to be an insult to the sheer complexity of the human mind. For example, although some things can be predicted, like a high school football player being more popular than a nerd, most things are just too ephemeral to quantify. Saying that you are more intelligent than someone else, just because you took a test, is like saying that you are wealthier than someone else, just because you have more change in your pocket at the time.

That being said, many people put quite a bit of stock in scores like IQ. Although most school systems don't arrange classes by scores like that any more, they still use similar methods. For example, the SAT is used as a national standard for College admissions, despite the fact that it is a highly biased test that results in minority students, low-income students, and various other groups to perform with much lower scores, limiting their college possibilities. I've actually heard it said that doing well on the SAT means that you're good at "filling in bubbles", and that it really means nothing. I can only wish more people shared that opinion.

 

[Hybrida]

Having a "high IQ" doesn't make anybody better than somebody else, or even more intelligent for that matter. You can have a high IQ and be an idiot - likewise, having a low IQ doesn't necessarily mean you're stupid.--

--Hybrida should take a look at this thread.

I'm looking. I like what I see. People having a low IQ is not bad, but is not good either. I think IQ test are useful, it shows you your level of intelligence in some way. Most people who scores high will say "It's great". When they score low they'll say "IQ test are BS." (Typical humans...)

Here's why I think high IQ's are important: People like Albert Einstein has a high chance of inventing something that would change the world (like splitting the atom). By grouping a whole bunch of high IQ people together who knows what they would come up with. I am proud to be in the high IQ group. To me a high IQ means you have a high chance of discovering something that will advance the human race forward...
Also, to me a high IQ means you can figure things out faster. For example I can solve a rubik's cube in under 3 minutes (any randomized 3x3x3 cube), I beat minesweeper (expert) under 140 seconds, and I mastered nuclear physics. So yeah, the IQ numbers tell the truth sometimes. Einstein's IQ was not lying that's for sure.

My official IQ is 158 by university of Miami. (and I show it off like a WWE title)

 

[Guest]

;D

 

[Guest]

;D

 

[Zackwell]

I.Q tests don't mean anything to me.
I could know a person with a ridiculously low IQ, but it wouldn't stop me from liking them...
But if people start getting biggoty about having such a high IQ, imo, they can shove their 200 IQ points where the sun don't shine.
OWAIT! I forgot, they already had a huge stick up there.

 

[mawk]

Most people who scores high will say "It's great". When they score low they'll say "IQ test are BS." (Typical humans...)

mine's 167 and I still think they're bullshit. the calculation itself takes into account things like age (which have no bearing on actual computing power but make the statistics into a smoother curve,) and while for the most part the questions are fairly straightforward "puzzle this out in x time" puzzles, miscommunication and questions which require prior knowledge of a subject (knowledge of facts being separate from intelligence) are always a factor.

the numbers themselves are unreliable, but the extent to which they actually represent what they're supposed to is sort of lame. the way our brains function can't just be measured in a linear fashion. some people use completely different processes to reach their conclusions, some are slower than others but all the more brilliant for the extra time they spend pondering, etc. a numerical scale simply doesn't fit when you take into account just how different people vary.

not to mention that the test itself hasn't changed its method since the 1950s.

also, @Hybrida, Einstein never took an IQ test, so you can't really use him as a point in your argument. your only proof that he has a high IQ is that based on your view of the system it couldn't possibly be any other way, but he could have easily been an average dude. inspiration doesn't only strike people with high scores on the arbitrary number scale, and equations and theories certainly don't preclude an average mind from participating and excelling.

 

[Alexander Morou]

Someone can be a genius and an idiot at the same time.

I have a strange fear of becoming narcissistic, which in turn makes me have zero confidence. I have a habit of stating things rhetorically in real life conversations, to avoid being a fool should I be wrong, the person listening would know to pipe in and correct me should such be true.

One thing I could warn Hybrida about: the number you receive on an intelligence test does not measure a skill or your worth, but rather it is a debatable measure of your potential for skill. Rather than shouting out your intelligence rating as if it's a determinant of your prowess, and justify your pretension through examples of skills that are learn-able with enough practice, it would be better to spend your time doing what you said a high IQ is for: advancement of humanity.

Granted, this is a thread about the merits of an IQ test; however, it is not a thread to be boastful.

Your sense of quantity in your statements is also off, "IQ Test are BS" should be "IQ Tests are BS", "People having a low IQ is not bad, but is not good either" should probably be "People having a low IQ are neither good nor bad." I'm sure we could argue this all day, but let's not.

 

[mawk]

and it certainly doesn't take a high IQ to parrot nuclear facts from class and Wikipedia all day, then jizz your pants about how brilliant you are for knowing such things.

 

[Ellie]

Hybrida, where and how did you take this IQ test because as far as I can tell googling "University of Miami IQ Test" brings up several unrelated pages as well as this thread.

Also nobody knows Einstein's IQ because Einstein never took an IQ test. You're quoting bullshit yet again. Sorry for being harsh but for one like yourself who is always boasting about how intelligent they are you really do get a lot of things completely wrong.

Edit: mawk beat me to it.

 

[Hybrida]

Yea, Hybrida knows little about computers and doesn't know what a geiger counter is called. For someone with such a high IQ he sure shows quite the opposite. His supposedly high IQ is higher than mine, but I know a lot more about computers than he does and I know what a geiger counter is called. Go figure.

Bottom line, IQ level doesn't really mean anything.

Like I said before, I said "radiation detection wand" so you low IQ people would know what I was talking about-- without going to google. If I would've said geiger counter you people would go " WTF is that?." I just wanted to avoid that. That's all Mr. Arbiter.
If IQ's didn't mean anything there wouldn't tests for it... Common sense for the win.

imo, someone with a high IQ does not tell people that AVG is telling them people have keylogged them and that's how they stole their nickserv password when the truth was people got because he posted his pass in the main window. people also registered his other nicknames because they weren't registered in the first place. smart people know you don't get keyloggers out of thin air, smart people remember that they pasted their password in the main channel, and smart people also change their password and not leave it like Hybrida did and claim he was keylogged.

Spoiler: Proof to Arbiter

Not only AVG detected it. Only when I enter the IRC of this site my firewall blocks a incoming keylogger. This one got through because the firewall was off. Wow people must hate me alot to do such a lame attack. That's HBgames for ya'.

and it certainly doesn't take a high IQ to parrot nuclear facts from class and Wikipedia all day, then jizz your pants about how brilliant you are for knowing such things.

I'll let you dense headed people believe whatever you want, but I speak the truth about everything. If you like it or not. I WENT TO COLLEGE FOR NUCLEAR PHYSICS.

If anyone else wants to attack my intelligence and lose, bring it on... It seems like I've already won here (again). See you guys at the next conflict.... :shades:

 

[Twirly]

Like I said before, I said "radiation detection wand" so you low IQ people would know what I was talking about-- without going to google. If I would've said geiger counter you people would go " WTF is that?." I just wanted to avoid that. That's all Mr. Arbiter.

I thought you like showing off??????
I mean, you always use words you find in wikipedia to show off.