Defining IQ

[talonthehand]

Originally Posted by VonKatzen

I can tell you that a lot of teachers definitely are traumatized from dealing with small children on a constant basis. Others are simply in rote-mode and try not to engage them. Some people enjoy dealing with children regularly, but it's not everyone, and certainly not all people who work in schools. Many teachers aren't particularly good at their job, either, and simply don't try very hard.

So many of your points come with "most", "many", "people I know"....you're building an argument around what seems like common sense to you, which isn't the most rigorous way to make them. I winced at the "people have trouble communicating with people significantly less intelligent than them" - if you can't explain things to a layperson, you don't really understand it.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by talonthehand

So many of your points come with "most", "many", "people I know"....you're building an argument around what seems like common sense to you, which isn't the most rigorous way to make them. I winced at the "people have trouble communicating with people significantly less intelligent than them" - if you can't explain things to a layperson, you don't really understand it.

Being able to explain things to those who have difficulty grasping simple concepts and having the patience to constantly do so are two different things.

I know I would never be able to work as a teacher, precisely because it sounds absolutely exhausting to spend most of one's time boiling complex subjects down to the simplest possible explanations, not to mention having to deal with children all day.*

I can imagine that for someone so much more intelligent than ordinary adults that they seem like children to him, it would be extremely frustrating. On the other hand, I just don't think that scoring high on real-world IQ tests has much to do with that kind of hypothetical intellligence, as the real-world tests, in order to be culturally neutral and avoid the need for subjective judgment as much as possible, have actually excluded the vast majority of the myriad things that make up real-world 'intelligence'.

*Cute and all, but any group of twenty or more of them will have several absolutely infuriating examples, who will probably end up taking most of your time. Or at least that's how it worked when I used to be a Scout leader and when I had a summer job as a camp instructor.

[AlexanderHowl]

The only trusted standardized test among the majority of high IQ societies is the Miller's Analogy Test (MAT), and it measures cultural knowledge. It is a culturally subjective test, but it does do an adequate job of measuring the intelligence of people raised in American culture. Anyone from outside of American culture takes the proprietary tests of each high IQ society instead, which tend to be quirky.

[JoelSammallahti]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

No one can really agree on what I.Q. is in real life let alone create a test that most can agree actually measures it.

Well, most people agreeing on something isn't much of a criterion: most people can't agree on how to measure the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation, because most people don't know enough about it. But it certainly is measurable.

We don't know for sure what neurological differences give rise to IQ differences between non-disabled people, so if that's your criterion for what it is in real life, you're largely right. But we know very well what IQ is in the sense of measuring it and using those measurements to make statistical predictions about a whole host of other interesting phenomena.

[JoelSammallahti]

Originally Posted by Icelander

On the other hand, I just don't think that scoring high on real-world IQ tests has much to do with that kind of hypothetical intellligence, as the real-world tests, in order to be culturally neutral and avoid the need for subjective judgment as much as possible, have actually excluded the vast majority of the myriad things that make up real-world 'intelligence'.

What psychometricians mean when they talk about general intelligence is the common factor that is responsible for a large part of the variance in all mental performance. The discovery of this common factor was what gave rise to this field. It's by no means obvious that there should be such a factor, no a priori reason to assume that mental abilities all correlate with one another positively, with one factor common to them all. But that is in fact the case. When you say that the vast majority of all the components of intelligence have been excluded from intelligence testing, you're missing this vital fact.

It's amazing that if you test a person's mental abilities on a very limited set of instruments, say face memory, picture puzzles, repeating long strings of numbers, and reaction speed, you can give a fairly accurate estimate of their performance on tasks that seem completely unrelated, like their vocabulary, or their knowledge of history, or their ability to distinguish musical tones. It's amazing, but it's true. Intelligence isn't just a vast variety of different abilities combined. Most of all, it's one hidden trait that is at the core of all mental abilities.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by JoelSammallahti

you can give a fairly accurate estimate of their performance on tasks that seem completely unrelated, like their vocabulary, or their knowledge of history

Can you recommend some literature where I can read about this? I find it fascinating that a test of face memory, reaction speed, etc. can predict someone's knowledge of history.

[JoelSammallahti]

This one's a great primer: Stuart Richie - Intelligence: All That Matters

[D10]

Originally Posted by JoelSammallahti

I think that's a great observation, and interesting research, too. Animal intelligence is one of those fascinating topics I wish were being studied more.

Could not agree more. Sadly, humans pay the bills so theres more money in studying that.

But otherwise its pretty cool. When you get into that basic level, you can manipulate variables in very neat ways. All this reminded me how we often hear about dogs having empathy, and this study showed signs of rodents having empathy.

Fear and anxiety in special really opens the gate to understanding the primitive brain. And is it any wonder that anxiety disorders are so prevalent, when being prone to excessive fear is more often than not an evolutionary advantage, compared to displaying insuficient fear (relative to potential threats). At least with animal models, experimental control allows more solid answers to any proposed hypothesis.

I might have continued on this field, if not for the lack of prospects in this area here in Brazil, and the extremelly cut-throat atmosphere in my previous lab.

[AlexanderHowl]

One example of fear influencing tests deals with rodents. Unlike quite recently, researchers in animal intelligence did not realize that rodents could detect cat and dog hair and dander on their assistants, so the rodents subjects were always in a state of fear because they were smelling predators. While it has only been a few years since that realization, some labs have adapted and instituted procedures, such as changing into lab issued uniforms at the lab after showering at the lab, and they are getting much different results than previois experiments from what I have heard from members of the community.

The lab rats are acting much like pet rats, they are affectionate and loving, and they are exhibiting higher levels of intelligence because they are not distracted by fear. The rats are so affectionate and loving that some of the labs have had to switch to mice, who are hateful little bastards, because the assistants started bringing treats and toys for the lab rats, which started influencing the test results. There have even been cases of assistants stealing lab rats when they felt the experiments were too cruel, though that was fortunately rare.

[Flyndaran]

Empathy is often a bane to accurate animal study results.
Just look at ape communication research to see just how far that will distort things.