From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: t: Re: t: Re: IQ Test Creation Question
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:05:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.170109.6483@ncsu.edu> scott@bogus.net.address (Scott Tai) writes:
>
>gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>: scott@bogus.net.address (Scott Tai) writes:
>: >And some of the more commonly used tests accepted for Mensa qualification
>: >are not intelligence tests at all.
>: Actually, if we agree that intelligence has not been defined, none of them
>: are.  On the other hand, if we agree that some are "aptititude" or "achievement"
>: tests, and some of them are officially labeled as such, we may define 
>: intelligence as the achievement resulting from it, or "actualized"
>: potential, which also has been previously argued.  Me, I don't care.
>
>But that is precisely the question.  How is one to recognize this
>superior intellect?  Standardized tests measure largely arbitrary skills.

This is your assumption.  The skills it attempts to measure are used by
businesses and academia to predict potential success in the businesses and
academia.  They continue to used them because the obviously think they
work.  And the idea is "potential" success, obviously because intellect
is necessary but not sufficient for success in those institutions.

>  
>gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>: What is the result obtained from taking an achievement test?  What
>: good is a predictive test that consists of life achievement?
>
>From 'IQ and Intelligence:  What's Wrong with Testing' (Fallows, 1989):
>; [...]  Whatever intelligence may be and however it may be 
>; distributed, is it really the main factor in determining how far 
>; people can go in life?  Unless IQ is an important limit, the entire 
>; tracking system makes no sense.  Why start channeling people early 

Fallows here is making a generalization that does not follow.  There is
no "main factor", and success if determined by more than one factor,
which in no way proves that any factor, such as intelligence as measured
by the tests referred to, "makes no sense."  It is obvious that any
single factor may be necessary but not sufficient.  Fallows is apparently 
either not much of a thinker, or hopes the readers of the text are not.

>; if most of them really can handle most jobs?  Why not let them end 
>; up where they will, by trial or error, or encourage them to keep 
>; starting over?  Why hive people off to trade school if, given a 

Because companies and colleges want to know how far they can push
their people to maximize performance, since the people themselves
do not always push themselves, and both are dealing with limited
resources, such as funds and positions.  Training and funds and,
for that matter, necessary occupations, are, unfortunately not
infinitely flexible in supply.  This is such trivial information
it makes be cringe to have to type it in.  Perhaps there should be
tests for elegibility to post to and read this newsgroup.

>; later chance, they could become scientists, doctors, or inventors?
>
>What good is an "IQ" test?

To find areas of intellect in which a person may benefit from extra
training, or from higher expectations in areas where the motivation
factor may not be high enough.

Otherwise...

Why, obviously, no good at all.  That's why businesses and colleges
and other schools use them.  None of it works.  That's why they spend
money to optimize the matching of curriculums and positions and
occupations and training to no avail at all.  They just want the
power to discourage all the potential brain surgeons out there and
make them bus drivers.  And we all know why businesses stay in
business.  Pure altruism.

GMS

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa