4
   

Answers to emode.com IQ test ( "the original IQ test" )

 
 
Gabriel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2003 11:15 pm
rufio wrote:

La! La! La! I'm not liiisteeeennniiinnnggg!


My god, man. I'm not one to flame (so I won't), but seriously: go back and reread every word of this thread. Answers lie above, not below.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2003 11:27 pm
Quite right, and one the the answers lie in Gabriel's post. He isolated another functional contrast and was also correct to state that it was not as clear and suitable of a contrast as the answer deemed correct.

Were that answer to be absent the contrast he noted would be the best possible answer.

Your arguments herein are predicated on the notion that language and cultural influence should be divested from IQ testing. Ideally it would but ideally you would also not exhibit such cognitive difficulties.

The test is given in English, anyone taking the test is inevitably subject to the pre-existing criteria of having learned to comprehend English.

This in no way means that for those who fit that criteria there is no logical means to answer said question.

Every single thing being tested there requires some aquired knowledge. Again you cling to a morsel and think it trumps all.
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 03:14 am
Actually, my point was that once you strip extraneous culture from the IQ score, there's nothing left. IQ is a myth. But that's an exprapolation from what I actually said, which was that the "logic" that the test claims to be inherent in the question is only "logical" from within a particular cultural veiwpoint.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 03:21 am
Earlier you said "IQ tests don't measure IQ - they measure culture."

Let's examine this.

A trivia quiz might measure the assimilation of culture.

An IQ test will inevitably have cultural elements but it's purpose is to measure thinsg other than aquired cultural knowledge.

You are correct if you say it's imperfect in that it does not acheive perfection in measuring inherent ability without making assumptions based upon standardized levels of aquired knowledge.

You are incorrect to say "once you strip extraneous culture from the IQ score, there's nothing left".

If that were true there would be no qualitative difference between an IQ test and a quiz of popular culture.

IQ is only a "myth" if you consider "IQ" to mean a perfect measure of inherent ability and cognition.

But as we have discussed elsewhere aquired concepts do change the ability, so measuring inherent ability is not perfect either (if the purpose is to measure current ability).

This is understood by most, IQ is not a perfect measure of anything, but it is not what you portray it as either.

No matter your cultural viewpoint some axioms remain and you do not consider that proportionately in your claims.
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 03:58 am
"If that were true there would be no qualitative difference between an IQ test and a quiz of popular culture."

The large difference is that the IQ culture stuff is too subtle to be popular. But I agree, there are some things like sequences of numbers and so forth every once in a while - but whether you recognize that again depends on how much school and how many math classes you've had, not any innate ability.

IQ was never meant to measure schooling or culture, it was meant to measure innate ability. That's why I say it's a myth, because it's a myth that we have innate abilities (i.e. abilities at birth) that are different.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 04:09 am
rufio wrote:
But I agree, there are some things like sequences of numbers and so forth every once in a while - but whether you recognize that again depends on how much school and how many math classes you've had, not any innate ability.


Not necessarily how many classes you've had. I've had far fewer than you for example.

What you aren't considering is that one objective is to measure learning ability and said ability is sometimes measured based on a standardized average and the divergence from it. It's not nearly a perfect measurement but also not as perfectly flawed as you'd previously portrayed it.

Quote:
IQ was never meant to measure schooling or culture, it was meant to measure innate ability.


This is simply not true. The only way to measure ability at birth is to measure ability at birth. IQ is an "inteligence quotient" and intelligence and ability at birth are two very separate things.

A common misperception is that intelligence is static, this is not true. It is dynamic.

Quote:
That's why I say it's a myth, because it's a myth that we have innate abilities (i.e. abilities at birth) that are different.


Different is the operative word. Who here is suggesting that IQ is supposed to measure innate ability other than you (and perhaps Safecracker)?

IQ is a measure of intelligence, which is based on but not the same thing as inborn ability.
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 04:17 am
"Not necessarily how many classes you've had. I've had far fewer than you for example."

Oh?

"What you aren't considering is that one objective is to measure learning ability"

But learning ability is always changing depending on what you're interested in and what you've been taught, and what your parents are interested in you learning. IQ was supposed to be permanent and unchangeable.

"This is simply not true."

Webpage Title
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 04:28 am
It was intended to measure intelligence, and initial concepts of intelligence were flawed.

You'd be absolutely right to indict the initial (and for some lingering) concepts of what consitutes intelligence.
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 04:31 am
Well what purpose does it serve now that other tests don't already cover? Don't think that everyone accepts that those ideas of intelligence are flawed either. I've talked to PLENTY of people who still cling religiously to them, in fact I don't think I've met many people outside of an anthro class who DON'T believe them.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 04:33 am
BTW, you have your history a bit mixed up. The term IQ was coined after the realization that (as Wilhelm Stern said) "No series of tests, however skillfully selected it may be, does reach the innate intellectual endowment, stripped of all complications, but rather this endowment in conjunction with all influences to which the examinee has been subjected up to the moment of testing."

He proposed a system of "mental age" which is obviously not permanent.

The inception of "IQ" post-dated this and your assertion better reflects previously held concepts that had been debunked by then.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 04:35 am
rufio wrote:
Well what purpose does it serve now that other tests don't already cover? Don't think that everyone accepts that those ideas of intelligence are flawed either. I've talked to PLENTY of people who still cling religiously to them, in fact I don't think I've met many people outside of an anthro class who DON'T believe them.


Many people believe that God created the world and cling to this belief 'religiously'.

I will have to reject any appeal to popularity. Many people are simply wrong.
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 04:36 am
Intelligence as related to age is still based on the idea that people are born with different innate capabilities. Saying that those capabilities have to be measured in terms of age doesn't change anything.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 04:38 am
Yes it does, it means the realization that the testing can't help but measure with the inclusion of experiential factors. It means your assertion that IQ was supposed to be permanent is false. By the time IQ was coined the progression of this type of testing had moved past the realization that innate endowment was not measurable based upon a quiz.
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 04:45 am
"It was intended to measure intelligence, and initial concepts of intelligence were flawed."

Indicating the current concepts of intelligence are not - correct?

Yet -

"I will have to reject any appeal to popularity. Many people are simply wrong."

That would indicate that they are, wouldn't it?

"Yes it does, it means the realization that the testing can't help but measure with the inclusion of experiential factors."

The funny thing is that if you included all the experiential factors, everyone would test exactly the same. They were getting closer, it's true, but they were still working with an incorrect assumption that some people are just biologically better than others.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 04:50 am
rufio wrote:
"It was intended to measure intelligence, and initial concepts of intelligence were flawed."

Indicating the current concepts of intelligence are not - correct?


Whose? Concepts differ to this day. Some cling to the older ones.

Quote:
"I will have to reject any appeal to popularity. Many people are simply wrong."

That would indicate that they are, wouldn't it?


It would indicate only the validity of an argumentum ad populum.

Quote:
The funny thing is that if you included all the experiential factors, everyone would test exactly the same.


This is not true. Please eleborate.

Quote:

They were getting closer, it's true, but they were still working with an incorrect assumption that some people are just biologically better than others.


That is not an incorrect assumption.
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 05:06 am
I'd love to respond, but for a moment I'm going to step back and appreciate the irony here. Craven has said something, and then said something completely different, and claimed that that was what he meant originally. Bwahahahahaha!

Ok, back to our regularly scheduled program.

"This is not true. Please eleborate."

You don't think that if we took away any external influences like schooling, parentage, desire to learn and so forth, we would have the same abilities?

"That is not an incorrect assumption."

I told you there were still plenty of people who felt this way.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 05:10 am
rufio wrote:
I'd love to respond, but for a moment I'm going to step back and appreciate the irony here. Craven has said something, and then said something completely different, and claimed that that was what he meant originally. Bwahahahahaha!


Incorrect. But I did deliberately have fun with your narrow interpretation of what I had said.

Quote:
"This is not true. Please eleborate."

You don't think that if we took away any external influences like schooling, parentage, desire to learn and so forth, we would have the same abilities?


No. Innate endowment is, though not all, important.

Quote:
"That is not an incorrect assumption."

I told you there were still plenty of people who felt this way.


Rufio, this is a different way. The binary approach is flawed and you are not giving proportionate consideration to the middle ground.

Both innate ability and experiential factors influence intelligence.

This is not the position we were originally talking about. We were talking about those who believed it was entirely innate.
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 05:18 am
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that one of us made a mistake. But that's only because I'm not you.

If we all have innate endowment, than why can every significant variation in intelligence be shown to be culturally caused? If intelligence is partly innate than where does it come from? Surely you're not going to say that it's only biological.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 05:30 am
rufio,

I am certainly prone to mistakes. I could have more clearly stated that when I said that the concept had evolved I meant in the heads of those who were experts in the field and not the teeming millions.

The layman can and does hold varying concepts.


Quote:
If we all have innate endowment, than why can every significant variation in intelligence be shown to be culturally caused?


This is a loaded question based on the premise that "every significant variation in intelligence is shown to be culturally caused".

Please illustrate your proposed axiom. I disagree with it and can't answer the loaded question till this is established.

Quote:
If intelligence is partly innate than where does it come from?


What do you mean? Do you deny any genetic influence?

Quote:
Surely you're not going to say that it's only biological.


I have already said that it's not only biological. Please read the bold text in the post right before yours.
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 05:37 am
Who is considered an "expert" though? It all depends on who's in the vogue at the time. I agree though, most people who actually take an interest in this stuff agree that the old ideas are wrong. But "the layman" is just as important a part of popular thinking as the scholar. I think you'll find that the ideas held by the laymen about, say, slavery, or women's sufferage, was significantly different a couple hundred years ago.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

hello - Discussion by sherry lambert
Best online IQ test? - Question by Marcitko
Intelligence. - Discussion by MKABRSTI
Have the highest IQ-score? - Question by sbrissman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/16/2024 at 09:15:43