[extropy-chat] morons in office

Fri Oct 29 17:41:58 UTC 2004

Ok, my 2 bits:

Nearly all IQ tests have a large chunk devoted to words, word derivations, 
and the like, based on the assumption that the parents have a library of 
books and that the books have a selection of classical lit titles.

Not in my family. I was a geek, only read science and SF. no library of 
books other that a few college texts on stuff like geology and mining 
engineering, and a really really boring encyclopedia.

So in college in a psych class the prof gave us an IQ test based on 
Stanford research which was intended for high IQ types. It was at least 1/2 
word stuff. I ended up with 136. A classmate whom I knew for sure did't 
match me got 145. I asked why - her response was revealing: "I took Latin 
in High School".

On these things I end up mostly into the number sequence problems and my 
time gets eaten up there.

There is another killer type of IQ problem, those little diagrams of two 
shapes and a third, with selection of 4 or 5 others to match. I am way too 
inventive, so I am confronted with that most of the offered selections have 
a way of matching for me. Result is poof!

In the 70s Omni magazine had a quickie IQ test, I did it, got score of 157. 
I missed one question or it would have come out 175.

The net has an IQ test I did last year, but it was LOADED with those visual 
analogy things and I ended up at 135.

IMHO, IQ is too general a term for intelligence. Too many biases per ones 
background and culture. And the kind of thinking I seem to excel at I have 
yet to meet a test which is even in the ballpark.

Conclusion: IQ tests are for morons. ptui.

At 08:19 AM 10/28/2004, you wrote:
>On 28 Oct 2004, at 16:22, Brian Lee wrote:
>
>>You're right that IQ tests just test what psychologists think is 
>>intelligence. But the difference between 130 and 170 is extremely 
>>statistically significant (especially with standard deviation of 10).
>
>It all depends on your measurement devices. Standard IQ tests give 
>meaningless results past about 150.
>
>>  It measures your percentile so lets say 130 is in the 99% and 170 is in 
>> the 99.999%.
>
>Usually SD is of the population IQ is 15 so 130 is 2 SDs or in the top 
>95%, and 145 is in the top 99% (which is about as high standard IQ test 
>measure). Keep in mind that one of the big problems with designing test 
>for v. high IQs is finding a large enough population (min. 200-300 
>people??) to standardize them properly.
>
>>That's a big difference (and there's no real "margin of error" in IQ 
>>tests like there are in polls as IQ tests simply compare you to the mean 
>>and the sample).
>
>I am not sure I understand what you mean. All IQ are estimates, the 
>question is what is the standard error of the estimate. I stated in a 
>previous email that this was about 15 for IQ test (I was thinking of the 
>WAIS(-R?) in particular). However, this was something I remember being 
>taught years ago and I haven't been able to confirm it doing a quick 
>Google search. I do remember being surprised by how large the range of a 
>typically estimated IQ was, but of course my memory might be conflating 
>the SD of IQ of the population with the SE of an individual test.
>
>>Of course you can probably give someone 10 tests and get 10 different 
>>scores out of them, so IQ tests aren't perfect but they're the best test 
>>we can perform to get an idea of a person's intelligence.
>
>Well let's say that someone has an IQ of 150 on the WAIS. They obviously 
>are pretty smart at the things the test measures: verbal skills and 
>spatial reasoning, but they might be very dumb on other things we consider 
>smart. For instance, a musical prodigy like Bach might have had an IQ <100 
>since IQ tests don't measure musical intelligence (I am also not sure how 
>well a mathematical prodigy would necessarily do on the WAIS - and 
>certainly your physical smarts in bed are not measured by standardized IQ 
>tests). Even someone with a high general IQ might have a relatively low 
>verbal IQ but high spatial IQ or visa versa.
>
>Surely in the end IQ doesn't matter. Its what you do that counts. I 
>sometimes wonder if the people who care most about their IQ scores are 
>those who haven't actually got so much to show for their lives.
>
>>Also, the younger the test is administered the more accurate. Since an IQ 
>>is supposed to test intelligence and not knowledge. A knowledgable 10 
>>year old can really clean up on an IQ test but at 30 could get a much 
>>lower score.
>
>IQ tests are age normalized. So even though you do more poorly as you age 
>(at least for non-crystalline factors) your estimated IQ is adjusted for 
>this decline. So in absolute terms an 50 years old with an IQ of 150 is 
>not as smart as a 25 year old with an IQ of 150.
>
>best, patrick
>
>-------------------
>Measured Intelligence and Education
>
>WAIS Mean IQ
>
>Educational Equivalent
>
>125
>Mean of persons receiving Ph.D. and M.D. degrees
>
>115
>Mean of college graduates
>
>105
>Mean of high school graduates
>
>100
>Average for total population
>
>75
>About 50-50 chance of reaching ninth grade
>
>Matarazzo, Joseph D.  Wechsler's Measure and Appraisal of Adult 
>Intelligence, 5th Edition.
>Oxford University Press, 1972.
>
>--------------------
>Best Estimate of IQ Differences for Adults in Different Occupations
>
>WAIS-R Mean IQ Range
>
>Occupational Category
>
>110-112
>Professional and technical
>
>103-104
>Managers, clerical, sales
>
>100-102
>Skilled workers
>
>92-94
>Semiskilled workers
>
>87-89
>Unskilled workers
>
>Kaufman, Alan S. Assessing Adolescent and Adult Intelligence. Allyn and 
>Bacon, 1990.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

==================================
=   Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob)    =
=     harara at sbcglobal.net       =
=   Alcor North Cryomanagement   =
=   Alcor Advisor to Board       =
=       831 429 8637             =
==================================