Quote:
Originally Posted by geonuc
A bit contradictory. Seems you are saying that IQ scores are more than just evidence of how well one scores on IQ tests.
I think IQ scores are very good evidence of intelligence. Just not completely definitive.
Some of the anecdotes I've read about how supposedly intelligent people do dumb things are really evidence of other factors overriding the person's inate intelligence.
A person's IQ score is a good indicator of how well they might do with certain tasks and problems, such as performing adequately in a profession or determining whether people are lying or telling the truth. IQ scores may be less useful for predicting proficiency with other tasks, such as getting along with others in society, although I submit that even with that, there's a positive correlation.
(The preceding is based on personal experience, not on something I read. So no citations will be offered.)
|
Sigh. Let's see if the third time is a charm. IQ tests can be one of several
indicators of a certain kind of intellectual capability that depends on the individual's genetics, education, upbringing, and the opportunities that life has afforded them. What IQ tests cannot do is
quantitatively measure some kind of innate, invariant human characteristic called intelligence. Such an innate invariant characteristic does not exist. I do not make this as a straw man. The developers of IQ tests thought they were measuring just such an innate characteristic and it's still sadly the way IQ test scores are casually interpreted by the public as evidenced by some of the posts in this thread.
While they can
indicate intellectual capability, I stand by my statement that all IQ tests actually
quantitatively measure is skill at taking tests. This skill, like others, can be improved with practice and the mere fact that one can improve test scores by study and practice argues against the interpretation that they measure an innate characteristic. If they did no amount of study would ever change a score.
Maybe this seems pedantic and quibbly, and perhaps all people here mean when they say "intelligence" is a broad capability that is amenable to change by an individual. However, the history of intelligence testing is filled with tales of its misuse over history (see Gould) to try and justify all sorts of agendas. The root of this misuse is the incorrect assumption that intelligence is an actual thing (reification) that can be quantified and not a broad set of skills and capabilities that can be developed with education, study and practice.