IQ tests 'do not reflect intelligence'

Skooby

Alone In My Zone
Supporter
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
25,218
Reputation
10,267
Daps
59,783
Reppin
The Cosmos
Scientists debunk the IQ myth: Notion of measuring one's intelligence quotient by singular, standardized test is highly misleading

IQ tests 'do not reflect intelligence'

IQ tests are misleading because they do not accurately reflect intelligence, according to a study which found that a minimum of three different exams are needed to measure someone's brainpower.

For more than a century our intelligence quotient (IQ) has been used to measure how clever people are and Mensa, the society for the intellectual elite, has even used the test to weed out sub-par applicants.

But now the scale has been dismissed as a "myth" by scientists who found that our intelligence can only be predicted by combining results from at least three tests of our mental agility.

Different circuits within the brain are used for different thought processes, the researchers showed, meaning separate tests of short-term memory, reasoning and verbal skills are needed to measure someone's overall intelligence.

Their landmark study was based on the results of an online intelligence test which was launched by the Daily Telegraph and New Scientist two years ago, and attracted more than 110,000 responses.

Dr Roger Highfield, the Telegraph columnist and one of the authors of the paper, said: "When you come to the most complex known object, the human brain, the idea that there is only one measure of intelligence had to be wrong.

"We can all think of people that have poor reasoning and brilliant memories, or fantastic language skills but aren't so hot at reasoning, and so on. Now once and for all we can say there is not a single measure such as IQ which captures all the intelligence that you see in people."

The online test, which took about 30 minutes to complete, featured 12 cognitive tests of volunteers' memory, reasoning, attention and planning as well as recording details about their lifestyle and background.

Taking into account the full range of cognitive abilities tested, they found that people's varying success rates could only be explained by combining at least three types of intelligence, and not by any single measure such as IQ.

"When you look at cognitive ability you can't boil it down to fewer than three components – short-term memory, reasoning and a verbal component," Dr Highfield explained. "There isn't one component that explains all the variations we saw in all the tests."

Following up their findings, the scientists scanned the brains of 16 volunteers while they completed the same tests and found that the three key types of intelligence relied on different circuits within the brain.

Writing in the Neuron journal, the researchers also observed that regularly playing "brain training" games appeared to have no effect on people's overall performance.

But people who regularly played computer games scored significantly higher in reasoning and short-term memory tests, while smokers and anxiety sufferers had weaker short-term memory scores.
 
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
1,757
Reputation
-210
Daps
815
I think reasoning skills are more beneficial in this world than short term memory.

I have one of the highest spacial memory scores on luminasity, but my reasoning skills are very low(IQ 125).

Im an accountant, so what does that tell you. I probably don't have the brain for STEM.
 

Serious

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
79,926
Reputation
14,208
Daps
190,262
Reppin
1st Round Playoff Exits
I think reasoning skills are more beneficial in this world than short term memory.

I have one of the highest spacial memory scores on luminasity, but my reasoning skills are very low(IQ 125).

Im an accountant, so what does that tell you. I probably don't have the brain for STEM.
I do alright, granted my phone went off and distracted me :beli:

29eoe9.png



Browse the latest tests - Cambridge Brain Sciences
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
375
Reputation
0
Daps
269
Reppin
L.A
I do alright, granted my phone went off and distracted me :beli:

29eoe9.png



Browse the latest tests - Cambridge Brain Sciences

I was getting roughly around the same scores. I'll post mine up either today or tomorrow. When I messed around with nootropics for a month on double trouble I got close to 100 (96), but my usual baseline was around the 75ish range I believe without. Nootropics really weren't worth it though. I found they gave me no advantage whatsoever in critical thinking, which is the most important trait imo.

Speaking of which, I was about to post this book I read while ago that incredibly helped develop my skills in critical thinking. It was written by regarded math professors, one of whom won a Math teacher of the year award. I'll even guarantee you can learn just about anything they throw at you in school and your problem solving ability will skyrocket. It completely changed my mindset this past year or so and became a big part of who I am today. I remember posting awhile back about developing critical thinking skills and learning in webs, well this book will explain it. It's a very easy read. The best part of all, anybody can do it. Has plenty of strategies and lessons from some of the brightest minds in history as well as their own techniques. Their methods are tried and tested kn the classroom. It's all about thinking different. Critical thinking skills can always be taught, learned and improved.

The 5 Elements of Effective Thinking:Amazon:Books

press.princeton.edu/titles/9810.html
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2012
Messages
1,659
Reputation
20
Daps
938
Reppin
NULL
"When you look at cognitive ability you can't boil it down to fewer than three components – short-term memory, reasoning and a verbal component," Dr Highfield explained. "There isn't one component that explains all the variations we saw in all the tests."

Yeah but imo reasoning is really the only part that determines how smart someone is. Short-term memory is supposed to reflect intelligence? That's just memory. Language skills? That's communication. I've always thought of intelligence as being about logic and reasoning.
 

TrueEpic08

Dum Shiny
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
10,031
Reputation
871
Daps
17,182
Reppin
SoCal State Beaches
Yeah but imo reasoning is really the only part that determines how smart someone is. Short-term memory is supposed to reflect intelligence? That's just memory. Language skills? That's communication. I've always thought of intelligence as being about logic and reasoning.

I disagree with this, especially if you're considering intelligence to refer to honable mental skills.

You ever try to recollect something perfectly, perfectly without looking at it after a period of a few minutes? More than likely, you'll get it wrong. It's deceptively difficult to be able to do something like that unless you're used to doing it.

And to say that the ability to apprehend and use language has nothing at all to do with intelligence is beyond ridiculous. The ability to manipulate the ideas that you've learned and broken down (logically, pataphysically, deconstructed, reconstructed, whatever) is extremely important in determining one's intelligence (And this is not just "making it understandable" to people. This is also the ability to interpret jargon at many levels, to parse out and understand an idea in all forms and apply it in even more forms).

And this is coming from a guy who finds these types of tests, even the Cambridge ones and the type of multiples of tests formulated in the article, to be far too restricting in how they test intelligence. They really just test a subset of a subset of intelligence, honestly.
 

Mr. Pink

All Star
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
3,050
Reputation
-430
Daps
5,941
Well intelligence is such a vague concept that anyone who tries to apply any standardized method of measuring it....let's just say they have their work cut out for them.
 

Black smoke and cac jokes

Your daps are mine
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
2,695
Reputation
700
Daps
7,024
I never understood why people are so fascinated by tests like these. I never been intrigued by intelligence tests since, in the end, they don't determine your personal attributes in relation to your opportunities in life. Being an intelligent person does not reflect your capabilities to become a good person or develop a set of skills that determines your success level.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
43,417
Reputation
2,552
Daps
105,980
Reppin
NULL
I disagree with this, especially if you're considering intelligence to refer to honable mental skills.

You ever try to recollect something perfectly, perfectly without looking at it after a period of a few minutes? More than likely, you'll get it wrong. It's deceptively difficult to be able to do something like that unless you're used to doing it.

And to say that the ability to apprehend and use language has nothing at all to do with intelligence is beyond ridiculous. The ability to manipulate the ideas that you've learned and broken down (logically, pataphysically, deconstructed, reconstructed, whatever) is extremely important in determining one's intelligence (And this is not just "making it understandable" to people. This is also the ability to interpret jargon at many levels, to parse out and understand an idea in all forms and apply it in even more forms).

And this is coming from a guy who finds these types of tests, even the Cambridge ones and the type of multiples of tests formulated in the article, to be far too restricting in how they test intelligence. They really just test a subset of a subset of intelligence, honestly.

:salute: @ this entire post
 
Top