What is IQ?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Lava, Jan 15, 2005.

  1. Lava Let discovery flow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    156
    What is IQ?


    Undecided, Lava, and another contributor, from a thread now locked, for reasons unknown to myself:

    >>I thought it was a concept developed to improve the selection of people for jobs, and was
    >>used with great success in the army in WW1.

    >It was? According to the Eugenicists 70% of the all the men who fought in the war were
    >considered inferior, let?s see what they say about your WWI assertion:
    >
    ?
    Predictably, Yerke?s results from all three tests identified vast numbers of morons among the eugenically inferior groups- so many that Yerkes asserted the army could not afford to reject all of them and still go to war. ?It would be totally impossible to exclude all morons,??because ?47 percent of whites and 89 percent of negros? were shown to have a mental capacity below that of a thirteen-year-old?feeblemindedness against eugenically cherished groups was indeed miniscule. (Black 81-82)
    ?
    >
    >Idiotic to say the least but we continue:
    >
    ?
    The deeply flawed roots of the IQ test?were more than apparent to many thinking people of the period. It became glaringly obvious that the tests were vehicles for cultural exclusion. (Black 83)
    ?
    >
    >Ala the IQ test is bull shit?its not proven at all.


    Undecided, with due respect this doesnt prove anything of the sort. All it proves is that such an opinion does exist.

    One only need read the history of IQ testing to find out why it was developed, the successes its had, the issues that exist with it, and the cans of worms its opened, including the fact that it is now misrepresented by racists for their unlikely agenda.


    > Sypke plz don't tell me you actually believe in the eugenic IQ test!

    What is the 'eugenic IQ test' you refer to?


    > Just like the SAT's the IQ test is made to make non-whites look stupid...is that intelligent?

    I'm sorry but no, it is probably not. It should be fairly obvious why pupils are tested for knowledge and intelligence.


    > Oh and did u know that Tennessee has the same IQ as Canada...you are from that state aren't
    > you? Frankly your state is below the American average, since you choose to believe the IQ
    > test as an infallible measure of intelligence.

    IQ doesnt measure intelligence. The correlation between the 2 is high, but not 100%. I think its reading time for you.



    Lava
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    They have always looked like aptitude tests to me.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    They are self fulfilling prophecies.

    The child excluded from the 'gifted program' because they weren't 'good enough' loses confidence so on, so forth..
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Godless Objectivist Mind Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,197
    I Q tests are inconsistent to measure human intelegece. No test can measure that which canot be measured. Human imagination. To some Picasso was an art genius, to me the guy needed glasses!.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    so that at least he could paint a recognisable face.

    *SAT results are notoriously difficult to interpret. Other tests, however, also show signs of improving mathematical abilities. Just a year ago, the federally mandated National Assessment of Educational Progress test found that the percentage of 12th graders with at least average math scores had increased to 69 percent from 64 percent the year before. This test is given not only to college-bound seniors but to a broad range of students.

    Maybe things are getting better -- at least with the third of the three R's. Scores on the verbal portion of both the SAT and the NAEP remain flat, showing little signs of recovering from the Great Decline.

    This roller-coaster ride of encouraging and discouraging reports has taken place against the backdrop of a perplexing phenomenon called "the Flynn effect": all over the world IQ scores are steadily rising. Since at least the late 19th century, right on through the SAT decline, people have been getting smarter, or at least better at taking IQ tests.

    This strange brew of statistics is not necessarily inconsistent. "The SAT is an achievement test rather than an intelligence test," said Dr. Ulric Neisser, a Cornell University psychologist and head of a recent American Psychological Association task force on human intelligence. "It is aimed at what kids learned in school. It's perfectly possible for kids to get smarter in an IQ sense -- especially in terms of logical reasoning and analysis -- and yet learn less and less of the substantive curriculum.

    "The U.S. ranks near the bottom on schoolchildren's knowledge of math and science," he said, "because our society is not committed to the importance of learning these subjects."*
    Test Prove That Nobody's Smart About Intelegence

    I Q tests are overated, they don't measure intelegence per-se, they only test how much you have learnt. But according to the psychologist the scores are up. click

    So in essese because of our enviorenment people are getting smarter, they learn more today because of human inqusitiveness.

    But the last thread, that delt with "Americans ingnorance" though it took the wrong turn to IQ tests, was more about political ingnorance other than scholastics.

    Thus Americans have a short memory span, do we fail to see the direction of our government?. Are we so manipulated by "fear" that giving up some rights for security and damning our constitution are the same steps taken by Nazi Germany?. History is a great teacher Americans can use more of this to make them aware of the similiarities, of past mistakes. And thus realize that we are heading for trouble.
    American Nazis

    Neo-fascism in America

    Godless.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2005
  8. SoLiDUS OMGWTFBBQ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,593
    IQ is just a measure of intellectual potential; cognitive efficacity. It will not assess your level of wisdom, moral / ethical character or knowledge (the good ones, anyway)...

    The Flynn effect is avoided by re-norming any test. As to why scores are increasing: there is still a lot of debate, although it's obvious that we're not in an intellectual renaissance, the likes never seen before.

    IQ has been misrepresented and misunderstood by those lacking knowledge of psychometrics but like anything else, it's your job to research the subject and make up your own mind on it.
     
  9. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    Just thought it was funny that you would mispell 'intelligence'..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Godless Objectivist Mind Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,197
    That's what I get for typing it without paying attention

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    LOL..
     
  11. ZenEthics Registered Member

    Messages:
    11

    I would like to disagree on a few points from this paragraph.

    .1 Defining human imagination as something imeasuarble is a sham, our brains are made out of a set(finite) amount of matter even though the possible brain states in a human being are incomprehensible numbers, they are in fact finite and causualy bound. and therefore a system could be set up in such a way to measure things like the ability to manipulate symbols abstactly(logic), the ability to learn new concepts...etc.

    2.) Picasso was a genious and this is not debateable. Leading neuroscientits today have studied and understand why picassos art is so attractive. ill give an example.

    there is a small type of bird that when hatched has the desire to seek out its mother( its brain does this by finding its mothers beak, a large yellow beak with a red dot on it). when the mother is located, the bird will peck at the moms beack untill she gives it some food. scientists have shown that a mother need not be present, only a beak, and even more supprising a beak not need even be present, only an object that has these traits, yellow and some form of red.

    curiously a yellow stick with three red lines seems to be irresistable to these little birds(the reason is, the recognition patterns there brain has genetically, tell the bird that the more yellow the better, and the more red the better, especially in certain patterns.

    humans have similar triats to this, upon seeing someone elses face, memory neurons fire in recignition of that face, certain things like eye placement, nose size and others are measured by lower centers in the brain(things we are not conscious of)

    the interesting thing is, that your brain has diffrent neurons that fire for different views of someones face(profile, frontal... etc, this is simplifying it a bit, but it gets the point accross)

    piccasso understood that a face veiwed from multiple directions(cubism) seemed to be more pleasing for his brain(this is because you have 3 times the recognition neurons firing in your brain, which in turn actually comes down to why art is art)

    anyway picasso understood this way before modern science, and he does much more than this with his paintings, he intentionnally blurred different aspects of a picture to focus the unconscious part of your brain on other parts he thought were more important.

    and if you think he was a poor artist, and just made up for it in other ways, look up some of his realistic pictures, youll be blown away by the realism.


    although i must say props on understanding that infact american society has placed a very low importance on science and mathematics(especially science) i think we have the cowardice of religion to thank for that, but htat is another discussion all together. :m:
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2005
  12. Godless Objectivist Mind Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,197
    ROFL, Man you crack me up!! what an idiotic statement. Thinking that imagination can be measured by the "finite matter" of our brain, when scientists are yet to explain consciousness and it's location. Take a lesson in psychology:

    Quote: You can't place an emotion on a scale and weigh it. You can't detect imagination, even with sophisticated electronic detection devices. Just because some scientist's electronic device measures various electronic pulses or signals when you are asked to imagine something does not at all mean that they are "measuring imagination". What they are measuring is some brain reaction that occurs when you initiate an act of imagination. There is a relationship between the mind and the brain, but this relationship is almost completely unknown and not understood. The same is true for any chemical reactions or events that occur concurrent with imagination, thoughts or feelings. There is some relationship, but it is poorly understood. In fact, the entire framework of the relationship is poorly conceived. Modern "scientific" fields, since they haven't been able to study or detect these things with the physical senses or laboratory measuring devices have taken a drastic leap and declared that these things therefore don't exist. They have therefore asserted that these things don't deserve recognition, and should be ignored in any "legitimate" study of man, the mind, and human behavior. John Watson, a typical behavioral psychologist had this to say:

    The extent to which most of us are shot through with a savage background is almost unbelievable.... One example of such a religious concept is that every individual has a soul which is separate and distinct from the body.... No one has ever touched a soul, or seen one in a test tube, or has in any way come into relationship with it as he has with the other objects of his daily experience ....

    The behaviorist asks: Why don't we make what we can observe the real field of psychology? Let us limit ourselves to things that can be observed, and formulate laws concerning only those things. Now what can we observe? We can observe behavior - what the organism does or says. And let us point out at once: that saying is doing - that is, behaving. . . - John Watson, behaviorist


    click

    Everything is debatable!!.

    Specially if it comes from the artist fucking mouth!!

    * "Most people can today no longer expect to receive consolation from art. The refined, the rich, the distillers of quintessence (art critics) desire only the peculiar, the eccentric, the scandalous in today's art. And I myself, since the advent of cubism, have fed these fellows what they wanted, and satisfied these critics with all the ridiculous ideas that have passed through my head.

    "The less they understood them, the more they admired me. Through amusing myself with all these absurd farces, I became celebrated. But when I am alone, I do not have the effrontery to consider myself an artist at all, not in the grand old meaning of the word. Giotto, Titian, Rembrandt and Goya, they were great painters. I am only a public clown.

    "I have understood my time and have exploited the imbecility, the vanity, the greed of my contemporaries. It is a bitter confession of mine -- more painful than it may seem. But at least and at last it does have the merit of being honest."
    Pablo Picasso, November, 1951*

    Godless.
     
  13. SoLiDUS OMGWTFBBQ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,593
    Just thought it was funny that you would misspell 'misspell'..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    PS. I know... bad joke. Sorry! I'll go back to my corner now

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. ZenEthics Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    I understand what your saying, and i feel we totally agree, i can sit back and marvel at the incredible variety of the human mind(more brain states than atoms in the universe) its ridiculously complex and much more than anyone in our lifetimes will understand.

    but whats this scientists have yet to explain consciousness rabble? our understanding of such things is pretty far along, and i wont go into describing it all in detail, but ill try to paint you a decent picture.

    (this is largely dummed down,but for a good reason)
    to at least give you a slight idea

    (give me a while to look up some actual decent neuroscience work,(all i have is book form))

    funny the quotes you gave me dealt with picasso becoming disillusioned with art(specifically universal art) because he understood it.... crazy thats exactly what i told you about him.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2005
  15. Godless Objectivist Mind Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,197
    Naaaa!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Godless Objectivist Mind Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,197
    Well Zen thanks for the book update, I've not yet finished studing "on my own" philosophy. I have yet to pick up on neuroscience. Though I don't see how, they will determine my thoughts, emotions, or measurement of imagination.

    No scientific notion can measure the emotional responce to a stimuli, we are all different, everyone will have a different reaction to various stimulasations, and consequences of actions are all different from person to person, though there are similiarities. What is imagination? This question needs to be asked, and needs to be defined in certain perameters if one is to conclude that it can be measured. This has not happened, not yet, not ever, for imagination is more than just painting pictures in your head;

    http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/I.html

    more perceptions of the word; click

    Imagination does not have nothing to do with intelligence, one can be a completely ingnorant of scholastics material and still possess a great imagination, how is it that they are going to measure the ability of thought yet to be determined, the pictures in your head, or the ability to hear certain sounds before even writing them?. It can't be done, no one can measure human consciousness on the level of imaginating things that do not exist, but only in the mind of a child, man, woman, or writer, painter, composer.

    Godless.
     
  17. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    easy....it is a test thought up, devised, and imposed by a bunch of grim, gey souless, ignoramouses so as to claim that others are less smarter than themselves because they cant do their stupid boring snide forumularic tedia.....so they are like vampires sukin off others speudo-defeat to make themselves a tone deeper grey. but it dont last and soon they have to IQ another ...then another ...then others ad nauseum

    if anyone comes to you with an IQ test. jump on them and make them eat it
     
  18. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    I take it you scored badly then?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    no, i made sure he eat the whole lot
     
  20. SoLiDUS OMGWTFBBQ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,593
    ... after he scored badly.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    no, before. i didn't take the test
     
  22. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    i didn't take the test

    Yet, you admonish that which you have never experienced.
     
  23. el-half Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    50
    Indeed, I wonder why it is always people who are not happy with their score that criticize IQ tests

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I do not claim IQ tests are an exact determination of one's intelligence. But fact is, someone with an IQ of 90 is an idiot, someone with an IQ of a 160 is a genius.
     

Share This Page