Some people say that IQ tests are culturally biased whereas certain other scientists I've seen say that tests like Raven's Progressive Matrices (which is a pattern recognition test) aren't culturally biased at all. RPM, for instance, does not require the use of language. Dunno, but I guess you can train yourself to become good at pattern recognition too.
Just a query: even if IQ tests are culturally biased, can't you make comparisons within individual cultures?
Some scientists say that IQ tests are fairly accurate and that people are just in denial about the facts as most people do not want to accept that they're less intelligent than others. Other scientists say that reducing intelligence to a number is a gross approximation. V.S. Ramachandran, for instance, says that our livers have about 30 functions whereas the brain has 100s and 1000s of functions and taking all of that and assigning a value to it is very reductionist. V.S. Ramachandran also talked about this simple study where people were asked if their IQ was above average or below average and 90% of people answered that their IQ was above average, which is a mathematical impossibility.
I've also wondered how mental state/health/illness affects IQ. Someone who's bipolar may score low when in depression but higher when in hypomania/mania. Someone with OCD may not score very well if his/her brain is filled with intrusive thoughts. Someone who's undergone emotional trauma may not score very well if his/her mental state isn't conducive for such cognitive based tasks. Performance anxiety is another thing that can play a role. Pretty much any mental state that reduces cognitive efficiency can lower your test scores.
Also, how do you account for the fact that sometimes you just get ideas and at other times ideas don't click that fast. Of course, someone who's intelligent may get ideas more often than not, but I guess this still happens with everyone.
How well can you separate "innate intelligence" from environmental factors?
James Watson, Richard Feynman, Bill Shockley, all of whom are/were Nobel laureates, scored between 120-130 on IQ tests. Above average, but not particularly high.
As an aside, native intelligence isn't something to be very proud of anyway. Nature rolls a dice and some people get the right genes. Big deal.
Personally, I'm not against or for any of these tests. I'm simply not knowledgeable enough to make any sort of an assessment. But I do accept the fact that there are people who are smart/smarter than me and people who aren't that smart. So, what do you guys think?
Just a query: even if IQ tests are culturally biased, can't you make comparisons within individual cultures?
Some scientists say that IQ tests are fairly accurate and that people are just in denial about the facts as most people do not want to accept that they're less intelligent than others. Other scientists say that reducing intelligence to a number is a gross approximation. V.S. Ramachandran, for instance, says that our livers have about 30 functions whereas the brain has 100s and 1000s of functions and taking all of that and assigning a value to it is very reductionist. V.S. Ramachandran also talked about this simple study where people were asked if their IQ was above average or below average and 90% of people answered that their IQ was above average, which is a mathematical impossibility.
I've also wondered how mental state/health/illness affects IQ. Someone who's bipolar may score low when in depression but higher when in hypomania/mania. Someone with OCD may not score very well if his/her brain is filled with intrusive thoughts. Someone who's undergone emotional trauma may not score very well if his/her mental state isn't conducive for such cognitive based tasks. Performance anxiety is another thing that can play a role. Pretty much any mental state that reduces cognitive efficiency can lower your test scores.
Also, how do you account for the fact that sometimes you just get ideas and at other times ideas don't click that fast. Of course, someone who's intelligent may get ideas more often than not, but I guess this still happens with everyone.
How well can you separate "innate intelligence" from environmental factors?
James Watson, Richard Feynman, Bill Shockley, all of whom are/were Nobel laureates, scored between 120-130 on IQ tests. Above average, but not particularly high.
As an aside, native intelligence isn't something to be very proud of anyway. Nature rolls a dice and some people get the right genes. Big deal.
Personally, I'm not against or for any of these tests. I'm simply not knowledgeable enough to make any sort of an assessment. But I do accept the fact that there are people who are smart/smarter than me and people who aren't that smart. So, what do you guys think?
Last edited:
