It depends on how you define intelligence. Since IQ test were originally introduced, our understanding of intelligence has been expanded to include aspects previously not investigated. See Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences (MI), EQ.

Defining intelligence is surely the point of the matter, particularly when a test of certain mental aspects allows for a sense of achievement in the successful taker of the test.

Does it really test deep thinking, the kind required for intense creative thinking, and doesn't such results as I've referenced above belittle important scientists and their achievements? I'm aware that many who score outlandish results in I.Q. tests go on to make little genuine intellectual impact. Is that the effect of the test on motivation, or simply because the test measures test-taking rather than ingrained, integrated ability?

I believe that any test that is out there long enough will eventually get hacked, i.e. someone will figure out a way to ridiculously outperform on it. That's why I think it's very important for test developers to revise and re-calibrate their instruments and for researchers to incorporate up-to-date testing protocols in their projects.

Have you read the articles by the American biologist Stephen Jay Gould, particularly the Mismeasure of Man, in which he takes apart IQ tests?

No, not really. I'm sure there are a number of scientists with solid arguments out there not particularly fond of IQ testing. Taking anything apart is fun and all and it can be extremely rewarding. But putting something back together is infinetly more valuable. Even if we agree that IQ tests don't work anymore -or that they never did, what's next? That's the question.

On the other hand, one cannot exclude the possibility that humanity is indeed getting smarter! But we are given less opportunity to prove our smarts in the real world, because all the extraordinary things are already like BTDT (Been-There-Done-That). Or the kind of smart that IQ tests measure is not relevant in societies of today.

Excellent response, Asterios, but perhaps intelligence, whatever it is, can now most usefully be employed dismantling long held intellectual paradigms rather than in invention of additional ones?

Are we really growing smarter? The return of medieval forms of religious belief, obvious here and elsewhere, suggests otherwise, surely? That is, if intelligence is about the perception of evidence, some require it and can separate it from other modes of understanding, others cannot, and not alteration of reality and dependence upon the magical nature of words.

Post-modern deconstructivism would have you think so. But I'm reluctant to decomission anything that has produced a substantial amount of work, before I come up with an alternative that substantially impoves on it. I' d rather keep it operational for a transition period and actually deploy the improved version fullscale only when it has repeatedely and consistently proven its worth on the field. So, on the 'subplant or add' strategy, it's not an either-or, it's a definite both for me.

Religions and other spiritual belief systems are products of our intelligence as well. There's a certain eloquence in their grounding abstracts to reality while also appealing to our sentimental core. Surely, there's an aspect of intelligence at work when dealing with things you don't understand. Gardner understood that eventually, so he went ahead and ammended his original MIs to include 'existential intelligence'.

There is a possibility we are really only growing smarter collectively as a species by relegating more and more of our individual computation needs to an emergent cultural cognition. Then individuals that can more easily or successfully tap into that appear smarter, while the rest only stay at base-level individual human intelligence. As our collective human knowledge level grows, so does the divide between those who can yield it and those who don't.

I find nothing wrong with the 'don't know' analogy, nor further definitions of intelligence that encapsulate the existential, as the one we have is surely dependent upon education, and particular kinds of education suited to specific requirements within society (one of Gould's points). I do not disagree with religious belief formed from intelligence to the extent of how its then formulated upon existing societies open to the various messages. But with religious belief comes active constructs of power and numerous areas of unexamined thought.

More please on your assertion that religion enjoys/employs grounding abstracts to reality. What are these? Much is expressed eloquently within religious text, including genocide, but often its basis' lie elsewhere. That is it operates in a transformative fashion, appropriating and regurgitating other examples of eloquence-most of the text in Abrahamic books come from earlier literature that employed it for more beneficient uses-thereby its eloquence and thinking is resourced from clear often secular sources. The operation of religion within an existential sphere can be traced and a ccounted for, although I am not against the 'we don't know' as expressed above.

Surely religion inhabits the creative sphere, like literature, which I have no doubt is an aspect of intelligence.

Yup, that's intertextuality for you. All discourses re-contextualize and repurpose material, including the scientific discourse. It's that exact percistence of certain conceptualizations across time, usages and cultures that points to their saliency and entrenchment with the human condition that inevitably manifests in our intelligence. The practice of re-contextualization and repurposing itself is a manifestation of intelligence.

I could stand fast and argue for religion, religious discourse and their special role in cognition. But, I won't because that would lead us far astray from your original question of IQ test validity.

A word of advice, if I may: Don't be quick to dismiss with the old. If you feel that circumstance has brought you to a new level of insight, make use of your new vantage point to re-evaluate instead. Some things are worth keeping around, even for purposes other than those they were originally designed for. That holds for both IQ tests and religious smarts. ;)

I'm not sure I dismiss quite as you believe but instead am, like many others, searching for answers. I do not dismiss religious thought-where it demonstrates thinking. There seems little of that in the current climate. I dismiss those large areas of religious belief that discourage debate based upon belief, which surely is separate from what we are at present discussing. Where you have made the salient point of regurgitation let me add, that the Abrahamic religions, for one example, made many of the original ideas into killing machines-Moses, etc.

I used the term medieval but in fact medieval religious thought was more varied than much of today's religious thinking, certainly more intense,-suggesting perhaps that they were more intelligent than we are now. Religious intelligence goes hand in hand, perhaps as with many things, with its complete opposite. Where religion manifests its beliefs through control it exhibits intelligence-of a strangely unethical kind.

Nor have I dismissed IQ tests, I've merely stated my concerns with their validity and whether we are not in the area recognised by Weber of control of knowledge and those who are raised-up as products and producers of knowledge. I hold many areas of knowledge suspect. The school children -and others-I referenced are, one imagines, to be the new priests (?) of certain types of understanding, containing within their no doubt able brains aspects of that new knowledge. Does Mensa occupy a cult position, even if it is only a talking club? This is one tolerable perception, surely?

I remember many years ago an American-German with an IQ of 200. Wow! He often appeared on TV asserting Real-Politic (surely a limited viewpoint), and he talked, he talked, he talked. Gone, more or less now, like shrill gusts of air.

I'm not sure I believe you dismiss as much as you believe I believe you dismiss. :P It was more or less cautionary -just in case. ;)

There's being smart and there's proving being smart. Then, there's celebrating being smart and there's celebrating proving being smart. The attention IQ test high-scorers get seems to suggest collapsing them all together but with an emphasis on the latters. I feel we can get away with the collapsing if we switch focus to the formers.

Score on intelligence tests gives crude judgement about intelligence (definition of intelligence, standardization, characteristics of the test, training of administrator,etc are of crucial important). Jnana Prabodhini Institute of Psychology always give a statement that high score stands for high intelligence, but low score does not necessarily indicate low intelligence. As the performance on intelligence tests depends on uncontrollable personal as well as surrounding variables.

I feel Percentile Rank as more indicative of intelligence. I believe in Guilford's Structure of Intellect more than a single IQ. This gives 120 factors of intelligence each being having separate identity based on processing on the form of information/item.

Yet still, no matter their possible greater reliability, they shouldn't, or mustn't, be employed as an achievement in themself, which they are not. Doesn't this say something about our society (or maybe not?) where test taking or success in quizzing is seen as demonstrable ability?

A few years ago I gave three students IQ tests-2 girls, 1 boy. Of the 3 the boy was more deep-thinking, unravelling problems in depth and looking at them from every side. His knowledge and understanding seemed immense. Unfortunately, the need for rapid thinking and time-framed results made him produce the lowest score.

Tests for business-professionals, doers not thinkers?

Sathish, this is what worries me. Are people being judged and pigeon-holed as a consequence of these tests and not given chances to prove differently? Do they actually accurately test the able, who will go on to achieve, or just those good at these tests or who exhibit the kind of minds most able to do these tests well? Do these tests highlight the probable emergence of new Einstein's and Bohrs or trivial pursuit winners?

Sathish,

Some students of mine recently rapsodised about their ex-High School teacher who claimed to have an IQ of 140. This, of course, is of genius (whatever that means) level. First, why boast about it-especially to children? Second-as far as I know, he remains a High School teacher. Will he confirm his possible status by future accomplishments or perhaps remain as he is, no doubt a valuable teacher of pre-university children.

We don't need them at all. During the second world war they were commonly employed to select potential officers, those able to think on their feet, and who had leadership and organisational skills. Although this was successful, the tests selected particular talents in a particular situation. But a thinker can often make a poor officer. Time-framed and subject to guessing, the tests are narrowly legitimate.

It surely doesn't allow for thinking-which requires greater time-frames. it functions differently, requiring instant decision makers.