IQ

[Kekeb]

Re: IQ

112 relative to: http://www.iqtest.dk/

If you want to make any conclusions on your intelligence, write a legitimate IQ test.

[OrganisM]

Re: IQ

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that IQ testing is perfect. However, the idea that it's garbage is ridiculous.

Alright, they're very debatable and hardly any authority on intelligence and in many senses just a number. Does that satisfy you?

I study Psychology at university and have taken classes in psychometrics.

When many leaders in the field agree that it's debatable even at best, you are championing your studies?

I've already read the entry on wikipedia on this subject, but either way, you're relying on wikipedia to argue that 'IQ tests are garbage'? Please. Find some scholarly sources (not that you will). Modern IQ tests are very predictive of many things and serve an abundance of uses.

Wikipedia quotes scholarly sources, and I didn't post additional sources because I thought Wiki's sources were sufficient in this case and I didn't want to be redundant.

That and your rant about psychology and psychiatrists is...borderline ridiculous. We know a ridiculous amount about the brain. I'm going to assume from what you've written that you've never taken a neuroscience class. You're trying to argue we don't know anything about the brain by giving ...anecdotal evidence about...psychiatrists?

I'm saying that psychiatrists and psychologists, for all their supposed knowledge, play guessing games all the time. I'll admit my knowledge on neuroscience is limited but that doesn't invalidate what I was saying.

Please. I'll be the first to point out that they get paid to give you medicine, and many of their diagnoses are ridiculous (This however, does not in any way apply to every psychiatrist).

..which is exactly what I was saying anyways, and I was saying that it kind of makes it silly to consider psychologists and psychiatrists authorities when they have trouble with basic diagnosis. It's like a mechanical genius who doesn't know how to put gas in the tank of a car.

I've read opinions on this matter, in particular Asimov's already. He has no idea what he's talking about (Sorry, he really doesn't. As intelligent as he is, he fails to differentiate between intelligence and knowledge, and ...the bulk of his argument holds no water from a scientific perspective. He misunderstands the concept of g entirely.).

Sorry I didn't use a source you requested.

That's not to say there aren't valid criticisms of IQ tests. I can generate numerous criticisms. However, I would never claim they're garbage, because it's ridiculous.

So, we've established that:

1. We know a lot about the human brain
2. Psychology is the study of the mind and its behavior
3. Psychology and the brain are closely related
4. Psychologists are the experts on this matter
5. Psychologists frequently misdiagnose common disorders
6. The fact that it happened to me renders it invalid (because if it's anecdotal it's not true)
7. The experts on in the field are having basic difficulties with applying the science
8. IQ tests are part of the general field
9. Psychologists administer them for a fee
10. IQ tests are administered by those who have trouble applying their knowledge.

and lastly, of course

11. IQ tests are great and psychology is the ultimate truth which cannot be argued.

Glad to know how we got there.

It's a really bad argument;what if how good you are at taking an IQ test is highly predictive of other things? This is basically the entire point of an IQ test. The material that is on it is irrelevant - it's what this material is measuring indirectly (the answer to that is g, or the general intelligence factor).

So you're admitting that the results are based on a conjecture which is highly debatable by the highest opinions in the field.

Also, not sure if this article meets your standards, but I find it interesting nonetheless.

Another thing: the guy who invented the test says:

The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured.

[~HentaiXXX~]

Re: IQ

tl'dr on the past two posts.

104 on the iqtest.dk Yeah, I'm just that amazing. >_____>

[warriormag17]

Re: IQ

I've gotten various scores, in 7th grade it was somewhere around 160.

Lately however, i've gotten anywhere from 120-140.

126 on iqtest.dk

[Reach]

Re: IQ

When many leaders in the field agree that it's debatable even at best, you are championing your studies?

I don't know any psychometricians that are going to argue an IQ test is garbage, which was the original point. We can argue all day about 'how valid' an IQ test is, but that doesn't change the fact validity on many tests (e.g. the WAIS) is quite high.

Also, citing so called 'experts' that are not psychometricians is iffy at best, given many say...psychologists never even take a class on psychometrics before getting their Ph.D. This is just the reality of the situation. Half the time they don't know much about what they're giving their opinions on.

Sorry I didn't use a source you requested.

My point was that someone's opinion means nothing. Science is not an opinion. More data than you clearly know about is not opinion. That's just the way it is. No offense - honestly, there are most definitely things you know much more than me about.

However, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I actually do, like Asimov did in his opinion piece...at least not without recognizing it's an opinion and has nothing to do with the facts.

1. We know a lot about the human brain
2. Psychology is the study of the mind and its behavior
3. Psychology and the brain are closely related
4. Psychologists are the experts on this matter
5. Psychologists frequently misdiagnose common disorders
6. The fact that it happened to me renders it invalid (because if it's anecdotal it's not true)
7. The experts on in the field are having basic difficulties with applying the science
8. IQ tests are part of the general field
9. Psychologists administer them for a fee
10. IQ tests are administered by those who have trouble applying their knowledge.

1. True 2. Ok 3. Ok (I suppose more specifically, psychology is the study of the manifestation of the brain). 4. Ok

5. I think frequently is an exaggeration. However, as an aside a psychiatrist and a psychologist are not the same thing. That and there are different kinds of psychologists. Don't overgeneralize.

6. Wow, missing the point. The point was you were arguing against something very unrelated to what you were evidencing, that was also evidenced with anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is generally quite meaningless in psychometrics because ...it deals with population statistics, not individuals.

7. ...

Alright, from here out you're being ridiculous, again. You're comparing apples and oranges all over the place and twisting words to meet your preconceived notions.


I know I'm not going to change your opinion, so why don't we just leave it at that. You're entitled to your opinion, and I accept that.

Anyways, I've found that the eCMA test Reach suggested is relatively consistent under normal circumstances, though it doesn't seem to discriminate well within the upper ranges (150+).

No IQ tests (at least, non experimental ones) can differentiate at this range.


It should be easy to imagine why. How many people score above the range of 150 in a population? If you look up the probability on a chart, you'll see it's pretty low.

The problem is, there's no way to get a random sample of the population that includes enough of these individuals. It's just impossible.

As such, it is generally recognized that above 140 on most IQ tests (e.g. the WAIS), IQ tests are not terribly reliable or capable of measuring anything useful. There are some exceptions to this, but why get into that ;p

[Psychotik]

Re: IQ

I never took a real IQ test but I beleive it would be somewhere around 280-290.
Edit: I got 115

[OrganisM]

Re: IQ

I don't know any psychometricians that are going to argue an IQ test is garbage, which was the original point. We can argue all day about 'how valid' an IQ test is, but that doesn't change the fact validity on many tests (e.g. the WAIS) is quite high.

I suppose "garbage" was too strong a word, then. that's why I defined exactly what I meant.

Also, citing so called 'experts' that are not psychometricians is iffy at best, given many say...psychologists never even take a class on psychometrics before getting their Ph.D. This is just the reality of the situation. Half the time they don't know much about what they're giving their opinions on.

That's a scary thought. I didn't think psychometrics to be so far removed from a psychologist's studies, given that they administer the test and help their patient (or whatever term applies) interpret the results.

My point was that someone's opinion means nothing. Science is not an opinion. More data than you clearly know about is not opinion. That's just the way it is. No offense - honestly, there are most definitely things you know much more than me about.

I agree that data is data, but one of the most important things is our interpretation of that data. Science is entirely about gathering data and interpreting it, trying to use a process to sift out variables and gray areas and quantify things. The problem is that there is always going to be the question of what to do with that data, so I could hardly say that opinion means nothing. In theoretical sciences, which I consider to be a valid part of science, opinion means almost everything, given the little amount of data and how much they have to extrapolate from that.

5. I think frequently is an exaggeration.

Not at all. I didn't say that it was a majority, but there have been a lot of misdiagnoses. I'm not saying the science is invalidated, but there have been more than enough mistakes which leads me to believe that hardly anything within the field is a given.

However, as an aside a psychiatrist and a psychologist are not the same thing. That and there are different kinds of psychologists. Don't overgeneralize.

And that is why you'll notice I listed psychologists and psychiatrists separately. They are all within the same general field, though yes of course there are many specific types. They should all, however (at least by my thinking) have a general understanding of these basic parts of psychology.

Anecdotal evidence is generally quite meaningless in psychometrics because ...it deals with population statistics, not individuals.

I'm not taking the fact that it happened to me as direct evidence that it happens often. I was simply stating that I am one example.

Alright, from here out you're being ridiculous, again. You're comparing apples and oranges all over the place and twisting words to meet your preconceived notions.

I was being sarcastic with the list, but alright. I have the constant desire to learn and break through my preconceptions, so I tend to look at my strongest beliefs and challenge them the most, so don't mistake me for someone who thinks they know everything. You've explained a few things candidly, which I appreciate, and I'm taking them to heart and am going to research them.

EDIT: On another note, what I wouldn't give for an accurate diagnosis from these all-knowing experts... I've had trouble for years and nothing's been resolved. Trying to get to UCLA and get a full week-long diagnosis didn't work either, since they drag their feet like all hell.

[ieatyourlvllol]

Re: IQ

Haha, oops...I deleted my post. I might as well repost it now that things have settled down a bit.

Repost

Reach and I had a modest discussion on the topic in the previous thread IQ Test Results..

C/p

You prove a good point, Reach. In retrospect, I was a bit ambiguous when saying that "IQ pertains to only the abilities covered by the assessment material..." My intended meaning was that the relationships drawn from the results produced are direct in only the sense of the exact sectors and magnitudes of mental capacities touched upon by the test. The problem is that it's nearly impossible to determine that question 'q' covers 'x' amount of process 'a', 'y' amount of process 'b', and so on. Even if such a feat were accomplished, it would be yet more difficult to establish a system by which a universal value (such as 'g') could be obtained. Like you said, the objective measurement of the various functions of intelligence is composed by a network of correlations. My qualm is that until the network of correlations can be replaced by a [theoretically plausible] conjunction of causal interdependences, the concept, not of IQ itself, but of using it as a supposedly inarguable indicator of extrinsic elements (such as success), is complete nonsense. Perhaps in a decade or so the tests will have progressed such that the correlations are strong enough to arrive at reliable conclusions, but until then, my opinion is that IQ tests should be used primarily for fun and comparison.

You bring up some good points.

The 'g loading' of tests can be measured through factor analysis. That is, the ability (or percentage) of the test that measures g directly rather than other factors. However, even in light of this, success (among other various elements of someones life) is not entirely g loaded (it is inevitably affected by many, many things). Thus, as an indicator of such things, an IQ test will *always* be arguable in the sense that it could misrepresent someones actual position. I prefer not to underestimate nor overestimate the power of g, but recognize it as a useful tool. An interesting paper on why g does matter (at least to some degree) can be read here: http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson...hygmatters.pdf


Rather than administer a plethora of various mental tasks like some IQ tests in order to try to measure g, others have simply tried to administer one type of item in progressive order of difficulty that has the highest possible g loading. Tests that do this, such as Ravens APM have been fairly successful measures of g, and also culture fair (though they have been controversial at the same time, probably because of the larger IQ gaps between racial groups and various world populations than even culture biased tests, despite it being a valid measure of success.)


It would be nice to have a test that could perfectly measure intelligence in every case, but even then it would not be a perfect predictor of any extrinsic variables. In order to do that the test would have to account for variables that have nothing to do with intelligence, though the test would certainly be highly accurate, since your innate intelligence is a factor in essentially every task you perform to some degree that would vary depending on the task complexity. I think people want to deny this fact innately, as they want an explanation as to why people are better than they are that isn't innate. Both highly intelligent and highly unintelligent individuals will often reject g despite the evidence of its existence (regardless of whether or not we can measure it properly)...attributing their ability to factors that hardly matter rather than recognize the fact they just got lucky (or unlucky XD ). The heritability factor of g is about 0.85, which means just about all of the heritability of IQ test performance and other various mental tasks is attributable to g.

Looking back upon the past, I'm actually slightly more convinced than before that the results of (properly administered) IQ tests can help establish connections to aspects entailed by g. I still contend, though, that we can't rely completely on correlation lest we do injustice to any aberrants (although in this instance, it's more a matter of intent than of function, but w/e). In any case, it's reasonable to use the results for general purposes (which is what the system was designed for).

Anyways, I've found that the eCMA test Reach suggested is relatively consistent under normal circumstances, though it doesn't seem to discriminate well within the upper ranges (150+).

End repost

P.S. - I've also tried the TA3 on the same site, but it seems a bit partial to individuals who actively pursue the knowledge that constitutes a significant portion of the test.

[HoneyRoasted]

Re: IQ

I got 118 on Reach's test, but I didn't get to the last 6.

[Syhto]

Re: IQ

The only reason I don't like IQ tests is because everyone just makes up a big number to sound smart, and most are not accurate. Yes there are different spectrums of intelligence and etc, getting an average score does not make you stupid. The last time I took a thorough IQ test I was only 14 and the results came to show ~137.

Your IQ does not define you, it shows how efficiently and quickly you can perform mental processes, yadda yadda. It is a general intelligence quotient.

Being a genius will not always make you successful, or really all that smart for that matter. You may be socially or psychologically inept (mood/mental imbalances), lack basic aesthetics, unable to learn languages, poor moral judgement, the works.

Just saying, the number doesn't make you, rather it enables you.

[Reach]

Re: IQ

I suppose "garbage" was too strong a word, then. that's why I defined exactly what I meant.

Fair enough.

That's a scary thought. I didn't think psychometrics to be so far removed from a psychologist's studies, given that they administer the test and help their patient (or whatever term applies) interpret the results.

It's not requisite. The reason is that not all psychologists administer IQ tests. The ones that do are trained specifically in order to be able to. As such, this is why I don't think your comparison from earlier is fair.

In order to be fair, you have to recognize the psychiatrist that diagnosed you is using entirely different tools and standards to do that, and it's a different job than administering an IQ test.

I agree that data is data, but one of the most important things is our interpretation of that data. Science is entirely about gathering data and interpreting it, trying to use a process to sift out variables and gray areas and quantify things. The problem is that there is always going to be the question of what to do with that data, so I could hardly say that opinion means nothing. In theoretical sciences, which I consider to be a valid part of science, opinion means almost everything, given the little amount of data and how much they have to extrapolate from that.

You make good points. I'm not actually going to argue with any of this. It's incredibly important we recognize that data does not interpret itself.

When I say an opinion means nothing, I mean specifically ones that are uneducated. I probably should specify; obviously, like most things, not all opinions are the same. Some are more informed than others. You just happened to pick a bad example, because it was rather uninformed.

I'm not taking the fact that it happened to me as direct evidence that it happens often. I was simply stating that I am one example.

It's fair enough. We've moved past this, but just to make it clear, I was arguing mostly that you couldn't use this to justify calling the tests garbage - you needed something more.

I was being sarcastic with the list, but alright. I have the constant desire to learn and break through my preconceptions, so I tend to look at my strongest beliefs and challenge them the most, so don't mistake me for someone who thinks they know everything. You've explained a few things candidly, which I appreciate, and I'm taking them to heart and am going to research them.

EDIT: On another note, what I wouldn't give for an accurate diagnosis from these all-knowing experts... I've had trouble for years and nothing's been resolved. Trying to get to UCLA and get a full week-long diagnosis didn't work either, since they drag their feet like all hell.

I wasn't entirely sure if you were using sarcasm to poke fun at my arguments or ...just using sarcasm.


Anyway, thanks. I appreciate the open mind. If you find something of interest (e.g. something that counteracts my arguments in legitimate research), feel free to post it or PM me it, since I would be interested in reading it. This is, after all, my field of specialty. I didn't list my education to be a pompous ass or anything along those lines >_>

PS what exactly are you trying to get diagnosed? Like a physician, psychologists rely on hard science, but ultimately, many things have to go undiagnosed because of a...long list of reasons I won't list.

Based on what you've said earlier I'm assuming depression. If I'm wrong feel free to correct me or ignore this all together, but treating depression is a pretty foggy area. We know a lot about it, but there are a myriad of problems in diagnosing it because there are many causes for it. Meds work for many people, but they also don't for many. Some people also get the wrong meds. It's a huge problem.

Anyways, I've found that the eCMA test Reach suggested is relatively consistent under normal circumstances, though it doesn't seem to discriminate well within the upper ranges (150+).

End repost

P.S. - I've also tried the TA3 on the same site, but it seems a bit partial to individuals who actively pursue the knowledge that constitutes a significant portion of the test.

oh ****, I just realized you're talking about IQ tests from high IQ society.

They're not the best. I've talked with the makers of these tests before. Specifically, there are a number of problems with both tests, and I don't recommend them. They're much better than just about every other test on the net, but in particular the TA3 is ...not accurate lol. Your comment about it relying too heavily on knowledge is entirely valid. The maker of this test did not run proper psychometric procedure on these items, and as such it's littered with bad items.

The eCMA is a better test, but it has normalizing issues.

[OrganisM]

Re: IQ

The conjecture I was making all along is that in more than one field, there are lots of gray areas left to be cleared up, so I can hardly believe in absolutes when talking about things like applying a numeric scale to intelligence. For the record, I am absolutely terrible in pattern recognition.

As for a diagnosis, it's a long story, but I've had a long history that screams out obvious symptoms of manic depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, and attention deficit disorder. That said, I'm not the type to self-diagnose. When I started trying to investigate what might be wrong, a good four years ago, I sought many professional opinions, and those opinions are in line with the symptoms. The effects of the medications I was taking are also in line with the diagnosis.. the only problem is that I had a major problem with these medications and couldn't take them anymore, and I don't want to subject myself to that again. But the problem still remains.

[Reach]

Re: IQ

The conjecture I was making all along is that in more than one field, there are lots of gray areas left to be cleared up, so I can hardly believe in absolutes when talking about things like applying a numeric scale to intelligence. For the record, I am absolutely terrible in pattern recognition.

As for a diagnosis, it's a long story, but I've had a long history that screams out obvious symptoms of manic depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, and attention deficit disorder. That said, I'm not the type to self-diagnose. When I started trying to investigate what might be wrong, a good four years ago, I sought many professional opinions, and those opinions are in line with the symptoms. The effects of the medications I was taking are also in line with the diagnosis.. the only problem is that I had a major problem with these medications and couldn't take them anymore, and I don't want to subject myself to that again. But the problem still remains.

This has been debate over semantics then, since you're right; there are no absolutes when talking about IQ.

Actually, it's quite the opposite. When you take the IQ test I posted, you get an exact score. Things are different in a professional test.

Your overall score is based on a ton of subset scores. However, you also get a score and a confidence interval. That range is usually 14-16 points on reliable tests. So let's say your raw score equates to 130 on the WAIS. You'll usually receive a 95% confidence interval with that, meaning if you took the test 100 times, 95 times out of 100 you would score between 123 and 137.


However, there is an abundance of information that can be taken from the set of scores. It can tell you a lot about an individual. The confidence interval is a reflection of the inaccuracy of any test. It's simply impossible to make a perfect test due to several factors.



When you say major problems, you're talking side effects right? =/ It's not surprising. Most commonly prescribed meds for issues like this have known side effects that are often severe.

[OrganisM]

Re: IQ

Unfortunately it often works out that way. :P Perhaps I need to be more clear in my speech, then.

Yeah, side effects alright. Those medications clean turned me inside-out and robbed me of my humanity. And I thought things were bad when left untreated..

[Kagami_Hiiragi]

Re: IQ

I took Reach's IQ test and got a 101.