[geeks] Mensa

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

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.

100 is only the average for a test created *NOW* for people living *NOW*.
That's because IQs tests are partially based on your experiences, and as time
goes on, people have more because we advance as a society.  Hopefully.

I have mixed feelings about "processing" older scores to try and account for
score inflation as if IQ were money.  Different people will do it differently,
and it can't really account for all the reasons the scores climb or drop.

Also, I personally find it more interesting to see how scores on a particular
test or area change over time.

Shouldn't we be interested in how the general knowledge and mental skills of
the population improves or degrades over time?

Also, I think IQ data suffers the same fate as a lot of data, in that it is
recorded without a date.  That's one of my pet peeves, dates missing from
data, documents, etc.

IQ scores should always be listed as <score>.<date>.  Beyond that, the
location, society, language, education, and training/experience of the person
should be listed, if possible.

>> 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.

According to IQ researchers, this should be false.  One of their claimed goals
is to try and create tests that account for this.

Personally, I agree with your point of view.  I think intelligence can be
taught.  I disagree with the notion that you are born with a certain level and
that's it.

I believe that intelligence isn't just innate, given at birth.  You can
increase it with training.

>> The problem I have with IQ tests is the same I have with things like
>> SAT: they favor people who are good at taking tests, which isn't
>> necessarily people who are smart.
> 
> No, but there is a distinct positive, if imperfect, correlation - the
> details, of course, depend on what you define "smart" as.

Only if the tests are given in a way that avoids people cramming for it.

IQ tests are far less susceptible to this.

SAT training is a multi-million dollar business for a reason.

>> It's pretty much proven that people with a photo memory can "study"
>> for IQ and other tests and do very well, so what does that mean?
> 
> Cynically, it means that a photographic memory is a significant
> contributor to high intelligence.

Memory yes, but not specifically short term photo memory.  It's neat, but in
practice it is a niche capability we use very little, except when cramming for
tests and similar work.

Photographic memory is a short term memory skill, and doesn't have near the
neural connections to the more powerful processing abilities of the brain.

It is long term, learned memory that is our most powerful, and is most heavily
tied with things like association, feedback, and pattern processing.

You can't "cram" it or build it over a short period.  On the flip side, you
don't lose it quickly like you do short term and photo memory.

Working memory is that built by long practice, training, and work.

When you "study for a test" you are cramming facts into your short term
memory, which you'll lose it very quickly, so what is the point?

In my mind, an ideal test would not yield to cramming and you would not study
for it.  Why should you, if the point is to see what you have learned?

>> Intelligence is a measure of how much you can regurgitate?
> 
> Among other things.  A good memory is one of the pieces that can
> contribute to the complex complex we call "intelligence".

Yes, but a good memory isn't necessarily a photographic one.

You can have very good photographic short term memory, and have a very poor
long term working memory.

> I'm not sure of that.  But in the case of intelligence tests, the
> challenge is to measure something that isn't even well-defined, which
> is probably impossible.  So instead we measure something that seems
> vaguely close, and then define IQ to be whatever it is such tests
> measure - a complex of many things: memory, logical and mathematical
> ability and knowledge, linguistic abilities of various sorts, some
> societal knowledges, test-taking savvy, and probably assorted others.

With a good IQ test, there are at least some parts which are difficult to
study for past a point.  Logic, number sequences, spatial questions... those
things can be hard to study for.

My primary problem with them is some I've taken were very heavy on complex
English language, and obscure word definitions.  It was a large enough part of
the test to seriously lower the scores of people with low skills in that area.

I suppose it also matters what you really think an IQ test is.

I also wonder how you can test logic, when most of the population has probably
not been exposed to logical expressions and their meaning.  Seems like you
need to at least understand the forms to be tested.

-- 
shannon           | The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the
                  | most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of
                  | mankind.
                  |        -- Thomas Paine