Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Any tests I have seen (a long time ago) were also quite culturally specific (which comes in handy if you want to prove e.g. that blacks have lower IQs than whites).  At best they are a highly reductive test for very specific capabilities, some of which can be learned/conditioned, and many of which aren't much used in most real life situations.

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 08:17:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's more they're a very limited test of a very specific and narrow range of rather abstract abilities.

Being able to rotate complicated objects in your imagination is more of a freaky talent than a useful one.

Psychologists use a more general concept called 'g', which is short for 'general intelligence' and seems to be almost impossible to test for.

I have a very arbitrary rule of thumb for estimating practical intelligence, which is predictive ability and modelling sophistication.

Given a set of circumstances - which could be emotional, or economic, or scientific - intelligent people are better at guessing what happens next than less intelligent people, even with identical levels of previous experience and knowledge.

Traditional IQ seems to be more interested in abstract symbol manipulations and certain kinds of pattern recognition, and they don't necessarily correlate with prediction and modelling except in very specialised and limited ways.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 08:36:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series