159 replies to this topic

[JGirl]

Jinxdom, on 28 November 2012 - 06:08 AM, said:

I'm still trying to figure out what IQ actually means. My friend and I are completely different except for iq's both high enough to know better then to post it on the forums but he's what you consider smart and me quick and clever. Almost polar opposites. He was a preacher's kid, my family not so whats a good word for it unwholesome. He fit in with the Mensa crowd me not so much lol. He has a successful job and career engineering, I don't look very successful from the outside(yet I make almost the same as him) and my talents are more generalized. Basically another Batman vs Joker type deal.

What's funny though is when it comes to mine since he seen my test results... both him and I don't believe it because I take it with a grain of salt  and he sort of reacts like most people on the forum when iq is posted and is unbelievable. I could never get mad at it because of understanding comparisons. Since each test is different the results will be different so the meaning of IQ for the number they posted means something different. So why get bent out of shape trying to put the square peg in to the round hole?
Then again I'm clever and not smart.

i think it depends on how one defines intelligence. i also think that once you know how the tests are set up, and the different ways of looking at the problems presented, it would not be accurate to test yourself again. your advantge  (familiarity) would set your score higher, and i think part of the point is in going at it cold and starting from nothing.

[_Only]

JGirl, on 28 November 2012 - 06:29 AM, said:

i think it depends on how one defines intelligence. i also think that once you know how the tests are set up, and the different ways of looking at the problems presented, it would not be accurate to test yourself again. your advantge  (familiarity) would set your score higher, and i think part of the point is in going at it cold and starting from nothing.

There are multiple factors of intelligence tested in legitimate IQ tests: fluid and crystallized.

And it would never hurt to have another try and become better. The ability to learn is a huge part of a healthy intelligence. The points gained are earned through intelligence.

Edited by _Only, 28 November 2012 - 06:57 AM.

[Jinxdom]

JGirl, on 28 November 2012 - 06:29 AM, said:

i think it depends on how one defines intelligence. i also think that once you know how the tests are set up, and the different ways of looking at the problems presented, it would not be accurate to test yourself again.

Exactly what I was trying to get across in a really twisted way. Except you replaced IQ with intelligence. Same exact idea but thought in a completely different way. I was focusing on me and my friend having the same Iq but thinking completely differently and you on the testing itself. Both come to the same conclusion.

Hard to judge and compare things when nobody is agreeing on a set definition. Is what we are both trying to get across.

Things like this is where most verbal battle takes place from.*

*case and point post above

Edited by Jinxdom, 28 November 2012 - 07:13 AM.

[JGirl]

_Only, on 28 November 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

There are multiple factors of intelligence tested in legitimate IQ tests: fluid and crystallized.

And it would never hurt to have another try and become better. The ability to learn is a huge part of a healthy intelligence. The points gained are earned through intelligence.

yes i'm aware of what an IQ test is comprised of.
and i still feel that in taking the test repeatedly only makes you better at the testing. it does not make you 'smarter'.
even mensa will tell you that one's iq doesn't really change all that much over the years. (and they're the go-to people for that info i would imagine lol)

[Mr Walker]

JGirl, on 28 November 2012 - 03:54 AM, said:

i don't think i follow you
i might not be expressing it in the right way
ok
in an IQ test you are presented with 'problems' but you don't get told what the problem is. you have to find out what it is and what is required to address it, and ultimately solve it
how do you get more intelligent just because they get harder or more obscure? the method is now known
seems to be that you just get better at what you already know. not that there's anything wrong with that, but i never thought that is how IQ was determined.

You learn new ways of thinking and new ways of seeing and addressing a problem. You learn to use multiple forms of intelligence sometimes squentially and sometimes concurrently. You can learn to divide your operating mind into parts and attack a problem using different parts  of your mind to work on different aspects..

You learn and practice the skills upon which the test is based,  and those are transferrable to all other such tests. You learn to recognise and compensate for the cultural and linguistic biases inherent in most such tests. You learn the "languages" of such tests, and thus  understand what is being asked for more clearly and quickly.

For example if a test asks you to look at an object/shape on the test paper, and then to rotate it 270 degrees and invert it, then describe its shape from that perspective, practice will improve your ability to do this and the speed with which you can do it.

Edited by Mr Walker, 28 November 2012 - 07:30 AM.

[JGirl]

Mr Walker, on 28 November 2012 - 07:28 AM, said:

You learn new ways of thinking and new ways of seeing and addressing a problem. You learn to use multiple forms of intelligence sometimes squentially and sometimes concurrently. You can learn to divide your operating mind into parts and attack a problem using different parts  of your mind to work on different aspects..

You learn and practice the skills upon which the test is based,  and those are transferrable to all other such tests. You learn to recognise and compensate for the cultural and linguistic biases inherent in most such tests. You learn the "languages" of such tests, and thus  understand what is being asked for more clearly and quickly.

For example if a test asks you to look at an object/shape on the test paper, and then to rotate it 270 degrees and invert it, then describe its shape from that perspective, practice will improve your ability to do this and the speed with which you can do it.

please refer to my post just prior to yours

[Jinxdom]

Lol. I love things arguments like this when people are are trying to convince people to their side by things the other already knows.

When one does something more often you get better at it you both agree... Now just a battle of what the results of the test actually show. Is it Your ability to take tests, your ability to take iq tests, or your actual iq? Since you can't settle on the definition a disagreement comes about.

This is what makes me want to bash my skull in most times.

[Mr Walker]

JGirl, on 28 November 2012 - 07:34 AM, said:

please refer to my post just prior to yours

Yes i saw that. My post attempted to explain how doing the test DOES make you smarter, the same as doing a physical fitness test, again and again, makes you fitter. The process of undergoing testing teaches you new skills, ways of thinking and responses, All that, is "being more intelligent." Then, when you do new and different tests, your scores go higher. I am not talking about repeating one test, til you know all the answers.

Let us suppose, for example, that I begin with an IQ of  about120. I spend a decade learning about IQ tests and doing dozens of them  for fun. At the end of the decade, every I Q test I now undertake shows an IQ of  around 160. These are tests i have not taken before.

Are you arguing my IQ hasnt actually increased? if so, how can you (or any one marking the tests) know that, when the only mechanisms available to find my IQ show a 40 point average increase.

Edited by Mr Walker, 28 November 2012 - 09:25 AM.

[Mr Walker]

Jinxdom, on 28 November 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

Lol. I love things arguments like this when people are are trying to convince people to their side by things the other already knows.

When one does something more often you get better at it you both agree... Now just a battle of what the results of the test actually show. Is it Your ability to take tests, your ability to take iq tests, or your actual iq? Since you can't settle on the definition a disagreement comes about.

This is what makes me want to bash my skull in most times.

I would argue there is no difference between the three. Your abilty in any test transfers at least partially to an abilty to take an iq test,  (this is a known correlation between all forms of testing) and your abilty to take an iq test reflects  or affects your actual IQ.

It is known, for example, that  early Iq tests had severe cultural biases, which "reduced" the measured  IQ of people outside the cultural group which set the tests. Hence afro americans, indigenous australians, and others, scored less well in tests set by white middle class academics. Country kids,  even today, do less well in standardised tests based around city/urban culture, and life experiences .

Edited by Mr Walker, 28 November 2012 - 09:33 AM.

[Jinxdom]

Mr Walker, on 28 November 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

I would argue there is no difference between the three. Your abilty in any test transfers at least partially to an abilty to take an iq test,  (this is a known correlation between all forms of testing) and your abilty to take an iq test reflects  or affects your actual IQ.

Lol I knew that you would see it that way. Can you admit that IQ is only a small slice of actual intelligence?

[Karlis]

See if you can evaluate your IQ with this "clever bot" program

[_Only]

JGirl, on 28 November 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

yes i'm aware of what an IQ test is comprised of.
and i still feel that in taking the test repeatedly only makes you better at the testing. it does not make you 'smarter'.

But crystallized intelligence is obtained information from experience. Your ability to use previously learned things to help you tackle similar or new problems. It takes intelligence for you to recognize how a test's questions are set up (trends in tests, etc.)  in order to answer them better, which makes you 'better at the testing'. It's a form of pattern recognition itself, also.

[_Only]

Karlis, on 28 November 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

See if you can evaluate your IQ with this "clever bot" program

I have decided I don't like Cleverbot (my thought in black, 'his' in blue):



edit: Though I seemed to make the bot think longer than I had ever seen with the first statement below. I thought it would be unable to give an answer, as I watched the cursor blink with no response for far longer than I'd ever seen it do before. At least this conversation seemed complete.



Thanks, that was fun.

Edited by _Only, 28 November 2012 - 12:13 PM.

[Seeker79]

JGirl, on 28 November 2012 - 03:54 AM, said:

i don't think i follow you
i might not be expressing it in the right way
ok
in an IQ test you are presented with 'problems' but you don't get told what the problem is. you have to find out what it is and what is required to address it, and ultimately solve it
how do you get more intelligent just because they get harder or more obscure? the method is now known
seems to be that you just get better at what you already know. not that there's anything wrong with that, but i never thought that is how IQ was determined.

Right!!!! What I was eluding to is that the more intelligent people are the quicker they will learn the test methodology and what is expected of them.

[JGirl]

Mr Walker, on 28 November 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

Are you arguing my IQ hasnt actually increased? if so, how can you (or any one marking the tests) know that, when the only mechanisms available to find my IQ show a 40 point average increase.

yes i am arguing that your intelligence hasn't increased, only your score
mensa states that one's iq does not significantly increase either. i think i'm going to go with their slant on it thanks

Edited by JGirl, 28 November 2012 - 03:40 PM.