Do You Consider IQ Tests a Good Measure of Intelligence?
 

Depends on your definition of inteligence I suppose...

IQ tests measure the capability to take tests and to think quickly. That is not the same as intelligence, although it can be clues to the same. As one who always scored well on these, I can say that it took me a long time to learn that being quick and having a good memory are only two aspects of that phenomenom: intelligence. I have not identified instruments that do a better job; I am just saying it only measures some aspects of the subject. (At the moment I appear to be the only "no" vote.)

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
High IQ doesn't necessarily correspond to success in life.

As for mensa, any club with Carol Vordermann as a member is not one a discerning gentleman could honourably be a member of. I'll bite, who is Carol Vordermann?

This thing is enough to condemn an entire organization just by being a member? Not that I am all that fond of Mensa, anyway. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif



Since Ted isn't here, I'd hit it.

Originally posted by VetLegion
Intelligence, smarts, brainpower... etc.

Can someone have a low IQ and be smart? I once saw a guy on tv who had an IQ of 87, but spoke 12 languages... I guess so http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

It's good for everything, as people who are smart in one thing tend to be smart in other things too.

There is research about correlation with wealth of nations too, by a Finn actually.

more pics...

Originally posted by Aivo½so
I think IQ is a rather unnecessary concept. It is not a measure of intelligence unless "intelligence" is defined as being what IQ tests measure, and nobody knows what having a high IQ is good for. As VetLegion says, IQ tests measure your ability to complete a certain set of intellectual tasks that share traits with the challenges posed by real life. I'm OK with that, but IMO 'intelligence' per se is a meaningless concept - there are so many domains of expertise, all having their own rules, goals, usefulness, that I find it preferable to talk about one's ability in a certain field rather than some abstract, objective measure of 'intelligence'.

Originally posted by TCO
feed me. She has a nice rack. ...and a scary, tired face. She's got that "getting old and sick of it all but trying to prevent it by hysterical denial" look to her, as seen on Paula Abdul. Look at that dead, joyless smile! Those empty, weary eyes! Those crisp, creased folds in her cheeks! Nothing says hott sexx like the dreary, emotionally draining saga of living a lie written all over your face.

Originally posted by Elok


...and a scary, tired face. She's got that "getting old and sick of it all but trying to prevent it by hysterical denial" look to her, as seen on Paula Abdul. Look at that dead, joyless smile! Those empty, weary eyes! Those crisp, creased folds in her cheeks! Nothing says hott sexx like the dreary, emotionally draining saga of living a lie written all over your face. I'll drape her over a sofa and plug her from behind.

Originally posted by VetLegion
It's good for everything, as people who are smart in one thing tend to be smart in other things too.

There is research about correlation with wealth of nations too, by a Finn actually. sorry but booksmarts is not the same as knowing how to please a woman in bed.

**** size (men) and breast size (women) are good measurements of intelligence.

IQ tests measure ability to take IQ tests, and nothing more.

The problem is that the more you do these tests, the better you get at them. They're just like crossword puzzles, number puzzles or even playing chess. You get better with practice. People practice them, get good, get high scores then act like they're superior to everyone else.

For my current job (programming) I sat a logical deduction test, which instead of word & number puzzles described a scenario and then asked questions about what could be logically deduced from the facts, and what could not. The test catches out people who let prejudice get in front of the facts, and people doing well on the test tend to be good at programming, where dumb assumptions are no good, but cold hard analysis is essential.

I felt the test was far more appropriate for applying logic to real-world problems than the usual magazine-type puzzles that fraudulently claim to have a full definition and measure of intelligence.

What?

hehehe. Got you in trouble. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif

Originally posted by Cort Haus
The problem is that the more you do these tests, the better you get at them. They're just like crossword puzzles, number puzzles or even playing chess. You get better with practice. People practice them, get good, get high scores then act like they're superior to everyone else. I passed my mensa test first time with a hangover and yes, I am superior to everyone else...http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...tongueanim.gif

Well the REAL IQ test is avoiding actually joining Mensa, because they appear to be mostly socially dysfunctional weirdos...