I am actually studying WAIS-R.This at first seems like a synthesis and analysis of space and movement in patterns.From what I read on the net this is more a mathematical thing.
I lean towards the pattern finding ,If you rely on the movement in the last row of pictures The answer would be E.If you think out of the box and look at it as an equation as many did It’s A the answer again,This cannot be a definite answer without the proper explanation from the one who made the test.
And a person whose IQ is generally higher(let alone 205) has the ability to notice changes in patterns and make calculations much faster than normal guys.
I am currently standardizating and translating (from Italian to Albanian)the WAIS scale and I did some research.I saw that patients whose IQ was higher noticed patterns in seemingly chaotic figures(I did field research,my dad helped and let me interview some of patients,{he is a psychiatrist}).
Also I saw that neurotic and schizophrenic people generally didnt perform well in these types of tests.
Anyways cheers
(oooH I forgot to brag,I’m 15 )
[quote]
Cultural bias on IQ tests is PC bullshit intended to obscure the uncomfortable reality that IQ is not distributed evenly among racial groups.[/quote]
How do you mean?
If an IQ test had the question “an Equilateral Triangle is to a Square as a Scalene Triangle is to a _______?”, this puts poorly educated people at a tremendous disadvantage, as it tests learned facts as well as logic. You can be incredibly bright and not know the term “scalene triangle”.
Take the same question, but change the words to figures, and you can get a more accurate gauge of intellectual capacity regardless of location or background.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
There are different intellectual abilities just as there are different physical abilities. For example, some people can write beautifully but can’t reason for shit.
Cultural bias on IQ tests is PC bullshit intended to obscure the uncomfortable reality that IQ is not distributed evenly among racial groups.[/quote]
The average IQ in the US grows by .3 every year this is because we base our teaching on the style of reasoning that IQ tests measure. It has nothing to do with breeding. For example, pick the three that match: Fork, steak, spoon, knife.
The correct answer, as I’m sure all of you picked is fork, spoon, knife. This is because they are all utensils. If you give the same test to an african bushman he’ll pick fork, knife, steak because you eat a steak with fork and a knife.
[quote]limitatinfinity wrote:
Oleena wrote:
I really don’t see what these things have to do with a person’s ability to survive in life, change their circumstances, and understand novel concepts. I’ve always thought IQ tests were biased towards mathematical, visual intelligence.
Unfortunately that’s the only kind of intelligence there is.
Every other skill is just an extension of mathematical intelligence to learned motor patterns developed with lots of exposure through practice and interest.[/quote]
Please correct me if I’m wrong because I disagree…
The theory of multiple intelligence states that there are 7 or more types of intellectual attributes. (spatial awareness, logical-mathematical, creativity, etc.)
On the contrary, your belief that there is only ONE type of intelligence is consistent with the “g factor” theory where it states that a person’s cognitive abilities are all linked to each other.
If the g-factor theory is right, then that means a person who is good in math will also be good in songwriting… and we all know that’s not true. Alot of valedictorians in colleges probably don’t even have the motor capacity to properly do a barbell curl… (motor abilities is a part of intelligence.)
The average IQ in the US grows by .3 every year this is because we base our teaching on the style of reasoning that IQ tests measure. [/quote]
I don’t believe this is true. Intelligence is increasing (Flynn Effect) in a real way. It’s not an illusion due to teachers teaching to the tests.
intelligence is increasing due to television, video games and the way children are being raised. When I was 7 years old I watched Lost in Space. My seven year old son watches Lost. There is a profound difference. In lost the characters are very complex, blends of both bad & good. The plots are complex, you have to remember what’s been going on, there’s twists and turns, you even find yourself trying to figure out what is going to happen. In Lost in Space the characters are very predictable. The plots and story line follow predictable patterns and turn out the same every time. There’s no need to remember what went on in previous episodes.
Video games, while they can be overly addictive and should be limited are great mental gymnastics for kids. Consider Pong vs the shit that’s available today. Kids get amazing mental workouts with these games.
I have a nephew who is going to be a pilot. I’ve seen the crazy shit that kid can do on a video game and I have no doubt flight school is going to be much easier for him than it was for pilots who grew up in the Pong era.
Finally, when I grew up parents raised their kids by example. Parents did what they wanted to do and they just dragged the kids along. The kids entertained themselves. The culture today is very kid-centric. Family lives revolve around the kids and enriching them. This does lead to some spoiled kids but it also leads to some smart kids.
Nit picky note; Average IQ always stays the same. 100. You are always measured against your peers. I’m 44. If an 18 year old has the same IQ as me, he actually has a higher intellectual capacity.
Deep intellectual conundrum; If the smartest person in the world also lived to be the oldest person in the world, would his IQ then be 100?
Every other skill is just an extension of mathematical intelligence to learned motor patterns developed with lots of exposure through practice and interest.[/quote]
First of all, there are several other skills which many psychologists label intelligence to which that statement does not remotely apply.
Secondly, what is the practical point of mathematical intelligence for basic survival? I love Einstein, but he was a little “special” in some aspects of life. He reportedly had to have his door painted green so he could remember which one it was. Many of the highest mathematical intellects I’ve met are not good at basic living (career and home) to the point where I think they would have trouble if you left them on an island alone.
If it wasn’t for “normal people” reminding them to eat and shit these geniuses might not survive
If you ask me, intelligence is overrated. Sure it would be neat to say you have an IQ of 205, but it doesn’t mean to say that you would be better off, or happier with an IQ of 205 vs an IQ of 100. Just look at dogs, not much going on inside their brains, but all they need is a stick and they’re happy as Larry.
This is why people that focus on intelligence bother me, I think that sometimes in order to be happy, you just need to switch off your brain. Greater intellect = more problems.
The average IQ in the US grows by .3 every year this is because we base our teaching on the style of reasoning that IQ tests measure.
I don’t believe this is true. Intelligence is increasing (Flynn Effect) in a real way. It’s not an illusion due to teachers teaching to the tests.
intelligence is increasing due to television, video games and the way children are being raised. When I was 7 years old I watched Lost in Space. My seven year old son watches Lost. There is a profound difference. In lost the characters are very complex, blends of both bad & good. The plots are complex, you have to remember what’s been going on, there’s twists and turns, you even find yourself trying to figure out what is going to happen. In Lost in Space the characters are very predictable. The plots and story line follow predictable patterns and turn out the same every time. There’s no need to remember what went on in previous episodes.
Video games, while they can be overly addictive and should be limited are great mental gymnastics for kids. Consider Pong vs the shit that’s available today. Kids get amazing mental workouts with these games.
I have a nephew who is going to be a pilot. I’ve seen the crazy shit that kid can do on a video game and I have no doubt flight school is going to be much easier for him than it was for pilots who grew up in the Pong era.
Finally, when I grew up parents raised their kids by example. Parents did what they wanted to do and they just dragged the kids along. The kids entertained themselves. The culture today is very kid-centric. Family lives revolve around the kids and enriching them. This does lead to some spoiled kids but it also leads to some smart kids.
Nit picky note; Average IQ always stays the same. 100. You are always measured against your peers. I’m 44. If an 18 year old has the same IQ as me, he actually has a higher intellectual capacity.
Deep intellectual conundrum; If the smartest person in the world also lived to be the oldest person in the world, would his IQ then be 100?
[/quote]
I’m kind of surprised no one wants to argue with me on this. I guess I need to try harder.
Every other skill is just an extension of mathematical intelligence to learned motor patterns developed with lots of exposure through practice and interest.
First of all, there are several other skills which many psychologists label intelligence to which that statement does not remotely apply.[/quote]
Well, yes, but by coming up with models that make things more complicated psychologists can justify their existence (a bit like business analysts). Expanding “intelligence” into emotional, physical etc. types just dilutes the term in an unhelpful way.
One approach to simplfy this is to state an uncontroversial truth, which is that whatever intelligence is, it’s something that humans have to a greater degree than other animals.
Mathematical processing is probably the pinnacle of the human brain’s ability to look beyond simple cause/effect views of the world and construct descriptive models of how it all works - even to the extent of attempting to describe things our senses can’t actually detect.
You can of course be highly intelligent without being particularly good at maths - it’s not just about maths - but it’s far less common to be good at maths and not be generally bright.
Why should there be any? It’s like saying: what’s the practical point of being able to play the guitar? It’s just something that emerges from having a brain that likes music, fingers that are nimble, knowledge about the properties materials have - and the ability to put it all together in one concept.
Having said that, the basic ability to manipulate quantities in your head is obviously of survival advantage in a tribal species (starting a fight when you’re outnumbered is a bad idea for instance), but there’s also no reason that such a quantity assessment ability should be limited to what’s in front of you at the time. Knowing when the food supply will run out based on how many animals are killed per day, from a total herd of 200, is obviously a useful thing to be able to do.
One approach to simplfy this is to state an uncontroversial truth, which is that whatever intelligence is, it’s something that humans have to a greater degree than other animals.
[/quote]
I hate to break it to you, but this is actually a “truth” still in controversy. So far we have not been able to construct a puzzel that dolfins can’t solve almost before it’s complete. There is a line of thought resulting from this work that dolfins may be a “super species” with perhaps greater processing abilities than humans.
There is, of course, one giant problem when trying to assess intelligence cross-species, which is the language barrier. We humans tend to think our language is definitely the most complex and wonderful of all, but we’re still having trouble figuring out what whales and dolfins are talking about.
Lastly, in the middle one experiment conducted by a scientist named doctor Lily, ten dolfins reportedly held their breath and commited suicide! The scientist concluded that the dolfins understood that they were being controlled and there was no way out (he had fixed them with devices that gave them sensations of pleasure, or sensations of nausia and depression when they performed certain tasks right or wrong)
When I first came across all of the above information I thought/assumed it was bogus bullshit. I especially thought Dr. Lily was probably fake. But it turns out that the head of the biology department at my college used to work with him. Crazy.
Edit: Psychologists were the ones to come up with the IQ test in the first place. It’s use was to seperate the retarded from the normal. A normal person would be able to complete all of the tribal reasoning scenarios you outlined and then some. So far you have still not made a solid case as to the basic survival advantage of an outlier intellect. IMO, it’s only advantage is in a lab supported by many normal intellects.
The reason why there should be a practical advantage to a higher intellect is because nowdays a genius IQ card is a ticket into college and better jobs. My friend literally used his card to get hired. Children are tested at early ages and seperated into different educations based on such tests.
If there isn’t a practical point we are making some big, life altering seperations for no reason.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
The reason why there should be a practical advantage to a higher intellect is because nowdays a genius IQ card is a ticket into college and better jobs. My friend literally used his card to get hired. Children are tested at early ages and seperated into different educations based on such tests.
If there isn’t a practical point we are making some big, life altering seperations for no reason.[/quote]
You really should read that book. I’m not saying you’re wrong or anything. You will probably find it interesting.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
The reason why there should be a practical advantage to a higher intellect is because nowdays a genius IQ card is a ticket into college and better jobs. My friend literally used his card to get hired. Children are tested at early ages and seperated into different educations based on such tests.
If there isn’t a practical point we are making some big, life altering seperations for no reason.[/quote]
Is this true? I’ve never heard of anyone getting a job because they had a high score in an IQ test. If it is then where the hell are my job offers!? And you get a card for it. Maybe that’s it next time I’ll ask for the ID badge that goes along with the high IQ.
EDIT
BTW Oleena I do actually agree with you.
I just hope to god that they really aren’t separating children based on IQ tests. I can understand separating them based on scores in other tests. Like say if you score well in the Subject X Final exam you go to the Honours Subject X Class next year and if you score poorly in Subject X Final exam you go to the Pass Subject X class next year.
I didn’t think that anyone seriously gave more than a second glance at IQ test scores. I know that for a while they were really popular (like +15 years ago) but none of the schools or workplaces care for IQ tests anymore (except maybe as a screening for job interviews but the main thing is the job interview not the aptitude test).
[quote]wushu_1984 wrote:
I just hope to god that they really aren’t separating children based on IQ tests. I can understand separating them based on scores in other tests. Like say if you score well in the Subject X Final exam you go to the Honours Subject X Class next year and if you score poorly in Subject X Final exam you go to the Pass Subject X class next year.
[/quote]
They separate children based on iq tests, or at least they did when I was in elementary/high school. I was offered to skip a grade based on iq tests, and was involved in the “gifted” program up until high school. From high school on they just included standard honors classes for the main subjects, but from K-8th the only distinction was gifted. FWIW, there were only about 10 kids in the program, so pretty much everyone else got the vanilla education.
eh, you cannot trust any test that tries to measure human traits; they are biased precisely because they are invented by humans. Every measurement will end up eventually just confirming the biases we already have preconceived about ourselves.
Rocks and atoms…they’re another story. They’re pretty predictable in comparison to us humans – and we can’t identify with them.
And BTW, I stared at that puzzle all day and I still can’t see what the solution is. If it’s not based on a pattern then I can’t imagine what else the solution would be based on.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
eh, you cannot trust any test that tries to measure human traits; they are biased precisely because they are invented by humans. Every measurement will end up eventually just confirming the biases we already have preconceived about ourselves.
Rocks and atoms…they’re another story. They’re pretty predictable in comparison to us humans – and we can’t identify with them.
And BTW, I stared at that puzzle all day and I still can’t see what the solution is. If it’s not based on a pattern then I can’t imagine what else the solution would be based on.
I am really intrigued now.[/quote]
Your’s is a really interesting point considering that the IQ test has a strong background in bigotry and eugenics.
And yes, my fried got accepted into a great program at a great college, and was hired by microsoft by showing them his mensa card.
[quote]on edge wrote:
Oleena wrote:
The reason why there should be a practical advantage to a higher intellect is because nowdays a genius IQ card is a ticket into college and better jobs. My friend literally used his card to get hired. Children are tested at early ages and seperated into different educations based on such tests.
If there isn’t a practical point we are making some big, life altering seperations for no reason.
You really should read that book. I’m not saying you’re wrong or anything. You will probably find it interesting.[/quote]
Yeah I should. I heard about it a while back and just haven’t gotten around to it.
