[Quest_techie]

your questions indicate a misunderstanding of the concept

studying skews the results, it's not supposed to be one of those things you study for <think urine test, just... different (and, yes, it is comparable, think of people who try all kinds of crazy **** to drive drug residues out of their kidneys)>

two points is within the margin of error, so that is a completly moot question, actually the farsical data that "on average habitual marijuana use causes a four i.q. point loss" god I would kill to remember which journal I saw that in, it's simply foam

the tests are not randomized, but nor are two given in sequence identical, however the variation is very nearly statistically meaningless, I say very nealy because, well, boom, margin of error, that is one of the contributing factors

different areas, well that is a fun one

there a few different "multiple intelligence" theories running around, this, yes, does just measure the classical idea of intelligence, hardly brushes by creativity and doesn't even acknowledge kinesthetic intelligence

however

if you look at the results of the gardner multiple intelligence tests the results do not form aggregate bell shaped curves, as they should, further, the questions are exclusionary

i.e. there are questions like

"do you prefer staying indoors painting or going outside to play ball" I would actually give you one of the questions verbatim as opposed to my poor paraphrase, they are just about that heinous, but my book is in my car and it's damn cold outside

now, think about that for a second

if you cannot score perfect, and you cannot score zero, how can the test provide accurate results?

now stop that knee jerk hippie "peace and flowers everyone is equal" reaction

the thing is

that test is broken, as are all of the other multiple intelligences tests because they use the same premise, if a person with absolutly no capacity could answer the questions they could still score just about average across the board on one of those because it's all touchie feely bull****


I.Q. variation over age, well, see, that's the fun thing about it, the most a persons i.q. is ever supposed to vary over their entire life span is fifteen points (if it varies more either something dramatic happened physiologically or the test was performed wrong)

I however am on the outs statistically even with that, most people don't change at all

a flat aquired\obtained knowledge test score is going to change as someone ages, as are virtually all other measures of personality, capability, and aptitude, granted the test does scale to age, it is supposed to, that is how it works

so many people detract from the value of the thing without having any beginning of an understanding what the hell the thing is to begin with

[aldo_14]

It's not a 'knee jerk hippie "peace and flowers everyone is equal" reaction'; I have never intimated a belief that everyone is 'equal'.  I simply disagess the IQ test provides anything beyond a fairly meaningless number, and feel it has no value in actually judging a persons' mental capacity (not potential, as so many other things factor into learning - environment, opportunities, teaching, etc).

[Quest_techie]

it is the potential to excel beyond others given average conditions

or... not

a high i.q. indicates that if you put me in the same environment as 100 point bill, with the same oppurtunities, with the same teaching, that I will do better

oy, the spoonfeeding

think of it as a piece of paper, bigger i.q. value, bigger piece of paper

adversity is occulation, you cannot use occulted parts of the sheet

well, you still have more writing surface because you had a larger piece of paper in the first place

my god, am I going to have to start hunting down peer reviewed journal articles to prove you wrong?

[aldo_14]

Name me two people who study in absolutely identical environments.

What is the practical use of an IQ value?

[Polpolion]

to tell someone with an IQ less than yours "haha I'm smarter than you!!!" even thought it doesn't really work like that.

[Ford Prefect]

IQ tests have well-known socioeconomic and racial outcome biases, despite being generally regarded as well-designed. It doesn't matter how much predictive power a test has in theory; in practice it's going to be subject to all the same social and cultural factors. That doesn't mean the IQ test is useless; it just means that it can't provide us with a complete picture of anything, especially on a large scale.

[Quest_techie]

who said complete picture, I admitted it was just the one measure, conventional learning capacity, it doesn't measure creative capacity, doesn't measure kinesthetic, doesn't measure intrasocial or intersocial skills, but what it does, if it is used properly it does well, if I use a nail gun correctly it works well, if I use it wrong someone is calling an ambulance, that the procters produce faulty data is not the tests fault

it is the procters

BUT

I will tell you at least part of the socioeconomic drift is accurate, and if you thought about it you would know it

people with money tend to marry people with money, they tend to go to the same schools, they tend to run in the same circles, and they tend to breed with each other

people who are intelligent have a tendency to make money if they learn how to apply their abilities, which is often the case <how many blithering morons are on forbes top 100?>

people with traits pass them on to their children, be they wealth, intelligence, what have you




as to race, even if a black kid had a high i.q. would they want to show it off? would they get tested in the first place? hell no, people only get tested if they are particularly smart or particularly dumb, it's pretty hard to hide if you are that dumb, so your ass is getting tested, but if you are afraid of the anti intellectual backlash it is god damned easy to play dumb, not the test tha's racist, it is society

you want to tell me that there are per capita as many black people as white in colleges?

it's society that's broken in that sense, not this test, and to drop that complaint at it's door is faulty, there are problems, and all of them are either in the application of the test, the misinterpretation of it, or are sufficiently minor to dissapear into margin of error

[Turey]

intersocial skills,

Follow these steps:
1. Imagine dumb blonde cheerleaders (With clothes on, you sick ****!)
2. Try to tell me with a straight face that social skills should be used as a basis for determining intelligence.

[Descenterace]

'Intelligence' as measured by the IQ test focuses on the ability to solve problems of logic. Which is fairly a narrow definition, but does apply to a lot of problems.

The IQ test is scored based on the following: it is supposed to represent your 'mental age' as a percentage of your physical age. Since the brain does not develop further (based on age, not external factors) beyond about age 18, they cap physical age at 18 for purposes of calculation.

Basically, they work out the average score for each age range, and that score is IQ 100 for that range. This graph is then used to score either side of the mean in each age range.

Re: online IQ tests: I've taken one once. This was in response to someone claiming an IQ of 133 according to that site, so I took it and got 143. I then said, "the mere fact I took the test means that my score should not exceed 100. What does this say about you, since you scored even lower?"
They could choose to believe the test, and be insulted, or claim (rightly) that it was a load of crap...
Problem with online, unregulated tests is that they're marketing exercises. They're telling the 'customer' what they want to hear, so they'll tell their friends, who also visit the site, which pushes up the hit counters and increases advert revenue.

[aldo_14]

I don't think anyone answered my question as to what is the practical use for an IQ test?

[Ghostavo]

I don't think anyone answered my question as to what is the practical use for an IQ test?

What's the purpose of a post count?

ePenis of course.

It's a pissing competition...

[Flipside]

It makes a good 2-page long thread on here?

[aldo_14]

I think you're applying a rather elastic definition of 'good' here, Flip

[Polpolion]

I don't think anyone answered my question as to what is the practical use for an IQ test?

You can tell people you got a higher IQ than that you're more intelligent than them. I'd say that is quite fun and worthwhile.

[Quest_techie]

I don't think anyone answered my question as to what is the practical use for an IQ test?

if they were actually used properly you could handle school sub division, the waste of time that is the necessity of teaching to the bottom of the class, or as close to the bottom as the teacher has to to get the necessary test scores <esp. now with AYP> it sorta screws over the upper echelons

and though the argument could be made that you could place straight A students in advanced classes, as is often the case, many times they are simply the beaureaucrats, the people who are willing to put up with the busy work that all of primary and secondary education is, I mean, for the love of god, copying answers from a book, oh, one notch better, applying the formula you memorized to a math problem of that exact variety

teach everything heuristically, put people with those who are actually close to their peers, don't zone schools by physical location, zone them by merit, not like you have to worry too much about the extra funds any how, you're just bussing the top 5% and the bottom 5% any significant distance, all the average folk, thanks to the very nature of the bell curve, are pretty darn close to each other and will find the nearest school sufficient

it'd never be done, but what the hell, it makes sense

[aldo_14]

I don't think anyone answered my question as to what is the practical use for an IQ test?

if they were actually used properly you could handle school sub division, the waste of time that is the necessity of teaching to the bottom of the class, or as close to the bottom as the teacher has to to get the necessary test scores <esp. now with AYP> it sorta screws over the upper echelons

and though the argument could be made that you could place straight A students in advanced classes, as is often the case, many times they are simply the beaureaucrats, the people who are willing to put up with the busy work that all of primary and secondary education is, I mean, for the love of god, copying answers from a book, oh, one notch better, applying the formula you memorized to a math problem of that exact variety

teach everything heuristically, put people with those who are actually close to their peers, don't zone schools by physical location, zone them by merit, not like you have to worry too much about the extra funds any how, you're just bussing the top 5% and the bottom 5% any significant distance, all the average folk, thanks to the very nature of the bell curve, are pretty darn close to each other and will find the nearest school sufficient

it'd never be done, but what the hell, it makes sense

It's institutionalized discrimination that intentionally creates a primary and secondary education disparity on the assumption that IQ is the be all and end all of intelligence, with absolutely no regard for individual achievement and applied learning (because you ruled out grade-based).   Hell, I experienced both sides of graded-schooling (that is, being placed in exam-result based classes for the next year, both high and low); I don't believe my IQ changed, and yet I leaped from the '2nd bottom' to 2nd class.....