From: roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:02:55 GMT

In article <01GT7GVXIZAAADDWGI@ccfvx3.draper.com> skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum) writes:
>
>>From: Eric Roberts <roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca>
>>Message-ID: <1993Jan6.220509.27654@julian.uwo.ca>
>>
>>Does a high IQ correlate well with solving those challenging problems in
>>your school?
>
>Yes, the correlation over the full population range is probably very
>good.  The correlation within the extremely select student population is
>probably fairly poor, as is typical of SAT and GRE scores within highly
>restricted groups.
>
>>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.
>
>In the case of the SAT, which is practically an IQ test, validity
>studies are being done all the time, even by individual schools to
>fine-tune their admissions formulas.
>
>>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.
>
>You're right if you're talking about the kind of small differences (130
>IQ vs. 140 IQ) that seem to be important to some people.  But if you're
>talking about 67 IQ vs. 143, your statement is very likely to be flat
>wrong.
>
I agree with you that there will be a difference between an individual
who scores 150 and one that scores 60. IQ tests tend to measure vocabulary
and problem solving skills, and an individual who does so poorly in both
of those areas, will not be able, without further training, to achieve
much. This in itself may not indicate low potential (unless the person
in brain demaged), but rather the fact that he was not educated in
the proper way. What we are now getting into, is a heredity vs enviroment
debate. (I am aware of the fact the studies have shown that IQ
can not be increased significantly, the largest increase I have ever
read about was 30-40 points, maybe the reason for this is that we are
not educating in the proper manner.)  
The difference between 60 and 150 may be great, but the difference between
120-150 (or 150-180) is not, since both individuals have the basic skills
that are measured by those tests well developed (like vocab).    

>>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).
>
>I tend to agree.  But, again, it depends on the degree.  Your example
>about becoming a mathematician might have been a bad choice.  It's one
>of the fields for which studies have demonstrated a fairly definite IQ
>floor for success.  Yes, the floor is not too high (maybe around 120),
>but it's clear that someone who can't break 70 on any of a number of
>different IQ tests is highly likely to have severe problems handling
>college math.
I agree again, if someone fails to have the basic vocabulary 
(for whatever reason, it may be genetical, or enviromental, maybe
he was in a closet all his life), he will not succeed in math, or
most other subjects. The difference between two mathematicians with
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa