Does anyone know what IQ actually measures?

I mean, if we gauge IQ solely by this test, then it is well-documented that certain demographics score much higher than other demographics. For example, as a whole, men score about one standard deviation higher than women.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183166.stm

White males score better than black males:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/116991.html

I seem to recall somewhere that Jews do even better.

Their are a few conclusions one can draw. Either intelligence is evenly distributed among races and sexes, and the tests descriminate somehow, or white people are more intelligent than black people and men are more intelligent than women (there is, after all, no section on washing dishes or cooking in the typical tests).

The standard IQ tests were designed in such a way that they are reasonably accurate predictors of how well a person will do in the standard academic environment of American & UK schools/colleges.

They do not measure some mystical quality called intelligence, although people considered to be higly intelligent generally score well on these tests. However, many who score poorly are actually intelligent (at least I think so), but tend to do poorly in an academic environment.

Intelligence is a term referring to a wide range of skills. It is a term like athletic ability. Consider Michael Jordan, an incredible athlete who did not seem to be able to play minor league baseball. He probbly played better than almost all who post here (including myself), but compared to his basketball skils, he was a failure at baseball.

It is sad that the consequences of the design of these tests are ignored.

At the risk of being accused of bias, let us suppose that some ethnic group consistently scores poorly. This indicates that this ethnic group will do poorly in our standard academic environment.Some use this as a reason to reject members of that ethnic group when they apply for admittance. This view has some merit, although it would have adverse consequences for members of that ethnic group. From a bleeding heart liberal view, it is unfair. From a more pragmatic view, such a policy is a waste of human resources and a cause of various costly social problems.


Some view this situation as a reason to attempt to give extra help to members of such an ethnic group. Perhaps also expecting less of them and lowering stanrdards on their behalf. This is like trying to make square pegs fit well into round holes.


Nobody seems to view this situation as a reason to carefully analyze & redesign the methods used to teach in standard American & UK schools/colleges. The IQ tests strongly suggest that one educational method does not fit all in our educational system.In the last 150 or so years, schools & colleges have evolved into institutions run and/or regulated by government bureaucracies. It is the nature of the goverment to treat all as interchangeable objects subject to standarization. If there were less standardization of methodolgy, we might not have the problems caused by so called IQ tests, and we might have schools & colleges capable of doing a good job of educating a wide varity of individuals. We seem to have a system which only does a good job educating those with a specialized set of intellectual skills measured by so called IQ tests.

Names have a way of misdirecting. Perhaps if these tests were called AAP (Academic Achievement Predictor) tests instead of IQ (Intelligent Quotient) tests, we might recognize them for what they are and consider changing standard academic methodology.

If there were less standardization of methodolgy, we might not have the problems caused by so called IQ tests, and we might have schools & colleges capable of doing a good job of educating a wide varity of individuals.

Is this a reasonable expectation in a country of 300 million?

Just about any test you administer will show whites out performing blacks (unless it's basketball, gang banging, or smoking crack), and men out performing women.

There are two responses in the "everyone's equal" camp:
1. The tests are somehow biased and/or we need to test differently so everyone scores the same (everyone has unique talents!!)
2. Yes, but.... Yes, blacks are dumber than whites BUT there's an environmental/historical cause.

Roman: You could be right & perhaps this is what IQ tests indicate.. Yes, but.... Yes, blacks are dumber than whites BUT there's an environmental/historical cause.However, it seems obvious that each human is a unique individual with different physical, mental, & emotional
characteistics.

I happen to be an atheist and a believer in Ayn Rand philosophy. I am not a bleeding heart liberal. I actually dispise those types.

However, I do not think that blacks are dumber than whites, only different in various abilities. Other than sports like weight lifting, athletic skills require an excellent central nervous system and a brain capable of operating it, suggesting that good athletes have good brains.

The concepts of the nerdy brain-type with no athletic skills & the dumb jock are myths. Their athletic skills and their success in the theatrical world indicate that blacks have intellectual abilities which might very well be comparable to those of caucasians & orientals.

It seems to me that there is evidence of various ethnic groups having different intellectual skills, but little evidence that one ethnic group is inherently smarter.

I think that bias and lack of variety in our educational institutioans result in an intolerable waste of human resouces.

Aside from failing people whose intellectual abilities are different, our educational institutions fail to teach logic and critical abilities, resulting in our not being able to prevent corruption, pay-to-play, and outright thievery in the way politicians run our government at the local, state, and national levels.

Scientific American had an article on this, in their review of "The Bell Curve".

They called it the "quot" score, and found that it correlated with hat size in style dependent ways: the average quot score was level for all cowboy-style hats, for example, but started small and peaked at a midsize for the French beret.

Interesting trivia: Black men who have been deceived into not knowing they are taking an intelligence test score much higher, on average.

It doesn't make that big a difference to whites or yellows, whether they know.

The only job I ever heard of in which rated relative competence among jobholders (people who can handle the job,in the first place) correlated well with relative IQ was teaching. So maybe that's what IQ measures: the ability to teach ?

Does anyone know what IQ actually measures?

I mean, if we gauge IQ solely by this test, then it is well-documented that certain demographics score much higher than other demographics. For example, as a whole, men score about one standard deviation higher than women.


White males score better than black males:


I seem to recall somewhere that Jews do even better.

Their are a few conclusions one can draw. Either intelligence is evenly distributed among races and sexes, and the tests descriminate somehow, or white people are more intelligent than black people and men are more intelligent than women (there is, after all, no section on washing dishes or cooking in the typical tests).


I know what IQ is. It tests the potential a human has. You need slight knowledge, such as knowing what a circle is, but it is aimed towards testing the potential. I won't tell you what mine is, but it is in the genius range.
The test is out of 200 points, and no, it is not any of that salty garbage that one finds on the internet.

By the way, I am sometimes a psychic. For instance, I know that you are currently thinking "what a dumbass, he is probably at an institutional level. PFFT! What a liar."

--------------------------------Signature

I am a strange, 13 year old loop.

I know what IQ is. It tests the potential a human has.

The potential for what? To hit a golf ball? To run fast? To have many offspring?

Or to do well in school? Because many people with high IQ's have a hard time in school. They have social problems that distract them from their studies. Or they are so bright that they get bored in class, and ignore the rote work.

So, please be more specific. What does a high score show potential *for*?

And please understand, I score very highly on these tests, so I'm not a victim of sour grapes, I'm just curious about what you think correlates closely with IQ.

Trust me: As posted earlier, IQ tests are accurate predictiors of how well a person will do in the usual American academic environment. It predicts how well you will do in college if you go.

resad up on how the tests were designed. They threw out questions not corelated with good grades. They kept questions corelated wiith good grades.

Roman: However, I do not think that blacks are dumber than whites, only different in various abilities. Other than sports like weight lifting, athletic skills require an excellent central nervous system and a brain capable of operating it, suggesting that good athletes have good brains.

The concepts of the nerdy brain-type with no athletic skills & the dumb jock are myths. Their athletic skills and their success in the theatrical world indicate that blacks have intellectual abilities which might very well be comparable to those of caucasians & orientals.

It seems to me that there is evidence of various ethnic groups having different intellectual skills, but little evidence that one ethnic group is inherently smarter.

Dinosaur,

Blacks have much higher muscle to fat ratio than whites and Asians. They also have smaller ears and craniums. Their athletic prowess has nothing to do with white people creating myths or stereotypes. It has everything to do with their musculature which translates directly into physical POWER.

Do you think Europeans didn't do their homework when they bought these people to be used as slaves?

IQ tests DO NOT measure acting skills or how fast you can run 100 meters. LOL.

Do you think Europeans didn't do their homework when they bought these people to be used as slaves?

Two things. First, I don't think there was any homework to be done. The West African kings had slaves---people captured from other tribes. It was only natural that those slaves be traded as a commodity. The idea of human trafficing was not a new one, and allowances were specifically made in the Bible for such things. Had the Africans been white, the situation would have been different.

Second. There was an academic who suggested several years ago that the difference may be due to the fact that blacks in America were bred for strength. As sick of a concept as it may be, most blacks in America are descended from slaves, who often didn't have a choice in who they mated with. This is further exacerbated by the fact that most slaves who would have been sold to European slave traders would not have been the cream of the intellectual crop, so to speak.

This theory, of course, was written of as overt rascism.

It would be interesting to see what kind of traits black females sought, versus what kind of traits white females sought, when it came to mating. Perhaps intelligence is more important to white females than black females?

The idea of human trafficing was not a new one, and allowances were specifically made in the Bible for such things. Had the Africans been white, the situation would have been different. The Arabs and Persians had white slaves - the Mongols,for example, sold captured whites to the middle east and north Africa.

They were described by the educated and upper class as stupid and difficult to train for skilled work, compared with Nubians and Ethiopians.

Second. There was an academic who suggested several years ago that the difference may be due to the fact that blacks in America were bred for strength. - - This is further exacerbated by the fact that most slaves who would have been sold to European slave traders would not have been the cream of the intellectual crop, so to speak. The same people who proposed that theory also defended their attribution of low IQ scores in black Americans to congenital race by pointing to even lower IQ scores and greater physical strengh in black Africans.

So which was it: bred for strengh in America and selected for stupidity from the remaining Africans, or strong and stupid just like their African ancestors?
This theory, of course, was written of as overt rascism. No kidding.

It would be interesting to see what kind of traits black females sought, versus what kind of traits white females sought, when it came to mating. Perhaps intelligence is more important to white females than black females? Jesus H Roosevelt Christ, will you reconsider that nonsense?

You can raise the average IQ test score of a bunch of black Americans by 8-10 points just by deceiving them about the nature of the test - even in a standard desk-and-room environment. That's a clue, no?

What's the point of all this? Does anyone deny that there are many very intelligent black Americans walking around?

The Arabs and Persians had white slaves - the Mongols,for example, sold captured whites to the middle east and north Africa.

Yes, but the Western Africans didn't trade white slaves, which is what the conversation is really about.

What's the point of all this? Does anyone deny that there are many very intelligent black Americans walking around?

Please read the rest of the thread before chiming in, please. In no way do I deny that there are very intelligent black people. I just want to know why blacks don't preform as well as whites on IQ tests.

The conversation included the perception of intelligence in slaves of different races.

All slaves are stupider than their owners, according to their owners. We are currently less than one full generation away from the social and developmental effects of Jim Crow laws, in the US.

I have yet to see a racial analysis of IQ test results in the US that controls even for lead poisoning, let alone cultural artifacts such as the "test anxiety" effect in blacks. We're debating shadows and unwarranted presumptions.

Speculations regarding the "mating" preferences of "black" vs "white" American women is just silly, in this context.

I have yet to see a racial analysis of IQ test results in the US that controls even for lead poisoning, let alone cultural artifacts such as the "test anxiety" effect in blacks. We're debating shadows and unwarranted presumptions.


Iceaura,

Since IQ tests are based on geometric shapes and number I don't understand what lead poisoning has got to do with anything.

And lets remember that both mathematics and logic had its origin in Africa thousands of years ago... When white Europeans were living unsophisticated lives Egyptians were laying the groundwork for modern science.

The Greeks may have invented the Olympic Games but they are not the best athletes.

Iceaura,

Since IQ tests are based on geometric shapes and number I don't understand what lead poisoning has got to do with anything.

And lets remember that both mathematics and logic had its origin in Africa thousands of years ago... When white Europeans were living unsophisticated lives Egyptians were laying the groundwork for modern science.

The Greeks may have invented the Olympic Games but they are not the best athletes.


Should we even consider Egyptians as Africans? Strictly speaking, I guess that is true, but it is a pretty arbitrary, meaningless, and confusing designation based on plate tectonics rather than on anthropology.

The continents don't make wonderful borders within human populations. The Egyptians should be considered Mediterranean people rather than African people. Above all, they should be considered Nile people. They hated the desert. They refused to settle in other countries, because you had to be buried in Egypt in their religious customs, and all their historical interactions were with immediate neighbors, especially those in the present-day Middle East.

If you use Egyptians to prop up Africa, not only do you do quite a bit of stretching, you just highlight how worthless the rest of the continent has been in the history of humankind. I think you end up making them look worse, not better. And if you buy Jared Diamond's theories, none of this was their fault, it just has to do with climate, resources, and the axis of their continent.

If you use Egyptians to prop up Africa, not only do you do quite a bit of stretching, you just highlight how worthless the rest of the continent has been in the history of humankind. I think you end up making them look worse, not better. And if you buy Jared Diamond's theories, none of this was their fault, it just has to do with climate, resources, and the axis of their continent.

Swivel,

I didn't make myself clear. I was trying to say that Africans may have created the scientific and cultural foundations for civilisation but it's only Europeans who have really developed this to the heights we now experience (global warming and endless conflict). Hence my reference to Greeks being the creators of the Olympics but not the greatest athletes.

A lot of Afrocentrics I've debated with on the net claim Egypt as wholly black/African. I don't have the time to research this but someone posted a video on a forum showing a lot of Egyptians all with black/African features - can't post the link until I've hit 20 post count.

Swivel,

I didn't make myself clear. I was trying to say that Africans may have created the scientific and cultural foundations for civilisation but it's only Europeans who have really developed this to the heights we now experience (global warming and endless conflict). Hence my reference to Greeks being the creators of the Olympics but not the greatest athletes.

A lot of Afrocentrics I've debated with on the net claim Egypt as wholly black/African. I don't have the time to research this but someone posted a video on a forum showing a lot of Egyptians all with black/African features - can't post the link until I've hit 20 post count.

Ancient Egyptians themselves did not see themselves as Africans. Nobody in history has. It is a very recent trend to grant that continent the majesty possessed by a single group of people. It is Orwellian in its attempt to re-write history. And what would be the point, really? Are the people who grant Africa noble status based on the Ancient Egyptians really this racist? Are they saying "The REALLY black people were morons, sure, but these pseudo-blacks living as FAR from the womb of man, and as CLOSE to Europe as possible, were really swell people!"? Because if that is the message from apologists, it means that they are not just intellectually dishonest, they are worse racists than the idiots they are apologizing for.

As for your "endless conflict" remark, it seems that you have succumbed to Margaret Mead's horrible legacy. The world has gradually become less consumed by war and conflict. The idea of tribes living in harmony with the planet are wishful thinking and wrong. Native Americans were at constant war with one another (and within tribes as everyone vied for the coveted Sachem role). South American, African, and Pacific Island tribes have all shown this tendency. Mead would stay for a few weeks, get lied to, record her bias, and make up a bunch of shit that sounded nice. She must go down as one of the worst scientists in the history of thought. Her legacy is leagues of well-meaning morons who think that technology subverts the perfect, naive native in all of us.

As democracies take over the planet, conflict subsides. We are moving towards a warless ideal.

I think that most IQ tests assess trained and practised intelligence, and trained in a fairly specific way (eg western English education).
Also, they rely on the testee being proficient in taking tests.

So to get a very high IQ score, I think three things are required:
- The testee must be highly intelligent
- The testee must be trained and practised in an appropriate way
- The testee must be proficient in the process of taking a test


I like to compare IQ tests to a decathlon as a measure of athleticism:
Someone will do better in their decathlon results if they are trained and practised in running, jumping, throwing, etc.
They will also do better if they are proficient in the test environment (starting on the gun, using the high jump equipment, not overstepping the long jump board, etc).

So, to get very good decathlon results, three things are required:
- The testee must be highly athletic
- The testee must be appropriately trained and practised in throwing, jumping, running, and vaulting
- The testee must be proficient in the process of performing a decathlon

Test-taking came very naturally to me, right from the start of grade school. I never followed the general advice teachers gave us and always did extremely well. When I first took an IQ test, I didn't even know what it was until the result shocked my friend, which prompted me to read up on them.

I'm sorry, Pete... some people are born with more intelligence, in the same way others are shorter/taller, lighter/darker, thinner/fatter, et cetera. Genetics plays a huge role in the development of cognitive faculties and environment helps sharpen and improve it, but only to a certain extent.

I'm sorry, Pete... some people are born with more intelligence, in the same way others are shorter/taller, lighter/darker, thinner/fatter, et cetera. Genetics plays a huge role in the development of cognitive faculties and environment helps sharpen and improve it, but only to a certain extent.

Don't be sorry - you're agreeing with me!

See my first requirement for getting a high IQ score:
The testee must be highly intelligent.

Personal Observation on IQ:

Most IQ tests are given at the elementary school. Kids do not mature at the same rate unless they are clones and receive identical nutrients and receive the same educational stimulus. So, it is highly unlikely, the same age kid will have the exact IQ.

So variation exists across the board. Those whose social upbringing has an updated structure would have the propensity to score higher than those who did not. After all, IQ tests, SAT, GMAT, GRE etc are based on Math, English and symbol matching. So, those who are lucky to grow up in a stimulated environment with good nutrition would score higher than those who did not.

Having said that, the book Bell curve says, Chinese are smarter than Whites who are smarter than Blacks. My professional experience is that Chinese collectively are smarter than Whites. Blacks are what their rap singers describe them to be.

It is not politically correct to talk about Blacks, unless one is. So, all I can say is that in the last 30 years I found only 3 Blacks (two of them are my friends)that can talk intelligently - and I have talked to many including Ambassadors from various African countries including progressive countries like Ghana.

We are planning on a little experiement. Take a group of people in Africa, give them an anchor industry and develop their town similar to an American or French town....and see how the society evolves. Then we shall know, once for all, if it is nature or nurture. (we are working with a French speaking African group for a $500 million anchor project)

Anyone wants to bet what the outcome would be?

Does anyone know what IQ actually measures?

I mean, if we gauge IQ solely by this test, then it is well-documented that certain demographics score much higher than other demographics. For example, as a whole, men score about one standard deviation higher than women.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183166.stm

White males score better than black males:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/116991.html

I seem to recall somewhere that Jews do even better.

Their are a few conclusions one can draw. Either intelligence is evenly distributed among races and sexes, and the tests descriminate somehow, or white people are more intelligent than black people and men are more intelligent than women (there is, after all, no section on washing dishes or cooking in the typical tests).

Men do not score a whole standard deviation higher than women (15 points).
They do a little better (3-5 points). Jews do exceptionally well on the verbal part (unfortunately) and just average on spatial ability.

You'll find this particular essay on Race and IQ very informative.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001132.html

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001132.html

In view of this article, it may take a couple of generations to get there....:bawl:

i have had 3 IQ tests and all of the scores came out different each time,

how do you work that one out? not just slightly different either in 2 cases,


peace.

How to boost IQ test:

1. practice before taking test.
2. speed up your brain using nootropics 30 minutes before
3. you got 15 points lead

If you do not understand sample questions, go back to school.

I.Q. tests are wonderful for those that doubt their own intelligence and seek an external validation for their own worth.

They suck for those that seek it and are disappointed to find out that, by that measurement, they are idiots, just as they feared they were.

They suck for those that seek it and are disappointed to find out that, by that measurement, they are idiots, just as they feared they were.

And it is too late for them. May be some gene therapy? :D

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001132.html

In view of this article, it may take a couple of generations to get there....:bawl:

Your "experiment" is not foolproof as the liberals will always find some contrived enviornmental excuse for why it failed. Is this experiment for real?

I.Q. tests are wonderful for those that doubt their own intelligence and seek an external validation for their own worth.

They suck for those that seek it and are disappointed to find out that, by that measurement, they are idiots, just as they feared they were.

It's usually idiots who think they will do well and did well on the test until they see the final results. Those who doubt usually do better.

Your "experiment" is not foolproof as the liberals will always find some contrived enviornmental excuse for why it failed. Is this experiment for real?

Yes it is real. The group is coming to USA for the design process in May'07. One thing that the article is correct is that the Africans want the Whites to come there and build the stuff for them. They have been waiting for that for the last 60 years. So, we decided to do a paradigm shift. The same thing could have been said about China 25 years ago. The process I used there is exactly the same I plan to use with the Africans.

Because, everybody thinks that the Orientals are smart, people will say, Oh! you just taught them (Chinese) and they ran with the knowledge. I want to prove that the right type of knowledge can make a major difference. Another theory I have is that once the process is learned, the future generation will pick that up and the IQ would gain by 15 to 20 points. Within two generations, they will catch up as China and India is doing now. The rate of change will be faster due to the new stimuli in the environment.

This is a live experiment and not some thesis work with passive observations as "The Bell Curve" did. Basically, we are going to tweak the curve intentionally, especially in the outlier areas and skew the process. That is possible because, our team has an average IQ of 185.

Time will tell....

That is possible because, our team has an average IQ of 185.


Assuming a 24sd, your average team member has an IQ 3.54 deviations about the mean? Now I know you're messing with us. :)

Assuming a 24sd, your average team member has an IQ 3.54 deviations about the mean? Now I know you're messing with us. :)

Average IQ of 185? How many people are on this team? 1?

Assuming a 24sd, your average team member has an IQ 3.54 deviations about the mean? Now I know you're messing with us. :)
Sorry...a typo...it is 158

Yes it is real. The group is coming to USA for the design process in May'07. One thing that the article is correct is that the Africans want the Whites to come there and build the stuff for them. They have been waiting for that for the last 60 years. So, we decided to do a paradigm shift. The same thing could have been said about China 25 years ago. The process I used there is exactly the same I plan to use with the Africans.

Because, everybody thinks that the Orientals are smart, people will say, Oh! you just taught them (Chinese) and they ran with the knowledge. I want to prove that the right type of knowledge can make a major difference. Another theory I have is that once the process is learned, the future generation will pick that up and the IQ would gain by 15 to 20 points. Within two generations, they will catch up as China and India is doing now. The rate of change will be faster due to the new stimuli in the environment.

This is a live experiment and not some thesis work with passive observations as "The Bell Curve" did. Basically, we are going to tweak the curve intentionally, especially in the outlier areas and skew the process. That is possible because, our team has an average IQ of 185.

Time will tell....

Whites have built and left excellent infrastructure in Africa. The natives couldn't maintain it and it fell apart. I don't know (or care) that much about your project but I'm pretty sure it will fail.

Well, we shall see...In Louisiana, there was plenty of excellent infrastructure too ...some 25 years ago. Now it is falling apart. I had to replace 3 of my Eclipse tires in the last 14 months due to road damage.

Well, we shall see...In Louisiana, there was plenty of excellent infrastructure too ...some 25 years ago. Now it is falling apart. I had to replace 3 of my Eclipse tires in the last 14 months due to road damage.

That was pretty harsh what I said last post, but it is the most likely outcome based on everything I've read. I'm sure this sort of thing has been done before.

Your "experiment" is not foolproof as the liberals will always find some contrived enviornmental excuse for why it failed.

Actually, many years ago, I tried to do a hydropower project in Nepal that the environmentalists shut it down. Now the Nepalese burn everything in sight creating a bigger mess.

That was pretty harsh what I said last post, but it is the most likely outcome based on everything I've read. I'm sure this sort of thing has been done before.


No, you are right. We partnered with another US company to do a power project in Namibia, but it did not go anywhere even though we had direct link to the highest office AND they have severe power shortage. Those people just do not get it. It is worse than Mañana.

But this other group seems to be highly motivated and hence the hope. May be all Africans are not equal and we are counting on that.

Well, good luck with the project. I assume this will take quite a bit of time, but keep us updated :)

Well...thank you. Since this is a thread about IQ and we pegged Africans to have a mean of 70, I am thinking what tipping point variables can be used to change the structure...This would be as much of a social science project as doing trade and commerce. Looks like I am trading in waters where others have been eaten...:D