[ExI] iqtests

[BillK]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2025 at 15:01, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> >> how could you say there was a meaningful repeatable measurable difference between somebody who had an IQ of 170 and somebody who had an IQ of 171?
>
> You could say that if the iq test were perfectly reliable - 100% agreement between two testings for all subjects.
> Which will never happen.  A one point difference is well within the standard error of measurement (which you might want to learn about).
>
> > If IQ is lousy for judging non human intelligence then it must also be lousy at judging human intelligence;
> Poor old IQ tests - don't get credit due.  Standard IQ tests correlate with and thus can predict more things than any other test.  Don't think that many people aren't trying really hard to find some.
>
> Some of you need to do a little research on intelligence, because some of you are over your heads.
>
> WIlliam F. Wallace Ph. D , experimental and clinical psychology
> _______________________________________________


This article seems like a good review of IQ tests.
<https://brainmanager.io/blog/cognitive/are-iq-tests-reliable>

IQ tests are not an overall test of your personality, knowledge or life skills.
They are a pretty specific test of mental functioning and reasoning
ability. This is demonstrated by the fact that you can train for IQ
tests and doing some practice tests will improve your IQ score.

BillK