IQ TESTS ARE FLAWED

[Iamthegreatest1]

I thought IQ tests were meant to test natural intelligence. However its now obvious to me that this is not so. A lot can be improved upon by being taught the logic behind specifically styled questions.

I believe environment also matters a lot. A lot of the questions lend better to western environments perhaps reflecting the backgrounds of those who design them in the first place.

I'm not sure wether it's actually possible to design one standard type test that measures natural intelligence in all individuals and across the globe not unless it can be carried on the day of birth before any external influence takes place.

Does anyone else feel the same?

Well yes, of course you're right. There are all sorts of well documented problems with IQ tests ranging from cultural bias to environmental factors.

Which is why they are not widely used in this country anymore.

I'm not sure of the point of your post TBH.

My son recently took an IQ test as part of his Dyslexia assessment

i think it was a useful tool to assess his potential against his performance.

Yes, there are probably cultural differences in how children perform on standard IQ test.
But this does not mean that they have no uses.

IQ tests type questions are used in grammar school entrance tests. They are used a lot in recruitment and used as entrance tests in lots of independent schools. You only have to look on MN to see parents agonising or gloating over IQ scores and it's particularly pertinent for SN children who require a ED assessment. Of course they are still widely used. A lot of people still believe in them regardless of whatever research is out there. Hence why I'm asking here wether believe actually realise or believe they are flawed.

Having a smirk about your username and this thread topic

I didn't say they don't have their use. Far from it, I just don't believe the blanket use of them on such a diverse range of individuals is telling us anything worthwhile. I also think we should stop being told its tests natural ability because it doesn't.

Not sure why username is making you smirk?

I did one online once and am proud to report that my IQ is (apparently) 78 . There may have been some involved but I think that helped to improve my score.

I think they are terrible. You can definitely improve your scores by practice and the ones I have seen are very culture specific. That rules out scoring well for those people who have spent their childhood in one country and adulthood in another, as I have.

If anyone brags about their or their children's intelligence I like to give my score of 78 which I am very proud of. It usually shuts them up.

IQ tests test your ability to do IQ tests

however they do show a rough correlation - i.e. taken seriously and under proper conditions, folks scoring 60 / 100 / 140 will be quite different in the way in which their brains work... and this does reflect the way in which people think - so they do have proven value - it is probably just not quite as fine a distinction as it appears to be with the numbering system of IQ - i.e. someone with an IQ of 130 and someone with an IQ of 135 might find their results the other way around another day - however, someone with 60 and someone with 140 probably won't

there are also well known issues with cultural bias, and Liam Hudson did work in the 60s / 70s on how they don't work well for the creative brain (divergent rather than convergent) - there is also material out there on Emotional or EQ as well

fascinating topic and Comiconce approach with wine is probably the best option!

Thank you . I enjoyed the test very much

One of the reasons that trained psychologists should administer psychometric testing is that they can interpret the results. Of course IQ tests are flawed. Almost all tests are flawed, subject to bias, culturally skewed and so on. It's unsurprising that white men came up with a test that white men score well in!

But they can be useful. Also mine is really high, like in the top 1% so they can't be all bad

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. It has long been established that all IQ tests are good at is measuring the ability to take IQ tests.

In other news, bears shit in woods and the Pope is a Catholic.............

Never! How did that happen???

As an aside :

The current Pope's sayings had me googling idly "Is Pope Francis a Catholic?" as a bit of a joke with my eldest.

Apparently it's now a serious question to some after a letter he published on marriage.

I have four A's at A Level and a first class degree from Oxbridge. Yet the three IQ tests I've taken over the course of my life have had terrible results! I am not stupid (I don't think).

heron I can trump that. I have degrees coming out of my ears but apparently an IQ of 78

I simply don't believe that someone can take an actual IQ test (not an online bullshit one) and get 78 if they have degrees. 70 is the level that learning disabilities start at.

They aren't perfect but they aren't entirely nonsensical either.

We did online IQ tests at work for a bit of a laugh and I have to say that the results were pretty much exactly what I'd have guessed from working with them all. Clearly some people had better EQ that didn't show up, but if you'd asked me "rank these people in order of their ability to do abstract problem solving, eg to apply the wording of a contract to a specific set of circumstances" then that's how they scored on the IQ test.

Now that's all people in their 20s and 30s with reasonable UK educations none of whom had been practicing IQ tests intensively - so a pretty level playing field. You couldn't get someone in with an utterly different background and expect them to compete, and in particular there's no such thing as an uncoachable test. But on a level playing field I do think it will tell you something relevant about abstract thinking skills if that's something you value.

People tend to equate being valid with scores not being able to be improved with practice, that's the trouble. Those things are quite different, at least in the contexts IQ tests were designed for. Any kind of test (yet invented) can be improved at with practice. That's one reason why genuine IQ tests are only sold to licenced practitioners, and why you'll find reputable publications give so little in the way of information about what the questions are - yet even so, undoubtedly a determined person can find enough information to improve their score. Using IQ style testing in high stakes situations like school admission is therefore not necessarily an improvement over what went before (even where real IQ testing is used, and usually, what's meant is more "puzzle type questions not very like school work"). Nevertheless, there's a wealth of research confirming that IQ scores are correlated with many more naturalistically interesting measures. If preparing for IQ tests becomes widespread, of course, those correlations are likely to go away and new question types will be needed. All makes work for psychologists!

What is your definition of "natural intelligence" as opposed to "intelligence" alone?

I remember doing loads of practice IQ tests the year we all sat the eleven plus, so of course I have a really high IQ and you've all got to give way to my opinions, I wish.

It's like that organisation Mensa whose membership is based on IQ, whose first mistake was to call itself Mensa, which means "thick" in Spanish.

The correct response to 'is the pope a Catholic' is of course, 'depends which one you're talking about'. Pope Tawadros II is Coptic Orthodox.

(I doubt my score on an IQ test nowadays would be as good as when I did the 11+, the last year before they went comp, but I remain a smartarse)

Point noted Errol.

( Smarty-pants!)

I think there IQs frequent peek at around 10/11 years old (to conveniently coinclde with when a child is preparing for 11+/competitive school entrance assessments ).