last time I checked I was 7 years old, and it was like 117ish.
haven't checked since.
to put that in perspective, one day (I was probably like 6 - 8 yrs old...) my dad walks up and says "hey, what is your biggest problem today?" so I say "nuclear proliferation, whats yours?" then my dad says "diarrhea.".
Opposed to the good, would be the bad reaction of course. Children who felt confident could turn and become angry towards the world or become self-centered after hearing the results.
I think the worst-case scenario would be social groups forming based on the results of IQ tests. Young children would not understand that IQ tests are not the holy grail of truth and might start bullying others with lower scores.
You mean, how much data and how many questions should be stuffed in a single test?
I meant how much we should rely/use the results. For example, a high IQ score would look nice on a resume or college entrance application, but is it fair to include that? By fair, I mean are the tests accurate enough to justify saying, "Hey, I have a high IQ and have the potential to perform well here."
I clearly remember having a problem with those really long tests which had a bulk load of questions when I was a student back in the days.
I remember that as well. I took my first one ~6 years old and I got very bored. 2+ hours of sitting in a room, watching someone flip the cards over and then asking me to remember what all the animals in the picture were...I didn't care.
They'll eventually know things like their SAT score (or equivalent) and be able to engage in such *ahem* measuring contests anyway.
I have the same problem with the SAT/ACT as IQ tests. I get bored and stop paying attention because I'm being asked a lot of pointless questions that are sometimes designed to try and trip you up. I only used ~1/3 of my total time on the tests to answer all the questions, then ended up reading a book until the sessions were over.
VERY LITTLE. There are lots and lots of problems with these tests, perhaps most notably (along with the SAT here) their predisposition towards a particular social class and whatnot.
However, the results are internally consistent predictors. People who score higher IQs (relatively) tend to perform better academically. That the correlation exists is no argument.
So, there seems to be some luck involved.
There's a lot of factors you have to take into account. Sleep, nutrition, focus, motivation, life circumstances, and more. One day is not the same as the next and everyone has days where they're on the ball or on the floor face down in a puddle of spittle.
where they're on the ball or on the floor face down in a puddle of spittle.
That's me now, seeing as I'm in the middle of admitting patients and I'm surfing AG :|
In my defence I accidentally drank two Cokes with my Maccas, and since the sugar rush wore off, now I'm in crash city. Writing up drug charts never seemed so tedious.
Anyway, the on-topic musing I had was... it's possible to practice to improve performance in IQ tests. The question is, does this translate to practically transliterable improved cognitive performance?
it's possible to practice to improve performance in IQ tests. The question is, does this translate to practically transliterable improved cognitive performance?
I'll fall back to Einstein. "Genius is 1% talent and 99% percent hard work..."
Putting in the effort to do your best and improve is by far the most important aspect of achievement. Even if someone is naturally smart, that does not translate to them being successful.
Practicing for an IQ test would involve training yourself in memorization techniques, thinking critically, improving problem solving abilities, and spatial reasoning activities. I do not see a practical difference between someone who can do those things without effort, and those who put in the time and work to develop those skills.
Although, I do believe that to some extent, IQ represents a maximum potential in purely informational abilities. Someone with an IQ of 140+ is almost certainly able to connect things faster, remember more details for longer, and understand logical processes easier than another person with an IQ of 100. (If both tests were accurate)
Most IQ tests are given in elementary school when a child is clearly understand/ahead of the material/bored in class. That's anywhere from 7-11 years old usually. I suspect he falls into this age range.
Well then apparently my state is behind on some things haha
Then again..most of my actions were just blamed on my ADHD
For a reference, around 110-120 is considered "gifted" and anything beyond that is rare. Mental retardation used to be classified at around 80 I believe...
Lol, Killersup took one in the third grade and hit 118.
Actually it does, but only if you understand what Standard Deviation means.
Are we now assuming that IQ scores are distributed normally? I feel like it is more skewed to the right.
Anyway, IQ scores give you an idea of where you compare to other people. However it is a test so lots of things would affect your score. Even if you were to take it at different times of the day you would get different scores (assume that it is the same test each time and you have not seen any of the questions). Also it is possible that the questions they asked you were ones you were good at (not sure, never taken one, don't know what it is like) but you could then just get another one where you don't know anything.
Anyway, we are all dumber then an 11 year old girl. Source.
1) Do you think that children should be told the results of their IQ tests? (examples of reasons for/against: It might lead to bragging/it could encourage them.)
I don't think they should. Having a high IQ, to a young child, might be interpreted as actually being smart as oppossed to a predisposition for learning knowledge. In essence, it could make an otherwise intelligent child 'dumb' because they fail to apply themselves, trusting instead in the fact that they have a high IQ.
2) How much stock should be put in IQ tests? There are always those cultural differences and it's not a direct predictor anyways. Yet there are strong correlations to academic achievement and IQ.
The stock ought to be placed more in the relation than in the actual number. As you said, there is a relationship between higher accademic performance and higher IQs.
Though I'm curious to know if there is a bias towards those who test well. Isn't, after all, the IQ just a giant standardized test? I've done remarkable well on the HSAP, PSAT, SAT, ACT, etc; which I attribute in part to the fact that I test better than most people. So if someone with just as much knowledge and intelligence as me, but who didn't test well, took the test, would we get different scores?
3) Have you ever taken an IQ test? Was it one of those dopey ones online that want $5 for the results to be sent, or was it an actual one which you may have requested or been mandated to take?
I took one in the third grade, when I was 8. Half a day of sitting at a computer and completing patterns blergh. You had to take one to get into a gifted program at the school I attended, though I don't know the results. And even if I did, they're (hopefully) not accurate anymore.
As for the online ones, I never wound up taking them. Or I did, but to get the results you had to insert a cell phone number; I didn't have a cell phone at the time.
I have no idea what my IQ is... I can tell you I'm smarter than the average person, but it doesn't mean too much to me socially. However, I want to put it to good use, and people who are smarter than others need to work just as hard or else their intelligence is not used to its full potential.
If you're all thinking about results, any import of the IQ testing being determined by how results oriented we are, it all falls into perspective by what kind of results you achieve as you get older. Which is to say that IQ must contend with a number of contingent factors, but the fact remains that a high IQ correlates with certain prerequisites to succeed in certain professions.
If you're all thinking about results, any import of the IQ testing being determined by how results oriented we are, it all falls into perspective by what kind of results you achieve as you get older. Which is to say that IQ must contend with a number of contingent factors, but the fact remains that a high IQ correlates with certain prerequisites to succeed in certain professions.
^this. can we even measure the intelligence of someone? is there a proper test to do that for everyone? no, because we do not share the same mind, brain and experinces.
Which is to say that IQ must contend with a number of contingent factors, but the fact remains that a high IQ correlates with certain prerequisites to succeed in certain professions.
Which is basically those related to STEM. Generalized IQ tests don't exactly mesh with the theory of multiple intelligences as it tests problem solving more than anything else.
Somewhat relevant video on another kind of intelligence.
Okay, I phrased that incorrectly. Problem solving is a vague and expansive term that encompasses many aspects of life, but I meant problem solving along the lines logical-mathematical and linguistic intelligence.
