On the validity of I.Q. as a measurement of intelligence

Author: MgtowDemon

Posts

Total: 24
Topic's author
#1
MgtowDemon
MgtowDemon's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 206
0
3
4
MgtowDemon's avatar
MgtowDemon
0
3
4
I've recently come across this argument: "IQ is measuring abstract intelligence, not intelligence as a general concept, hence is proved by my source" (non-source quote).


In this OP, I am going to defend the validity of I.Q. and how it relates to measuring intelligence.

Now, in the article's words, they believe recording a high I.Q. doesn't make you smart because:

"...the [I.Q.] tests fall down when it comes to measuring those abilities crucial to making good judgements in real-life situations. That's because they are unable to assess things such as a person's ability to critically weigh up information, or whether an individual can override the intuitive cognitive biases that can lead us astray."

This "making good judgements in real-life situations" is what the non-source quote is referring to as "intelligence as a general concept". "Making good judgements in real-life situations" is something that isn't necessarily wholly based on intelligence, as sometimes you do not have all information regarding a situation. Absence of all knowledge can sometimes force a bad judgement, despite making a good judgement with the information you had. 

Furthermore, other factors such as life-experience will inappropriately weight this metric in favour of older people, as sometimes they will be handle "real-life situations" based on their experience of the past, of which might have been negative and hence they learned from it.

Furthermore still, sometimes people will inadvertently handle a real-life situation well through sheer luck, rather than intelligent thought.

Thus, due to these confounding variables, "making good judgements in real-life situations" has components that you precisely DO NOT want in a measurement of intelligence, because it dilutes measurement of intelligence with facets that are not measuring intelligence.

Interestingly, I.Q. is actually an excellent predictor of positive life outcomes (which extend from "making good judgements in real-life situations").  On page 65 of "The Scientific American Book of The Brain," we see that I.Q. is a predictor of positive life outcomes https://i.imgur.com/WwSHDHN.png . According to a longitudinal study, education level, occupation level and income level were all best predicted by I.Q. https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-socioeconomic-success-A-meta-analytic-review-of-longitudinal-research.pdf . So, there is strong correlation with I.Q. and "making good judgements in real-life situations" anyway.

Whilst it is true to say a person with high I.Q. won't always make "good judgments in real-life situations", it is also true to say that a person with a high I.Q. is more intelligent than a person with a low I.Q.
#2
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,198
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@MgtowDemon
Yep. An  I.Q test, is more a test of acuity rather than a test of intelligence.

People do not always apply knowledge aptly and make sensible decisions.....

Meaning "sensible" within the broader context of social expectation and standards..
Topic's author
#3
MgtowDemon
MgtowDemon's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 206
0
3
4
MgtowDemon's avatar
MgtowDemon
0
3
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Yep. An  I.Q test, is more a test of acuity rather than a test of intelligence.
The fact that you began with "yep", in response to my OP, before you elaborated to say I.Q. tests much less test for intelligence than acuity, shows that you didn't read the OP. The *whole* OP disagrees with this sentiment. Maybe you'd actually learn something if you read it, instead of knee-jerk posting your fallacious pre-conceived ideas.




#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,198
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@MgtowDemon
OOOOO...Touchy.....LOL

I like debaters with attitude....Ask Mr Ethan.

Your O.P. implies nothing, other than what it does.... Your O.P. is self contained, as are you.
Topic's author
#5
MgtowDemon
MgtowDemon's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 206
0
3
4
MgtowDemon's avatar
MgtowDemon
0
3
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Firstly, relax.

Secondly, when I say, "In this OP, I am going to defend the validity of I.Q. and how it relates to measuring intelligence," it's actually implied that I think I.Q. is valid, hence why I am defending it. Otherwise, if I did not think it was valid, I would not defend it. Among the other things that my OP implies, that is one of them.

Again, you're more than welcome to actually read the OP.


#6
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,198
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@MgtowDemon
As I thought.

So I replied that I.Q. was more a measure of mental acuity that intelligence.

You got hung up on the word Yep.....Which you will see, is an  expression that I often use.....Meaning, I get your point.

If I don't get your point I will probably start with nope.....Bad habit perhaps.

Nonetheless, you should have got the gist of my response, without the need for all the kerfuffle.

Lovely word kerfuffle....Needs no definition.
#7
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@MgtowDemon
This is semantic at best, btw, my own IQ scores gave me a 121 as a 12-year-old, when I retook it last year I got 140 back. I don't think IQ scores are wrong because I got a low score, I think IQ scores are bad because they're bad
Topic's author
#8
MgtowDemon
MgtowDemon's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 206
0
3
4
MgtowDemon's avatar
MgtowDemon
0
3
4
-->
@zedvictor4
So I replied that I.Q. was more a measure of mental acuity that intelligence.
... without a source and three sentences.

I wonder why you didn't convince me...

Topic's author
#9
MgtowDemon
MgtowDemon's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 206
0
3
4
MgtowDemon's avatar
MgtowDemon
0
3
4
-->
@Theweakeredge
This is semantic at best
Bare assertion.

btw, my own IQ scores gave me a 121 as a 12-year-old, when I retook it last year I got 140 back.
Which I.Q. test?

I don't think IQ scores are wrong because I got a low score, I think IQ scores are bad because they're bad
Nice circular reasoning.



#10
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,198
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@MgtowDemon
Yo haven't convinced me of anything yet.....Well, that's not quite true.
Topic's author
#11
MgtowDemon
MgtowDemon's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 206
0
3
4
MgtowDemon's avatar
MgtowDemon
0
3
4
-->
@zedvictor4
An  I.Q test, is more a test of acuity rather than a test of intelligence.

You have asserted this without any sources and only two sentences of argument. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide logical, sourced-based justifications for claims like this.

Until then, an I.Q. test is more a test of intelligence.

#12
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,198
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@MgtowDemon
Difference of opinion.

Such is the way of things.
Topic's author
#13
MgtowDemon
MgtowDemon's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 206
0
3
4
MgtowDemon's avatar
MgtowDemon
0
3
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Difference of opinion.

Such is the way of things.
Nope. I provided sources and data to back my claim. You haven't.

Therefore, it's a difference of sourced arguments versus mere opinion. If you can't be bothered/are too stupid to source your arguments, then you're not worth talking to on this subject.

Up to you, buddy.


#14
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,198
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@MgtowDemon
Nope, sources and data are just other stuff that you base your opinion upon.

My opinions are based upon acquired data, acquired from other stuff, such as sources and data.

You just like to make a song and dance about it....Which is up to you buddy.




#15
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
@MgtowDemon
Either way lets not dance around the point, you are wrong MgtowDemon, as here is another article proving you wrong:

Topic's author
#16
MgtowDemon
MgtowDemon's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 206
0
3
4
MgtowDemon's avatar
MgtowDemon
0
3
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope, sources and data are just other stuff that you base your opinion upon.

My opinions are based upon acquired data, acquired from other stuff, such as sources and data.
Yeah, sources and data that you never link.

K.


#17
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,198
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@MgtowDemon
Your obsessed with linking sources.

I'm confident in my own ability.

K.
#18
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
I can't remember the specific name of the IQ test, but I didn't just take a random one online, I had to get a whole bunch of mental screening done and they had me take a whole bunch of different IQ tests, they wanted to see if I was mentally functioning in certain regards due to past underdevelopment, specifically my frontal lobe not fully developing for a while.

Not to mention, its semantic because you cherry-pick a single point from the source and ignore the rest of it.

And the bad because it's bad is is saying, "IQ testing is flawed because it doesn't accurately measure intelligence" in the laziest way possible.
#19
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,198
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
@MgtowDemon
So genii,  here is a simple test of your mental acuity.

What is the missing number.

1 2 5 20 1 4 5 20 ?
#20
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,823
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4
It is 1.
#21
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MgtowDemon
Are you perhaps familiar with the Jensen (button) box? [**]

Simple reaction time correlates around .4 with general ability,[2] and there is some evidence that the slope of responding does also, so long as access to the stimulus is controlled.[4]
Also, for reference, g-factor (general ability), [**]

The g factor (short for "general factor") is a construct developed in psychometric investigations of cognitive abilities. It is a variable that summarizes the consistent finding of positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflected in the fact that individuals who excel at one type of cognitive task tend to excel in other kinds of cognitive tasks, too, while those who do poorly on one task tend to do so on all tasks, regardless of the tasks' contents.
#22
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,198
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
No.

It's a simple puzzle, but not that simple.

So what's happened to all the genii with their I.Q's?
Topic's author
#23
MgtowDemon
MgtowDemon's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 206
0
3
4
MgtowDemon's avatar
MgtowDemon
0
3
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you perhaps familiar with the Jensen (button) box? [**]
I honestly wasn't. I'm surprised that reaction time correlates with intelligence so highly.

Also, for reference, g-factor (general ability), [**]

The g factor (short for "general factor") is a construct developed in psychometric investigations of cognitive abilities. It is a variable that summarizes the consistent finding of positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflected in the fact that individuals who excel at one type of cognitive task tend to excel in other kinds of cognitive tasks, too, while those who do poorly on one task tend to do so on all tasks, regardless of the tasks' contents.
Yes, I've mentioned this several times in the thread. It's hard enough to beget consensus with people on I.Q, let alone its relation to the 'g' factor. I've found that once people accept that I.Q. probably measures intelligence, teaching them of the 'g' factor is a breeze.


#24
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MgtowDemon
Are you perhaps familiar with the Jensen (button) box? [**]
I honestly wasn't. I'm surprised that reaction time correlates with intelligence so highly.
It makes me wonder why every single school child isn't tested with the Jensen (button) box.

It seems to be the most "unbiased" of all known "standardized" "tests".

Perhaps it would put too many people out-of-a-job?