Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: IQ Test Creation Question
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 16:17:13 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <5Ji9TB1w164w@jwt.UUCP> bbs-phaedrus@jwt.UUCP writes:
>
>gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>
>:>hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
>:>>I question your basic assumption.  By analogy, while not an Olympic class
>:>>marksman myself, I'm certainly qualified to judge such a competition and
>:>>even to train Olympic competitors.
>:>
>:>I question your basic analogy.  An operational definition of a bulls-eye
>:
>:Actually, for an analogy of a skill being tested by someone less competent
>:than the testee, it succeeds.
>:
>:>exists, so anyone can determine if a given competitor achieved the
>:>objective.
>
>I've always viewed intelligence as the potential to learn or accomplish, not
>as a skill already possessed and realized.  Perhaps this is the root of the
>disagreement.  Please specify the test that will measure the potential for a
>bulls-eye by a marksman who has not yet seen a rifle.

You must admit that a skill can be broken down into constituents that each
could be used to predict potential in another related skill.  General fitness
could be used to predict success as a sprinter.  The argument that it does
not predict 100% accurately, and that other factors enter in, is analogous
to intelligence tests/academic success.  Certainly other factors enter in,
but that does not make the intelligence tests useless, as you probably
agree.  But, like intelligence tests, the failure in a fitness test should
not prevent the testee from competing in marathons, as there may be latent
potential untapped.  The use of intelligence tests for college admission
(actually, achievement tests) may only be a necessary device for maximizing
the utility of a limited resource, which is college admission.  The misuse
of a test for discouraging others may be an unavoidable, but no less
undesirable, side-effect.

I understand the need for people to try to avoid damage to the enthusiasm
those who fail often encounter.  I do wonder how to avoid this while taking
advantage of the increase in enthusiasm of those who succeed.  I wonder if
this halo effect from feel-good politics in today's world is really mis-
guided guilt-tripping.  Sometimes a person succeeds in spite of this,
but that may not necessarily be a mark of the individual overcoming the
Evil Testing Empire, but just a mark of maturity.  I can't say that
testing isn't flawed, but I do wonder if too much time is spent whining,
and too little is spent finding out what a person is good at.

>:>There is no such operational definition of intelligence.
>:
>:I think you are trying to say, "Objective definition",
>
>No, I was saying operational but objective applies as well.  The testing of
>intelligence has, at various times, included such methods as measuring the
>circumference of the cranium, the volume of the cranium, the weight of the
>brain and the number of questions answered correctly on a standardized test.
>These tests are all both operational and objective, but have little to do with
>intelligence.

And little to do with this discussion.  But I digressed as well.

>:Further, IQ testers, at least those that are psychologists, are trained to
>:perform the test in a very objective and consistent way to minimize bias and
>:variance.
>
>I never questioned that the tests of intelligence can be given in an objective
>and unbiased manner, I question whether they are _in_fact_ testing
>intelligence.  Standardized IQ testing for membership in a society like Mensa

Understandable.  No problem here.

>is relatively benign.  Such testing used (as it all too often is) to
>categorize and stigmatize children is _not_ acceptable.  IMHO, current

I suspect most would agree with this.

>standardized IQ test only measured what has been learned and not the potential
>to learn.

I don't agree with this.  I don't disagree, either, not being able to prove
it either way, but I'm not sure you can give a usable argument toward this.

>:Because they are voicing their opinions.  They may not be presenting them
>:as such in every post, but like any complex problem, people have opinions
>:as to the "right" way to approach it.
>
>I have no objection to anyone's opinion - I've even had a opinion or two in my
>time.  I don't even object to the same person having multiple, sometimes
>conflicting opinions - I know I do.  I do object to the trivialization of
>complex problems. (This may be off the mark, but then I'm no judge of
>marksmanship).

Agreed here as well.  I guess I haven't seen this in awhile, so may not
be sensitized to it.

>:>with measuring intelligence (and yes, I am a Mensan and have rarely scored
>:>less than 4 sigma on these standardized pieces of trash).
>
>:No one has asked, but thanks for sharing.
>
>Just trying to see if I could engender some of the dialectic this newsgroup is
>famous for, and I succeeded:

Oh, please, don't fall victim to this crap.  There's quite enough as it is.

>jimt@carson.u.washington.edu (James Thompson) writes:
>|Was that 4 sigma above or 4 sigma below mean?
>I'm sure more of this high level of discourse will follow.  But back to the
>adult world,
>
>gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>:>As to the less intelligent testing the intelligent, I find my patience well
>:>tested by discussions in this newsgroup.
>
>:Perhaps you are Patience Challenged, Larry.  I think we all know that if
>:you are, the net is no place to take your ulcer.
>
>No Gilbert, never was PC, never will be PC.  No ulcer either.  Just an
>opinionated SOB.  Only not as good at sarcasm as I thought I was.

I guess after all the gum-slapping I do about being rational, I have to
admit that it makes debates on the net a lot less dramatic.

GMS