[ 19 June 2003: Message edited by: Lima Bean ]

IQ tests started losing credibility during the late sixties. Astute observers noticed the cultural bias. Children of immigrants and other minorities did poorly on the tests. Of course, there were those who claimed certain people weren't very bright. However, it turned out that language skills heavily influenced the results.

The book is a history of IQ testing, from its early military use to decide who was to go to the front to its later utility in shoring up the racial status quo.

I remember particularly that blacks did poorly on such topics as the rules of tennis and (at a time when blacks were overwhelmingly residents of the southern US and dirt poor) the use of a thermostat.

quote:

---

As far as I can tell, it is only useful for lording over other people.

---

quote:

---

I remember particularly that blacks did poorly on such topics as the rules of tennis and (at a time when blacks were overwhelmingly residents of the southern US and dirt poor) the use of a thermostat.

---

I think you're thinking about college admission tests here. Most IQ tests don't test knowledge, but ability with word games, abstract mathematics and logic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:

I think you're thinking about college admission tests here. Most IQ tests don't test knowledge, but ability with word games, abstract mathematics and logic.

---

- IQ tests measure specific cognitive skills, language and numerical, which are largely school-taught; obviously, a Roma kid who is never going to school regularly won't be able to regurgitate the Pythagorean theorem or say if pedantic is a synonym of didactic; so native intelligence is something quite different;

- but within the context of school-learning, IQ testing and its school correlates like SAT and GRE, actually measure and PREDICT school and college performance -- and even career success -- far into the future and with some accuracy.
I briefly made a bit of money evenings at a US test-prep chain, Kaplan, and in training they pointed out that, if a test like SAT or GRE did not predict anything, why would schools rely on them for entrance selection?
Answer: scores correlate very highly with test-takers later university performance. Proven over decades.

- over decades and generations for 100 years, whole populations are better educated; hence, they do better on tests, then average and mean scores rise. Hence the 100 IQ average has to be recalibrated regularly by making the IQ test harder. This is called the Flynn Effect, the fact that today's IQ of, say, 100 correlates with scores of 115 or more a century ago. Hard, then, to compare past and present without correction.

- entire social/cultural groups change status as their broad educational experience rise;
when the US Army started with the first mass IQ tests before World War I, to check for aptitude, it thought, blacks in the US North on average matched and/or outscored Southern whites' scores; Southern blacks trailed both. Obviously, schooling was more broad and advanced in the North, so IQ results varied accordingly.
Today, the average African-American test-taker scores far higher than US white average of 1950, because educational rates and economic status for the group keep rising, and will continue to do so, as they have with newly integrated ethnic/cultural groups everywhere.

The test is a broad measure of cognitive skills, based on schooling; when schooling is limited by whatever socio-economic obstacles, IQs are too.

But the idea some single figure -- g, they say -- can stand for core human intelligence and be measured by one test, independent of social background, is just wrong.

A fair discussion:
http://www.psychpage.com/learning/library/intell/whatisiq.html

[ 20 June 2003: Message edited by: Geneva ]

Could you explain this part a little further, please?

quote:

---

- over decades and generations for 100 years, whole populations are better educated; hence, they do better on tests, then average and mean scores rise. Hence the 100 IQ average has to be recalibrated regularly by making the IQ test harder. This is called the Flynn Effect, the fact that today's IQ of, say, 100 correlates with scores of 115 or more a century ago. Hard, then, to compare past and present without correction.

---

(If I recall correctly, she scored at a 5 year old child level.)

The founder of the hypothesis or idea, a New Zealand psychologist or mathematician, added up all the little corrections over a century that had been made to "recentre" the IQ at 100, and found that they added up to a lot.

Flynn: "The hypothesis that best fits the results is that IQ tests do not measure intelligence but rather correlate with a weak causal link to intelligence."

So, a real genius even of the 1920s era, with an IQ then measured at 160, would by today's IQ test come in at maybe 140 or 145.

A huge variation.

Interestingly, the Flynn effect has been observed in many countries and regions, although not, writes Flynn, "in Canada among long-term Liberal Party members".

[ 20 June 2003: Message edited by: Geneva ]

While the test aren't really indicative of how someone will fare economically or perform at a job, they allow for some kids to get access to (increasingly rare) specialized programs that allow them to excell.

I think that only the truely insipid value the results of those tests for measuring ones aptitide for a job. An example would be civil service exams which emphasize ones ability to
meticulously follow instructions. Not really a way to distill qualities like leadership or creativity.

The real solution is to diversify the kinds of educational programs offered and ensure equally diverse access to them.

With IQ, like anything, the elite tend to recognize that it is ultimately a farce
designed to help the rest accept their lot.

[ 28 June 2003: Message edited by: batz ]

First, SAT and IQ tests actually correlate about equally with later university performance.

Third, IQ is a good predictor of occupational attainment, but a really poor predictor of occupational success within a given occupational tier. Hence, IQ isn't particularly useful. I will explain.

On the idea of occupational attainment: In various studies, for example, research scientists and medical doctors have average IQs of over 130, above about 98% of the general population. Teenagers who score 130 on an IQ test will be very likely to get a graduate or professional degree. Students who score 100 on an Iq test will almost never go to grad school. However, the problem is that many of the "aptitude" tests necessary to get into the Ivy League, Med School and Law School are glorified IQ tests. So, the fact that doctors all have high IQ may say more about the requirements for Med School than the "power" and "meaning" of IQ.

Similarly, the correlation between IQ, SAT and school success is understandable, since IQ and aptitude tests were initially designed to be LIKE (and still strongly resemble) school studies. Hence, to say that IQ and SAT tests correlate with university marks is sort of like saying that tests which resemble school learning corrleate highly with actual school learning.

Meanwhile, the correlations between IQ and occupational SUCCESS is much lower. For jobs invloving, say, sales or truck-driving, IQ and job performance correlations are near zero. A group of salespersons with an IQ of 140 is no better than a group with an average IQ of 95. Among more cerebral jobs in management, a group of people with higher IQ will perform somewhat better overall than a group with lower IQ, but not by much. And within a group of already elite individuals already sorted by IQ/SAT/grades(say law school applicants), IQ or LSAT will typically have NO correlation with later success ON THE JOB. A group of law student with an IQ of 150 are no more likely to succeed than a group with an IQ of 120.

Furthermore, IQ differences become even more useless when applied on an individual, not group, level. So, for instance, for a law school to accept Individual A with an IQ of 150 over Individual B with an IQ of 120 is completely ridiculous.

Typically, I have heard psychologists say that success in life is 1/3 IQ, 1/3 EQ (Emotional Intelligence), and 1/3 SQ (Or so-called Social Intelligence). In other words, success is a combo of how well you do on an IQ test, how well you are emotionally, how much ambition you have, and whether people find you likable.