Is 'IQ' testing an accurate means of testing?

My entire question here is: Is 'IQ' testing an accurate means of testing a persons overall intellectual ablility? For example, Eienstin was considered to be a 'genuis' due to his comprehension of higher mathematics. Yet, it has been reported that he was observed to have difficulty tieing his own shoelaces, and counting his own pocket change. Does this make someone who does not have these problems overall less intellectual? Although I do not now remember what the test was called, when I enlisted for military service, I was given a test that showed I had a 'GCT' score of 111, with I believe a 'genuis' level starting at 120. AT the time, it showed that I was 'good' at math, and was mechanically inclined. Subquently, I recieved training for, and became an aircraft mechanic. Does this necessarily mean that I am overall less intellectual than someone else? Subsequently, it is my belief that a persons overall intellectual ability should not be assessed solely throught 'IQ' tests, but that other testing should be considered also, and then collated, giving the persons overall intellect. Opinions?

[Scott]

Intelligence is vague. However, the particular kinds of intelligence tested by IQ scores may correlate to most other kinds of intelligence.

Standardized tests tend to have basic failings which at least in part can be attributed to human error, on the part of the test-maker. For instance, standardized tests in the USA are often shown to be racist, classist and xenophobic. Even just the vernacular in the wording of a question can skew the results towards test-takers using such a vernacular.

Thus, IQ scores are an estimation that have more reliability in generalizations than to reflect on specific individuals. For instance, we can more confidently say that as a group 1000 people who score significantly lower than another 1000 people are less intelligent as a group than we can say 1 or 2 specific people who score less than 1 or 2 other specific people are less intelligent. However, the generalizations may be even more subject to the risk of biases.

Thank you for your insight Scott. If I am understanding you correctly, you are in your more educated way saying exactly what I am refering to. In that your first statement was 'Intelligence is vague'. Therefore, though IQ tests may reflect on the overall intelligence of a group, they are not an accurate means of testing one individuals' overall level of intellegence. Take for example the question 'Can anyone be a Philosopher?' Though I may not be as well-educated, well-read, or well-informed as someone like yourself, yet I consider myself to be just as much a 'Philosopher' as yourself or anyone else. Just not able to express my thoughts as well as yourself and everyone else, nor am I able to give source reference. But with what intelligence, education, etc., that I do have, I think I get my points across sufficiently.

The standard IQ test, i.e. Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, focus mainly on the mathematical and linquistic intelligences and do not take into account the other types of recognized intelligences. As such, this 'IQ' testing is not an accurate means of testing a persons overall intellectual ablility.

Howard Gardner listed a range of multiple intelligences, i.e. 1.1 Logical-mathematical 1.2 Spatial 1.3 Linguistic 1.4 Bodily-kinesthetic 1.5 Musical 1.6 Interpersonal 1.7 Intrapersonal 1.8 Naturalistic 1.9 Existential

At present there are other types of intelligence quotients, i.e. Spiritual Quotients (SQ), Emotional Intelligence (EQ) etc.

I don't think a collated and average overall intelligence is effective and meaningful. Perhaps, for some specific circumstance a weighted average result of specific chosen set of intelligences may be useful.
An intelligence profile showing the results of the various (selected) intelligence may be more meaningful. From the profile, a person may make a choice to improve certain relevant intelligence to be a more 'balanced' person.

Agreed. I now forget who it was, but several years ago someone made note that most careers nowdays rarely last more than 7 years, and thus a person should prepare themselves for several possible careers, so that they would always have something to fall back on.

Those who score high on IQ-tests and mathematical and linquistic tasks view the IQ test as an accurate method of testing a persons overall intellectual ability. However, those with a mediocre or low score don't think it's an accurate method.

Mats

IQ tests measure a persons ability to do IQ tests.

I once worked my way though a book of 20 IQ tests in about 1 week and by the end my scores were 50% higher than at the beginning. Clearly, I didn't get 50% smarter in 1 week so the IQ score was not an accurate measurement of my intellectual abilities.

Good example. I think all that IQ tests show is what education one has, not what they are capable of learning, nor how much they are capable of learning.

I know plenty of folks who have scored VERY high on the IQ test who laugh at it as a measuring tool of intelligence. I would say that ALL standardized testing is bunk and is only used for the convenience of the statistical validation of whatever agenda some entity (government, institutional, social, political, psychological etc) wishes to use it to support. I find it amusing and oxy-moronic that IQ tests are created and administered by idiots. If you're smarter than their test, you're a genius, Hah!

I think IQ tests are relevant, and I must be correct because I score high on IQ tests.

/Mats

This is not philosophy, nor is it epistemology or metaphysics. It's science, specifically psychology in the subfield of psychometrics.

I advise you to actually read some science about things before you start threads about it. Discussion is not a good way to learn. Most discussions are useless and fruitless. Some are even counter-productive. This is especially true about controversial subjects such as intelligence research where people often post things that reveal they that have not studied the subject to the smallest acceptable degree: reading the Wikipedia articles. Several people in this thread reveal this.

For a general and short introduction to intelligence research, and why it matters, see:

• Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Where and why g matters: Not a mystery. Human Performance, 15(1/2), 25-46.
• Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24(1), 79-132.
• ROBERT A. GORDON. (1997). Everyday Life as an Intelligence Test: Effects of Intelligence and Intelligence Context, Intelligence, Volume 24, Issue 1, January–February 1997, Pages 203–320.

These are all freely available, but I can't post links since I'm 'new'. Just google the names.

Feel free to ask me questions when you have read these three.

For a longer and more technical introduction, see Arthur Jensen, The g factor, 1998.

IQ tests are always going to be a reflection of what society expects, yet it is what society dose not expect that raises the bar and drives humanity onward. The greater ability to copy will always stand the individual in good stead with society, a true worker, able to carry out the task in hand to the letter. The Nazis did not take long to exploit those benefits, survival of the fittest, yet it became a state void of imagination, where everyone thought the same, did the same things, valued and were guided by the same hand. They went from burning books to burning people. It remains the dreamer, the one who spends less time copying, and more time imagining, who becomes the focus of those smart people, as Einstein said, "Make everything as simple as possible, just not simpler". In those words the dreamer ought to take refuge, if their dreams are ever to come true. In school, Einstein was middle of the class, same with Hawkings. Hawkings has a string of letters behind his name, yet he never got his English GCSE, for most, that would be a real bumber..In the end, it takes all sorts, and IQ tests are just a way that society can hear you say...."yes sir..I can boogy" I guess.

This post generally contains nonsense and dubious claims with no presented evidence.

IQ tests are always going to be a reflection of what society expects

No. IQ tests are made to measure intelligence, and they generally do that rather well. Other aptitude tests also measure intelligence, which is why they are useful for predicting grades etc. See previous links.

, yet it is what society dose not expect that raises the bar and drives humanity onward. The greater ability to copy will always stand the individual in good stead with society, a true worker, able to carry out the task in hand to the letter. The Nazis did not take long to exploit those benefits, survival of the fittest, yet it became a state void of imagination, where everyone thought the same, did the same things, valued and were guided by the same hand. They went from burning books to burning people. It remains the dreamer, the one who spends less time copying, and more time imagining, who becomes the focus of those smart people

A fine example of dubious claims and nonsense.

, as Einstein said, "Make everything as simple as possible, just not simpler".

Fake quote. See Wikiquote about Albert Einstein.

In those words the dreamer ought to take refuge, if their dreams are ever to come true. In school, Einstein was middle of the class, same with Hawkings. Hawkings has a string of letters behind his name, yet he never got his English GCSE, for most, that would be a real bumber..In the end, it takes all sorts, and IQ tests are just a way that society can hear you say...."yes sir..I can boogy" I guess.

These claims about Einstein and Hawkings are wrong. Both were excellent students.

TL;DR stop 'guessing' and read science. Avoid anecdotal information about celebrities.

I guess professors like Dr. Gabriel Robins, school of engineering and applied science University of Virginia don't listen to Wiki...Too bad eh? Oh well..deep hole with water in it...I guess. I noticed you actually didn't say anything philosophical there Deleet. To bad.

[Scott]

This thread is not about philosophy. It is about science. That is why I am speaking about science.