Johnny Rotten

You have your IQ scores, your SATs, your GPAs, but none of those really seem to stand out in determining just how capable a person is going to be in a given situation. I had a horrible GPA, a respectable but not overwhelmingly high SAT score, and tried one online IQ test that score me in the high percentiles...but I don't trust that last one, because they're also trying to sell services related to the score.

For me, being an effective communicator (which means active listening as well as informed discussion) and getting along well with others is more important, along with being in tune with one's financial, spiritual and sexual reality.

But unfortunately, there are no practical metrics for those abilities--that I know of. Determining intelligence seems to be a matter of simply getting to know someone...given that you're intelligent enough yourself to accurately gauge them.

I guess that's why so much of the pain I seem to see comes from people going selfishly with their instincts rather than thinking about the situation.

CSflim

Hmmm....intelligence is a hard thing to pin down alright. I should be fairly obvious that it would be impossible to describe an "intelligence number" no matter what kind of test you attempt to devise.

A slightly better approach is to try and come up with a list of different "intelligences". An example of this is the DAT, Differential Aptitude Test, which divides into six different sections:
Verbal Reasoning,
Numeric Reasoning,
Abstract Reasoning,
Mechanical Reasoning,
Space Relations, and
Language Usage.
and you get a different score for each.

A slight improvement over a simple IQ test, but ultimately it only captures a very narrow selection of "intelligences". (Also I think it is a classic case of "blind reductionism", as it seems to make the claim that each "intelligence" is completely seperate, whereas, it would be more likely that a large part of intelligence proper is how these individual "intellgences" interact with each other)

DATs are useful in their field, and seem to measure quite well what they are supposed to measure, but it is quite short sighted to claim that this represents true and complete intelligence.

Most notably it leaves out any way of indicating a person's creativity, originality, and ability to form judgements.

Could any test ever set out to actually measure intelligence? Seems unlikely, and even if it were, the test and results would be so completely unweildy, as to be of no use to anyone.

No, it seems that any attempt to pin down intelligence is doomed to failure.
I don't think that this should be held against the tests themsevles. It is just that the results of these test should not be used in circumstances where they do not apply.

To claim that DATs are in of themselves meaningless is equally as short-sighted as proclaiming them to be true measures of intelligence.


As an aside, it occurs to me that even if a test for true intelligence were devised, it would never be universally accepted.
It is very popular among pseudo-intellectuals to make the claim that these tests are meaningless. The fact that they did terrible in school, flunked out of college and score low on IQ tests/DATs/whatever does not of course reflect in anyway poorly on their intelligence, as we can see they are really highly intellectual, end of story.
A true test for intelligence, which showed them up as pretentious morons, would "obviously" be meaningless.

__________________

MacGnG

hmmm is wilderness survival score-able?

the Mensa tests are something to consider, they arent really standardized. but i dont know much about them besides it was very difficult when i took it. if someone knows more about the mensa test that might be what u r talking about.

redravin40

Actually it is how the tests are read that makes the difference.
I work with people who do test for DVR.
They look at peoples learned skill as well as their ability to learn.
There are means and norms that make the numbers more understandable.
For factoring intelligence no one test is going to do a complete job since so many are culturally based.
I was used as a guinea pig for one of the testers who was getting her degree and seem to come down average on just about ll the tests.
Of course there has to be a norm for the tests to work but I seemed to hit the exact norm on all of them.
If the norm was figured at 1500 then I would hit that exactly.
Not 1520 or 1480 but dead on 1500.
Kind of humbling to be sure.

Eldaire

I.Q. is bunk. That's all there is to it. What aspect of your intelligence is it supposed to be measuring when there are infinitely many?

Torinn

These kinds of scores are jokes.... I had a friend get an 1100 on the Sat and over the course of a summer, his family paid for him to be in a SAT study program that let you continually take them and get feedback on what to study. He had a 1450 by the end of summer. At my Highschool the Honors english classes were easier than the regular ones by all accounts. In my college it often comes down to which professors you get. Growing up, they wanted me to be in a gifted program that required doing twice the work as everyone else. Not more advanced work, just more problems. GPA is slightly better, but what does it matter either? I could raise my 2.4 college GPA, but I'd rather take classes that will teach me something, not some pathetic "football player" (sorry if its offensive) classes. Who cares if someone can tell you what 2+2 is if they can't apply it or anything else to life? As far as I'm concerned, the ability to have a decent conversation with someone who thinks about things is the only way to factor intelligence meaningfully.

dragon2fire

my suggestion is to take a psych course

there are entire classes on this very subject and they are very interesting

if you what to see what your iq is talk to a psychiatist and get the whelcher(sp?) test