[geeks] Mensa

[Mike Meredith]

On Sat, 12 May 2007 16:05:50 -0400 (EDT), der Mouse wrote:
> > That depends.  It used to be said that average IQ was 100.
> 
> I thought the mean IQ was 100 *by definition* - that if a test shows
> some other mean, then its scores need postprocessing to become IQs.

In theory yes. In practise there are good tests and bad tests; people
pick good tests and stick with them for longer than they should. Taking
an intelligence test designed in the 1960s gives you a 1960s IQ not a
2000s IQ.

Not every intelligence tester is that happy with IQ; I've been tested
where the results were given as a band in comparison to Cambridge 
graduates (I was in the top 30% which indicates that Oxbridge graduates
just aren't as bright as they're supposed to be :) )

One thing that some don't realise is that people who design
intelligence tests aren't too happy with the results and keep
redesigning them. This is partially because test designers like
designing tests, but they also know that their tests are only an
approximate measurement of intelligence (whatever that is).

They would be far happier if the intelligence test for animals (measure
how long it takes for the brain to react to a given noise in the ear)
applied to humans.

IQ is really an approximation .... someone with an IQ of 159 isn't
really brighter than someone with an IQ of 158. But someone with an IQ
of 80 needs a different sort of education to someone with an IQ of 180.

> > However, [...] so obviously the test wasn't so much a measure of IQ
> > as it was literacy, language comprehension, and personal experience.
> 
> Rather, I would say that one's literacy, language comprehension, and
> personal experience are factors that contribute to one's IQ.

Actually at least some intelligence testers try *very* hard to eliminate
such factors. Literacy, language comprehension, and personal experience
contribute to 'wisdom' but not necessarily that slippery thing called
intelligence. Intelligence tests are *supposed* to cope with giving
someone whose English is negligible a fair crack ... just because
someone is semi-illiterate doesn't mean they aren't smart, because there
could be special reasons why they haven't picked up literacy ... lack
of education, etc.

> > It's probably impossible to create a test that actually measures
> > purely a particular skill.

I'm not sure intelligence is a skill.

No test is going to be 100% (unless we can count how many synapses
blink when doing a test and can measure something from that); it's a
'best guess'. No test is ever going to tell whether someone is going to
make a good brain surgeon; there is always going to be the nervous
decision to hand someone a knife and tell them it's their turn. Tests
just tell us someone is *likely* to make a reasonable brain surgeon.
Hopefully enough tests should eliminate those who are good at tests,
but not genuine brain surgeon material.

-- 
Mike Meredith (http://zonky.org/)
  One test is worth a thousand opinions.