Is 'IQ' testing an accurate means of testing?

The IQ test is a very consistent and reliable way of testing IQ. ....... IQ = the ability to pass an IQ test.

100% agree

Which can mean that with practice and preparation most of the people can get very high IQ points.

The IQ test is a very consistent and reliable way of testing IQ. ....... IQ = the ability to pass an IQ test.

100% agree

Which can mean that with practice and preparation most of the people can get very high IQ points.

Do you also agree with this :

" It is a means by which the dominant ideology allows itself the pleasure of setting itself above all other modes of thinking. It is racially, demographically and culturally insensitive and privileges the same psychological types that invented and promote the test."

I remember, when I studied anthropology, a test given to the men of an African tribe, shown to us as an example of avoiding literalist assumptions. They were asked to point to the odd one out.

Lump of Wood. A saw, an axe, a screwdriver.

The anthropologist expected the lump of wood to be chosen as the odd one out, as the others are all tools. It was the screwdriver that was chose as the odd one out because the other items are all for carpentry. Who is right? It's an object lesson in the fact that the tested can be smarter than the test.

Defining IQ like that is circular. The fundamental question is what is IQ (which people will know doubt say "intelligence", then u need to define what intelligence and what constitutes, which I think is very problematic and why I think all this information on IQ tests being accurate is void as no one has yet properly explained what intelligence is.)

Defining IQ like that is circular. The fundamental question is what is IQ (which people will know doubt say "intelligence", then u need to define what intelligence and what constitutes, which I think is very problematic and why I think all this information on IQ tests being accurate is void as no one has yet properly explained what intelligence is.)

Agree.

-- Updated Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:12 am to add the following --

The IQ test is a very consistent and reliable way of testing IQ. ....... IQ = the ability to pass an IQ test.

100% agree

Which can mean that with practice and preparation most of the people can get very high IQ points.

Do you also agree with this :

" It is a means by which the dominant ideology allows itself the pleasure of setting itself above all other modes of thinking. It is racially, demographically and culturally insensitive and privileges the same psychological types that invented and promote the test."

I remember, when I studied anthropology, a test given to the men of an African tribe, shown to us as an example of avoiding literalist assumptions. They were asked to point to the odd one out.



Lump of Wood. A saw, an axe, a screwdriver.

The anthropologist expected the lump of wood to be chosen as the odd one out, as the others are all tools. It was the screwdriver that was chose as the odd one out because the other items are all for carpentry. Who is right? It's an object lesson in the fact that the tested can be smarter than the test.

Then, perhaps, IQ tests can be devised of equal quality, but of different content, more diverse, oriented on people's culture and rase. The examined can choose the test that is based on their culture. Also, for the IQ test to have inclination to be outsmarted by the tested is real shame.

-- Updated Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:18 am to add the following --

IQ test tests intelligence, but not ability to take action, not people smarts, not bravery. Obviously, not a hero's measure. It does not measure empathy, ability to help others, strength, good health, friendliness, leadership, likability, beauty, sexiness. There are a lot more qualities that people are valued for in life.

My entire question here is: Is 'IQ' testing an accurate means of testing a persons overall intellectual ablility?

From my personal experience of them, they seem to concentrate on the person's ability to find patterns. I do not think they measure ingenuity.

Defining IQ like that is circular. The fundamental question is what is IQ (which people will know doubt say "intelligence", then u need to define what intelligence and what constitutes, which I think is very problematic and why I think all this information on IQ tests being accurate is void as no one has yet properly explained what intelligence is.)

Agree.

-- Updated Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:12 am to add the following --

The IQ test is a very consistent and reliable way of testing IQ. ....... IQ = the ability to pass an IQ test.

100% agree

Which can mean that with practice and preparation most of the people can get very high IQ points.

Do you also agree with this :

" It is a means by which the dominant ideology allows itself the pleasure of setting itself above all other modes of thinking. It is racially, demographically and culturally insensitive and privileges the same psychological types that invented and promote the test."

I remember, when I studied anthropology, a test given to the men of an African tribe, shown to us as an example of avoiding literalist assumptions. They were asked to point to the odd one out.



Lump of Wood. A saw, an axe, a screwdriver.

The anthropologist expected the lump of wood to be chosen as the odd one out, as the others are all tools. It was the screwdriver that was chose as the odd one out because the other items are all for carpentry. Who is right? It's an object lesson in the fact that the tested can be smarter than the test.

Then, perhaps, IQ tests can be devised of equal quality, but of different content, more diverse, oriented on people's culture and rase. The examined can choose the test that is based on their culture. Also, for the IQ test to have inclination to be outsmarted by the tested is real shame.

Er no - I doubt it. They have had 70 years to improve and devise a better test and it has not yet happened. The test is based on a false assumption that you ca sit a person down with a paper an pencil (or equivalent) in an hour or two make any kind of fair assessment of a concept as difficult and various as Intelligence. No - IQ measures IQ and nothing else.

It's like if someone devised test to test people's ability to bead, running test on different complicated techniques of beading, called BT test an then they'd claim that this test detects all encompassing ability of human intelligence. Then, yes, this BT would only measure BT.

Well said, Chaz. I'll shaddup about it now.

The example about the African people proves that IQ testing is erroneous and ridiculous. Perhaps instead of "measuring" something so complex as human intelligence through pre-fabricated (thus un-creative if not anti-creative) tests we should be "estimating" it through face-to-face, eye-to-eye assessments. We are not automatons, one size does not fit all. We cannot be classified or divided into categories and numbers. And when creativity comes in, that can screw up their tests big time, because many creative people think, approach and solve problems differently than the vast majority.