From: roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:05:09 GMT

In article <01GT6X2JR04YADCNDL@ccfvx3.draper.com> skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum) writes:
>
>>From: Eric Roberts <roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca>
>>Message-ID: <1993Jan5.211313.23465@julian.uwo.ca>
>>
>>The area where intelligence makes a difference, is application of
>>knowledge aquired to new situations. Learning the theory of relativity
>>requires much less then developing it...
>
>You're certainly entitled to your own definition of intelligence.
>But I can tell you that the school I attended is famous for drowning
>its students in challenging problems, and a school a few miles away
>is famous for its case method of teaching business.  In each of these
>situations, you're constantly asked to apply knowledge you've
>learned, not just reproduce a sample of it on a final.
>
Does a high IQ correlate well with solving those challenging problems in
your school? Does the ability to solve those correlate well well with
success after getting out into the real world? 

>>What I meant was that there is no proof that they measure inteligence, and
>>that high IQ does not indicate it.
>
>How could they, when you're the guy who defines what intelligence is?
>You'll have to let them know what it is, so they can run some
>correlation studies.
>
You have a point here, however, those who develop the tests don't have
a definition either, which would indicate that they don't know what they
are doing; they can, of course, claim that it is what those tests measure
but in this case intelligence appears to be of little value.
   
  
>>(Somehow I used IQ for intelligence...:))
>>>>If you think otherwise, please give me some references to studies that
>>>>your opinion is based on .
>>>
>>>From, "Beyond IQ", by Robert J. Sternberg, page 122, the statement
>>>is italicized for emphasis:  "One of the best single measures
>>>of overall intelligence (as measured by intelligence tests)
>>
>>That is the whole point, I do not argue that it does not measure intelligence
>>as defined by IQ, but rather that this IQ does not predict if a person
>>is capable of more then a person with lower IQ (in other words an IQ
>>of 200 is not equivalent to being able to develop the theory of
>>relativity, nor does an IQ of 100 predict that you are not capable of it).
>
>It depends on what you mean by "predict".  If you mean "guarantee", of
>course, you're right.  But predict usually means you're only estimating,
>or making a statement of probability, and in that sense IQ most
>assuredly *does* predict quite a number of things, albeit rather
>poorly in many cases.  Your statements are too vague for a proper
>debate.
>
I did not mean that it does not guarantee, I meant that a high IQ does not
indicate (or make itmuch more propable) that you are capable of more
than a person with a lower IQ.      

>>>I think this is a bit extreme, as I've seen real cases, up close,
>>>of the Wechsler's subsections providing useful diagnostic information.
>>>I'm also well aware of the limitations of the test.
>>>
>>How do you know that the information was usefull or correct?
>
>It corroborated other observations I had made, which the teachers
>had overlooked.  From a mathematical viewpoint, as I said, when
>no indicator is certain, all estimates are helpful.
I agree that all estimates may be helpfull, what I disagree with
is the commonly held assertion that a low IQ is equivalent to low
potential (to become a very good mathematician for example).

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa