I think that to many people, the phenomena behind IQ is a suspected general mental ability. It may also be fitting to describe this as a general or arbitrary analogical or mapping ability. I think this definition also captures what people think of when they say "artificial", or non-organic intelligence.
When you say that IQ is just "a specific subset of symbolic puzzles", I believe you are criticizing IQ as ungeneralizable, or as having external validity issues.
I think the reason why IQ has remained as a widespread construct is because it is actually so useful in predicting performance across an array of situations, such as general job performance, of which IQ or g is often a top-tier or unmatched predictor, better than years of relevant work experience. And whenever someone accuses IQ of being inadequate, and they come out with their More Complete test, it turns out that their measurements and predictions are insufficiently distinctive from IQ, which even further supports the idea of a "general" mental ability.
"And whenever someone accuses IQ of being inadequate, and they come out with their More Complete test, it turns out that their measurements and predictions are insufficiently distinctive from IQ, which even further supports the idea of a "general" mental ability."
Here's the thing... I'm criticising IQ tests, but I'm not suggesting we create a more complete test, I'm suggesting the whole idea of measuring intelligence numerically is fundamentally flawed.
There are a few reasons I believe measuring intelligence numerically is flawed, but probably the central one is that I don't believe it exists as a fixed entity, I believe it's adaptive depending on the circumstances we find ourselves in.
As with any debate on human traits the tendency is to go back to the nature vs. nurture question. I believe you can have a natural aptitude for something, but the environment you live in is what helps your intelligence develop, and this is the largest differentiator in what we perceive as intelligence. Put simply, change the environment and you change the intelligence. Therefore scores like IQ do not measure someone's true potential, they only hint at what they've already been exposed to. That's why to me such tests are a waste of time.
> Therefore scores like IQ do not measure someone's true potential, they only hint at what they've already been exposed to. That's why to me such tests are a waste of time.
Hmmm. As far as I know you are allowed to retake IQ-tests if you want, still the differences are there. Some people will never pass 120 no matter how many times they take the test.
eitland, I'm sorry I was rude towards you, you didn't deserve it.
I'll try and make this constructive. Would you agree that human intelligence centres around pattern recognition? If so, which patterns would you class as hard to teach?
It appears reading comprehension isn't a prerequisite for a good IQ score, what I'm saying is those scores are irrelevant, do try and keep up. Oh and its very easy to train someone to get beyond your benchmark as long as they have a reasonable grasp on language, you just show them past exam questions and show the steps to take to get the answer, it's what passes for education in many subjects.
Just to go further into this, decided to remind myself what an IQ test question looked like. This is the first one that came up...
"1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 - Which one doesn't belong in this series?"
Now the "correct" answer is 8, but that's only because we second guess what the examiner wants. Truthfully 11 is equally correct, as its the only 2 digit number, and the number series could be single digit numbers. But there's nowhere to explain your reasoning, so you better choose the "correct" answer anyway...
But you claimed the scores are based on what you're exposed to rather than your potential. If they don't change over time then that's a strong counter to your argument.
And not being potential was critical to your 'central' flaw with the approach. Perhaps you can name other flaws, but you haven't made them clear, and you haven't actually disagreed with threatofrain's assertion that IQ is the best correlation with general performance that we have.
>math
It's a series, not a set. 11 is not 'equally' correct.
"But you claimed the scores are based on what you're exposed to rather than your potential. If they don't change over time then that's a strong counter to your argument."
As I mentioned in another comment, I was rude because I was tired of explaining why it was pointless, but I did address that it's possible to teach better IQ scores by focusing on how to pass the tests.
"It's a series, not a set. 11 is not 'equally' correct"
Yep that's a definition. I'm not sure why you quoted it?
You can make all kinds of arguments to remove any number, but which one leaves a sequence with minimal kolmogorov complexity? Which one leaves a sequence where you can predict the next number?
"Which one leaves a sequence where you can predict the next number?"
Who said you had to predict the next number? If the question asked "Fill in the next number in this sequence" then I'd agree with you, but instead it asked which number didn't belong.
It's a heuristic. If you can't explain the series then you lose a lot of points in arguing that you interpreted it correctly.
Remember, the question isn't asking you to sort a bag of numbers into piles, it's giving them in a specific order and asking which list of n-1 numbers in that order is most coherent.
"is most coherent"
Of course it's clear which is most coherent, but what I'm trying to illustrate is how less obvious approaches may still demonstrate intelligence, I'll look up some more IQ test questions and find a different example to do this...
EDIT: Found one that should be better. What is your answer to this question... http://imgbox.com/a7vshE9u
Well there's one interpretation with three answers that doesn't use the info presented, and there's another interpretation with one answer that does use the info presented... 8
So I see your point about figuring out what the examiner wants and I think it makes the question better since you can't blindly run with a first interpretation and ignore half the question.
(Is that a real IQ test? I'm not trying to say it isn't, just that "internet IQ test" is not a trustworthy phrase.)
To be honest it now seems you are arrogant on top of your ignorance.
Two people try to explain to you and you go on talking without reading.
Regarding reading comprehension: what part of eitlands explanation that you are often free to take iq tests multiple times didn't you understand? And so on.
And, regarding your example: if you are going to be arrogant, make sure you are right.
"Regarding reading comprehension: what part of eitlands explanation that you are often free to take iq tests multiple times didn't you understand? And so on."
I was tired of having to explain why assigning a number to intelligence made little sense, so yes I was a little rude. Besides, I addressed eitlands' assertion that certain numbers are beyond reach, just like any formal test you can train people to become good at taking the test.
> I was tired of having to explain why assigning a number to intelligence made little sense
So stop explaing it. Assigning a number to intelligence makes a lot of sense.
As have been pointed out 1.) it seems those measurements can be reproduced with statistical significance so they measure something and 2.) whatever it measures it seems to be one of the best indicators we have of future job performance.
What they don't tell us is what a person is worth, if he is a good person etc.
"How much can these scores change over a person's lifetime, and how limiting are a person's scores for obtaining what they want out of life?
For groups of individuals, IQs are fairly stable between childhood and adulthood, but for specific individuals within a group, IQs can--and do--vary greatly over a lifetime. The IQs will vary as a result of specific interventions (such as preschool enrichment programs), quality education (or the lack of it), injuries that affect brain functioning, and other aspects of the environment that either enhance or diminish one's cognitive ability. In addition, errors of measurement are much larger than people tend to think, and, therefore, an individual's IQs will vary from time to time--sometimes substantially--simply due to the chance fluctuations that accompany any repeated measurement. And, there is more to life success than the ability to score high on IQ tests. People can be successful based on their creativity, street smarts, and personality variables."
When you say that IQ is just "a specific subset of symbolic puzzles", I believe you are criticizing IQ as ungeneralizable, or as having external validity issues.
I think the reason why IQ has remained as a widespread construct is because it is actually so useful in predicting performance across an array of situations, such as general job performance, of which IQ or g is often a top-tier or unmatched predictor, better than years of relevant work experience. And whenever someone accuses IQ of being inadequate, and they come out with their More Complete test, it turns out that their measurements and predictions are insufficiently distinctive from IQ, which even further supports the idea of a "general" mental ability.