GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

[tsugomaru]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

But being intelligent doesn't necessarily mean you do well with every single skill out there. You could be very skilled in math, but when it comes to writing, you may just suck. The type of intelligence the IQ test tests your ability and speed of solving problems and that's all the IQ test will determine. An IQ test will not tell you how good your memory is, how good your social skills are, or how well you will learn.

~Tsugomaru

[sertman]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

GPA by itself is worthless. Weighted GPAs, where you get more points if the class is harder, shows nothing but work ethic. You could be stupid as hell, but if you study and work really hard, you could get straight A's. You could be a genius, but if you don't do any work or put any effort into your classes, then you won't get good grades. The problem with just the regular GPA is that all classes are judged equally. If a person who takes Gym, On Level English, Algebra 1 and U.S History gets all A's, they have a 4.0. However, if someone who took Gym, AP English, AP Calculus, and AP World History gets straight A's, they also get a 4.0. That's why GPA isn't even good for measuring work ethic. However, with the weighted system, that 4.0 for the second person turns into a 4.75 GPA, showing more of a work ethic. Intelligence cannot be shown in GPA, which is why colleges also require standardized tests such as the ACT and the SAT to be submitted along with high school transcripts.

[Cosmic M]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

But being intelligent doesn't necessarily mean you do well with every single skill out there. You could be very skilled in math, but when it comes to writing, you may just suck. The type of intelligence the IQ test tests your ability and speed of solving problems and that's all the IQ test will determine. An IQ test will not tell you how good your memory is, how good your social skills are, or how well you will learn.

~Tsugomaru

They do test for lots of things on IQ tests though, enough things that most everyone should come across something that they are noticably worse at than everything else. When i took my test, all things were firing, except for my ability to copy, which i was off the charts below (less than 1st percentile). Not because i bombed that section, but because i am physically incapable of doing tasks like that. Im sure if someone could replicate all my other scores, and then do well on the copying part, their score would be much higher than mine was. I am intelligent, the test told me so, but i cant perform even competantly on every skill out there, the test told me that also.

That is also true, it does not measure social skills. The proctor of the test told me herself that lots of people who score higher than i did start having big social skill problems, but of course, the test does not cover that.

[Bynary Fission]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

It is known that the higher you score on an IQ test, you generally have proportionately lower social skills. After all, if you have the brains, you use it instead of chatting and socializing. On my state-wide IOWA tests that I took, I got the highest scores in my school, and scored a 99th percentile in every category. But there are so many kids out there who are 10x smarter than me and do a mediocre job. Just because I scored well doesn't make me smarter than the person next to me.

A test made by flawed beings [humans] should not be used to measure actual intelligence. You can't. Nobody can. We still have so much to learn about the brain, and until we have discovered everything, or nearly everything about the brain's functions and how it works, we can never administer a test that will give a reliable score.


~Bynary Fission

[Reach]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

So if my level of intelligence and knowledge remain the same, as I age my IQ will lower. You acknowledge that this doesn't make you less intelligent, just changes the number on a page, but you still feel that any IQ test measures something useful or significant?

IQ doesn't change at all in most people. You simply switch from the Ratio to Deviation scale. What scale and what standard deviation always have to be specified when stating a score, or else it's meaningless because the scale is relative in nature. I could tell you my IQ is 3000 and tell the truth. I just haven't told you the standard deviation.

IQ tests do measure something useful because they are highly predictive of certain things. Regardless, it's good to keep in mind a prediction is a prediction and nothing absolute. You also have to take into account the test.

SImply having an exceptional (even perfect) memory doesn't make you intelligent. In fact, photographic memory is a fairly common facility of savants who lack many other skills, abilities and qualities we'd associate with intelligence.

Well, noone has ever empirically demonstrated photographic memory in humans is actually possible. If you replace that word with 'really good memory for certain things' though I agree completely.

Working memory, however, is very important. It is highly predictive of your ability.

It is known that the higher you score on an IQ test, you generally have proportionately lower social skills

Not true at all. Increases in IQ predict better social skills, better looks etc. Don't confuse popularity with social skills. It's natural for more intelligent people to not associate themselves with the average person but that doesn't mean they lack social skills.

An IQ test will not tell you how good your memory is, how good your social skills are, or how well you will learn.

The data says otherwise. Where are you getting this from? IQ tests are very predictive of how fast you will learn, how good your memory is and how good your social skills are.

. We still have so much to learn about the brain, and until we have discovered everything, or nearly everything about the brain's functions and how it works, we can never administer a test that will give a reliable score.

The scores we do give are fairly reliable, assuming you're using a powerful test, an appropriate test AND the score does not fall within a range that is affected by the ceiling or the floor. Generally peoples scores are given ranges. Let's try Relambrien. 156 ratio IQ would translate to approximately 140 SD 15. The score would usually be reported as an estimate, with a given range of 133-147. You could retest him throughout his whole life and you would expect given approximately 95% confidence (depends) he would score within that range every time.

How is that not reliable? I'm not claiming IQ testing is perfect because it isn't, but give some credit where it's due.

We should also clearly distinguish between professionally administered tests (and even then some are better than others) and online IQ tests. I know of less than half a dozen IQ tests on the internet that are even remotely close to valid, so if you've taken them don't make the mistake of assuming this is the real thing or that the test yields valid scores.


I'll address some more things here at another time.

[Bynary Fission]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

Not true at all. Increases in IQ predict better social skills, better looks etc. Don't confuse popularity with social skills. It's natural for more intelligent people to not associate themselves with the average person but that doesn't mean they lack social skills.

Did you read the rest of that segment? Most kids who do have higher IQs are shown to lack in social skills, though it isn't because of their intelligence alone.


And while IQ tends to stay stable throughout your whole life, it can decrease sharply and not because of damage to the head or a mental disease. Having children is shown to decrease it, because most of your life is spent taking care of the child(ren), or at least a lot of the first 5 years of his/her life. You don't get a whole lot of time to renew yourself, read a large novel, or undertake a huge project, save at work. But you get my point.

P.S You got it backwards. There is no proof that high IQ means you look good. And high IQ is usually inversely proportional to social skills. Usually. Almost all intelligent kids I have seen have been labeled as geeks or nerds, and did not look really 'hot' or 'sexy', as you claim.

~Bynary Fission

[Reach]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

Did you read the rest of that segment? Most kids who do have higher IQs are shown to lack in social skills, though it isn't because of their intelligence alone.


And while IQ tends to stay stable throughout your whole life, it can decrease sharply and not because of damage to the head or a mental disease. Having children is shown to decrease it, because most of your life is spent taking care of the child(ren), or at least a lot of the first 5 years of his/her life. You don't get a whole lot of time to renew yourself, read a large novel, or undertake a huge project, save at work. But you get my point.

P.S You got it backwards. There is no proof that high IQ means you look good. And high IQ is usually inversely proportional to social skills. Usually. Almost all intelligent kids I have seen have been labeled as geeks or nerds, and did not look really 'hot' or 'sexy', as you claim.

~Bynary Fission

Yes I did read it and it wasn't true, which was my point. Individuals with higher IQs are not shown to lack in social skills. Where are you getting this information? This is false propaganda and not psychology.

And where did I say high IQ means you look good? Or that it makes you look hot or sexy? This is almost Reductio ad absurdum. You seem to be missing the point. IQ is PREDICTIVE in nature. It predicts things, and IQ is CORRELATED with better looks. This doesn't prove anything, but it does show a relationship exists.

Your anecdotes at the end are also not evidence for anything. I'm not talking about anecdotal evidence about stereotyped geeks or nerds, which means nothing. I'm talking about the psychometrics.

Just because you're labeled a geek or nerd doesn't mean a damn thing...specifically not that you have a high IQ. As a matter of fact many nerds and geeks are severely disappointed upon taking an IQ test (Yea I can use anecdotes too).

[gnr61]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

Did you read the rest of that segment? Most kids who do have higher IQs are shown to lack in social skills, though it isn't because of their intelligence alone.


And while IQ tends to stay stable throughout your whole life, it can decrease sharply and not because of damage to the head or a mental disease. Having children is shown to decrease it, because most of your life is spent taking care of the child(ren), or at least a lot of the first 5 years of his/her life. You don't get a whole lot of time to renew yourself, read a large novel, or undertake a huge project, save at work. But you get my point.

P.S You got it backwards. There is no proof that high IQ means you look good. And high IQ is usually inversely proportional to social skills. Usually. Almost all intelligent kids I have seen have been labeled as geeks or nerds, and did not look really 'hot' or 'sexy', as you claim.

~Bynary Fission

Since your IQ is supposedly a measure of your natural intelligence, I fail to see how "reading a large novel" or "undertaking a huge project" are necessary to maintain your IQ. It should remain static, having kids does not make you less intelligent.

Also, stop making up statistics based on your personal experiences and look at some data involving IQ studies. You may be surprised to find that many of your assumptions are pretty much the opposite of true.

[Bynary Fission]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

Reach, this was your previous comment:
"Not true at all. Increases in IQ predict better social skills, better looks etc. Don't confuse popularity with social skills. It's natural for more intelligent people to not associate themselves with the average person but that doesn't mean they lack social skills."

The last part is the only thing that would even make sense. But it's already been proven that kids with higher IQs tend to lack more in social skills. It's not just based on anecdotal experience. I've even read a lot on this, and I am not making things up. When I said 'hot' and 'sexy', I was referring to better looks.

@gnr61: I understand. When I said reading a large novel or undertaking a large project, I was referring to something that sustains your intelligence. After all, you use it or lose it.
Also, I never said I was a geek or nerd. I was referring to what I said about the other intelligent people I've seen.


Now yes, it does simply predict things and shows correlative evidence to support it. I am referencing what the conversation was about earlier. People assumed a higher IQ/higher GPA automatically meant that you looked better, were smarter, etc. I'm simply saying that the numbers don't prove anything. If you look good and have a high IQ, it's a coincidence., though it's not a rare one.


By the way, having kids DOES tend to decrease your IQ. It's not having kids that automatically makes your IQ lower. It's a number of things.

P.S I am not making up statistics. I do indeed read about this and from what I know, what I say is correct. Maybe not 100% correct, but mostly correct.


~Bynary Fission

[gnr61]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

Reach, this was your previous comment:
"Not true at all. Increases in IQ predict better social skills, better looks etc. Don't confuse popularity with social skills. It's natural for more intelligent people to not associate themselves with the average person but that doesn't mean they lack social skills."

The last part is the only thing that would even make sense. But it's already been proven that kids with higher IQs tend to lack more in social skills. It's not just based on anecdotal experience. I've even read a lot on this, and I am not making things up. When I said 'hot' and 'sexy', I was referring to better looks.

@gnr61: I understand. When I said reading a large novel or undertaking a large project, I was referring to something that sustains your intelligence. After all, you use it or lose it.
Also, I never said I was a geek or nerd. I was referring to what I said about the other intelligent people I've seen.


Now yes, it does simply predict things and shows correlative evidence to support it. I am referencing what the conversation was about earlier. People assumed a higher IQ/higher GPA automatically meant that you looked better, were smarter, etc. I'm simply saying that the numbers don't prove anything. If you look good and have a high IQ, it's a coincidence., though it's not a rare one.


By the way, having kids DOES tend to decrease your IQ. It's not having kids that automatically makes your IQ lower. It's a number of things.

P.S I am not making up statistics. I do indeed read about this and from what I know, what I say is correct. Maybe not 100% correct, but mostly correct.


~Bynary Fission

NO ONE said that having a higher IQ or GPA meant you were more attractive or socially proficient, it was simply stated (and correctly so) that IQ studies have provided correlative data linking higher IQs with better looks and social skills. Correlation != causation etc., and not everyone will fit the correlation.

And the "I'm not wrong, I've read a lot about it" argument doesn't fly too well here, though it is attempted frequently. I personally would LOVE to see from what texts you get your statistics that effectively counter known studies.




And no, no having kids does not make you less intelligent.

[tsugomaru]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

Words

You missed the point of my statement though. I'm saying that IQ test is a very poor measure for intelligence because it tests such a small portion of the many types of "intelligence" out there.

~Tsugomaru

[Bynary Fission]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

And the "I'm not wrong, I've read a lot about it" argument doesn't fly too well here, though it is attempted frequently. I personally would LOVE to see from what texts you get your statistics that effectively counter known studies.

I'm getting the idea that you are twisting my words. I said FROM WHAT I KNOW, I AM CORRECT. I said I was correct because it was based off of the books I have read, what I have been told by others who know more on this than I do, and other such sources. I didn't say I was absolutely correct, and what you say is out of ignorance.

Having kids does tend to decrease your IQ over time. One or two may not impact you much, but a multitude WILL. You don't get to read much, you don't spend much time increasing your intelligence, and more time is dedicated to your children. And you become rusty and lose some of the knowledge you gain in certain areas because you can no longer devote time to it.

[gnr61]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

Do not try to argue your points if you YOURSELF can't even say decisively that your points are correct. You say that your arguments come from "books that you've read." I say again, I would LOVE to see from what texts you got your information. Yes that means posting the books and/or exerts from them proving your points. Saying your arguments are unfounded is not ignorant when you don't provide any evidence, and ESPECIALLY not when you don't even have confidence in them.

And good lord, show me ONE study proving that having a child makes you less intelligent. You keep insisting that since you don't have time to read, you forget some knowledge. Fine or whatever, though I would argue that that has absolutely NOTHING to do specifically with having children. You also seem to confuse knowledge with intelligence quite a bit. I take Spanish classes every year in high school. If I stop taking them I will surely forget aspects of Spanish. That does not make my IQ lower. Genius.

[Rubin0]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

Bynary Fission...you are trying to pull "facts" out of midair when it is obvious that these are just assumptions you have made up in your mind without any previous history in the subject. I hate to make generalizations about people's ages, but you should really wait until you get to college and have access to some real information before you start spewing hypothesis after hypothesis without anything to back it up with. It's evident that you are a smart kid...at least you know you sound smart. That doesn't automatically make you knowledgeable on the subject of intelligence.

It is one thing to state your opinion, but it is a completely different matter when you try to pass that off as fact.

Also, you are new here. Your credibility is automatically nonexistant to anyone on these boards.

[Bynary Fission]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

gnr, If you are intent on being that way, fine. But it isn't doing you any good. Here, look at these links.

http://www.hoosiergazette.com/News/Sept2004/news001.htm

http://www.selfhelpmagazine.com/articles/child_behavior/familysize.html

Read them both completely before commenting. They both have conflicting results, but do support much of what I have said in some way.

@Rubin: While what you do say is somewhat correct, but I do not pull falsified facts out of the air. Ever. I do not speak if I am ignorant of the subject completely. However, I ask that you do not make assumptions about my age. I have read college text books, talked with adults knowledgeable on the subject, and read about intelligence in-depth, among other things. I ask that you at least listen to what else I have said before coming up with a conclusion. I am not angry at you, just please don't make assumptions about my age. I will provide proof for what I have said if you so request it.


~Bynary Fission