Interesting !

I should think not.

There are too many variables to the human intelectual state... There should be at least three different measurements to get accurate medium measure of intelligence. And with, practice, the results of IQ tests will improve...

We should certainly not categorise individuals, according to their IQ test results...

Thank you for sharing one more of your important questions, dear Barry!

Here's a good link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/roger-highfield/8104212/IQ-testing-race-and-controversy-put-your-intelligence-to-the-test.html

Dear Barry,

We have debated this question before and labelled as a hoax. We can list names of several scientists who were labelled imbeciles, or less intelligent but achieved outstandingly in science.  I read on a different science forum that Poincare scored 25 in IQ test but no person of a right mind will say Poincare was a person of lower intelligence. Einstein had suffered the same labeling not only from his school teachers but from his parents but he was the person of unique imagination power looking things differently. In the contrary we read models or popular singers or actors of high IQ scores but who barely pass schools.

The concept of IQ as I see it is what we call aptitude test, a test that measures the accumulated knowledge and skills a person has, from schools, resources at home, including parental and material until that time, which has nothing to do what is called the natural or innate intelligence. Take two individuals of the same age, one from an environment where there are no proper schools, schools without  properly trained teachers, libraries with no materials in it and no resources of learning at home, parental or financial, and the other one  from an environment where there are properly established schools, schools with well trained teachers for all subjects, full fledged state of the art library and technology, above all resources at home, parental and financial and purposely coached to achieve.  Reading IQ test scores of these two individuals and make a pseudo statement about intelligence differences they have is deception of the highest order. You can not compete a 24/7 trained swimming athlete with someone  from the street who never have been in water, and declare the winner to be a naturally strong and uniquely intelligent person nature has produced. 

Einstein said, ' every creature is intelligent but you can not say a fish is less intelligent because it failed to climb a tree " while a monkey can climb a tree fast and effortless as it grew up doing it but can not live a second in a sea.

All natural creatures survive because of their natural intelligence to adopt and solve problems that challenge their existence. Those which are less intelligent or because of the might of nature at those times perished and extinct. Our problem solving skills vary from the severity of problems  of the environment we live in, the more challenging the environment, the more creative we become and the less challenging the environment the less creative we will be, as our intelligence  is always an innate builtin power to solve problems and survive, including small creatures. 

Regarding race, I was looking the other day about ancient civilizations of societies and found interesting results. Indeed civilizations had developed across all races in the globe - civilization of the Mayas in South American continent, civilizations of Egyptians, Ethiopians with spectacular never seen kind of tallest obelisks of architectural beauty, the civilization of Africans with creations of instruments and games of thinking, civilizations of Hindus and Chines in the Far and south east Asia, the civilizations of Greeks and Romans, the civilization of the Persians etc. All these civilizations were works of  intelligence, innate to all of mankind.

Regards,

Dejenie Alemayehu Lakew 

Every one of us has some awareness about intelligence, but all these perceptions may not be identical. This is so because there is no precise definition about the same.  I believe the idea of intelligence quotient is an attempt to give some quantitative flavor to such puny understanding.

In my opinion IQ is one among others measures of intellectual ability, probably a not so bad one to have a rough idea : are we in front of intellectual deficit (to be compensated) - average intellectual ability - top intellectual abilities.

The tests can indeed be criticized. There is first an overall matching of the questions with the culture and life environment of the person passing the test. Do the questions actually match with the culture of this person ? Lack of matching has led to erroneous interpretations in the past a.o. in connection with racial issues. In the period of the colonies, people in central Africa have proven to be very superior than their colonizers in several domains not covered by the IQ test. This was shown for keenness of senses, intimacy with nature, ability to extricate oneself from difficult situations, philosophy of life, invention, memory,  ..... giving superior ability to find solutions facing unexpected problems.

Also, the questions must be devised to allow neutral comparison between different cultures of different countries which is not obvious when looked into details. Homer is not known in China nor is Zu Ko Liang in Greece. Cultural elements related to the one or the other can be very different and not comparable.

Good knowledge of the language with its nuances is important in function of age. This can be different in the USA as compared to United Kingdom, Finland, Germany, Greece, Russia, China, Japan, New Guinea, ....

Also more general tests focussing on logic, computation, spatial representation, .... can give very different results in function of the country.

And then there are all classical criticisms :

- IQ doesn't measure creativity

- Intelligence can have different forms than just those checked in the tests (see e.g. multiple intelligences of Howard Gardner, ...)

- Emotional Quotient (EQ) is also meaningful and often more important than IQ to get on in life

- To be Mensa member doesn't secure accomplished life more than to be a "Forrest Gump" kind of fellow (it is often the contrary)

- IQ tests must be done in due time under supervision : not everybody is in the mould to optimally perform in these conditions and even those in the mould can be in a bad mood, have had a bad night, ....

- The people who design the tests are usually not those with the highest IQ

- ...................

Now, in spite of all criticisms, IQ tests have the quality to measure something at a given moment which can be useful in various circumstances where comparison is needed, decision must be taken, research must be performed, ....

In good hands of expert psychologists IQ remains an high order tool.   

What is intelligence exactly? Perhaps non-human animals would not succeed the human-made IQ tests, but the non-human animals survived on planet Earth for millions and millions of years, right?

Perhaps intelligence is the ability to adapt/adjust behavioural decisions to local dynamic conditions?

Barry, you are the controverser.  Anyway, you won't admit what is said to you if it isn't your idea.  I advise you to let those people alone, they aren't seeking faults with you. Show what you are able of, that is always better than putting people down.

Remi, EQ is positively correlated with IQ, they are two instances of cognitive ability.  But EQ is not really what is said. High EQ people thrive in a company, but at the expense of their coworkers, and also of the company. They are usually egocentric, cynical, and manipulative.

Claude

I am not putting people down.  I do not believe in IQ tests or even the silly idea that some are more 'intelligent' than others.  This is no more important as a measure of a person's abilities than the amount of booze they can drink and remain standing.

I am very disturbed that it is associated with race and it most certainly is according to its main proponents. 

Incidentally it does not matter one iota what I can do, I am not in a competition!

To use a single measure for a multi-faceted concept - here, intelligence - is not feasible.  Any comprehensive definition of intelligence is likely complex, and if a single measure is designed which weights the various aspects of intelligence a given way, who is to decide how this should be weighted?  How successfully could you even do what you meant to do? 

People can be intelligent in different ways.  How does an IQ concept fit in with 'idiot savants'?  There is much about our own brains that we do not understand. 

One could say that smart people often do dumb things, and vice versa. Sometimes an expert can make an elementary mistake in his/her own field, but then contribute to another field, so one should not always dismiss ideas from various sources "outside of the box" (outside of the paradigm).  

Each brain is unique, you cannot attach one number to it.  That is a terrible homage to conformity.  

Good question, Barry.  I see your point. 

Barry, the aptitudes and the abilities are not equal, that's one thing you don't want to hear. The IQ predicts very well the academic success, for which it has be developed. There have been some debate about the race, but that is completely incidental, and the psychologists know that no test is really culture-free. The proponents of the IQ are not at all in this business, to be quite honest, putting aside a handful of jerks who pervert a notion they are unable to understand. The error is to give an absolute value to the measure. The IQ is predictive, pertinent, and consistent, but its evaluation is very imprecise, a difference of even 10 points makes little difference in practice. Actually, many people who say that they are successful without being intelligent often have a high IQ without knowing it. It is a paradoxe already known by the ancient Greeks, and expressed in various forms by some philosophers (like Descartes) and poets.

Remi, you mix up to notions that are completely different. The EQ is not at all the aptitude, or rather the will, to live in good harmony with people.  In French that is called "l'intelligence du coeur," but it is a completely different meaning of the word. Emotional intelligence is not kindness, generosity, compassion etc. It is the ability to process emotional data, that is, understand what they mean, predict what will happen, and above that, control one's emotions or emotions of others. That implies no good will at all, and actually the will can be nasty, like with the manipulators. I have been in a high IQ society, and then I have a completely different experience, which is more consistent with the result of serious research. Some have chosen to be helpful to their fellows, but others have chosen to display the egocentric-cynical-manipulative pattern, and thrive by putting people down and plotting against their competitors. That's another possible use of emotional intelligence. Moral qualities and cognitive abilities should not be mixed up, never. The intelligence is only a tool at the service of a personality. Personality is the most important, but without intelligence it is lame.

Two other things to add: in the abilities of emotional intelligence there is indeed emphaty, but it can also be used to control one's compassion, i.e. cynicism, and that is really nasty.

Aleš,

Edison, an inventor ? Of course : Yes ! How many patents ? Hundreds.

Einstein, an inventor ? By Jove : No ! How many patents ? None. And certainly not for Special (SR) nor General Relativity (GR).

I doubt that Einstein would have seen himself as an inventor. I think that he would have rather described himself as a researcher who sometimes becomes a discoverer (certainly not an inventor) of the laws of nature.

To use “empirical discoveries made by other people” doesn’t automatically make an inventor. It does when the idea can be patented. In the case of Einstein, it was characteristic to his occupation as a theoretical physicist. As compared to experimental physicists. He rather used his pen on backsides of old envelopes to make calculations and develop theories (as revealed by his second wife). Theoretical physicists use informations from all sources including "empirical discoveries made by other people".

But both kinds of physicists are discoverers of the secrets of nature. Not inventors. I doubt that the idea would ever have crossed the mind of Einstein that SR or GR had to be patented and he could earn money with these theories.

Dear Guibert... (-;

https://www.google.com/patents/US1781541

Dear Vasiliy,

Yes, the exception that confirms the rule ! He was probably pushed by Leo Szilard who knew his expertise with patents (as he had worked in the Patent Office of Bern ....) :=)

In my room in the student hostel there was such "a toy." We bought it for some small moneys at the departing undergraduates. Only many years later I accidentally found out that Einstein had a direct relation to this amusing gurgling fridge without compressor. It is not difficult to find a patent when you know about it for sure :)

Claude

I posted this question so it is odd that you suggest:

"that's one thing you don't want to hear"

The point is I do want to hear, that is why I asked!

You don't by any chance support Sunderland do you?

Barry, it is common to ask a question so as to have the answer one want to hear. I know to well how this type of topic end up. I overlook the personal attack for this time.

Claude

I fully agree!  

I would have to wouldn't I?

• yes intelligence quotient.is.a.real.measure of intellectual.ability

Dear Remi,

The problem of control and collision of different cultures occurs only in the presence of a gradient and, accordingly, the expansion of one culture. It does not matter, it is "western" or any other. Expansion is rarely passive. Any relatively static culture is a consequence of rather luck of favorable landscape (not literally, an adaptive landscape that for a long period is weakly subject to change). It is the expansion of another culture represents a change in this landscape.

For nature, stability is a non-existent value. This can be felt even within one human life, not civilization. The Red Queen hypothesis is scaled to any processes in which the intelligence is involved. In fact, it expresses relation of nature to stability. Any limited intelligence in harmony with the landscape can only be for a limited time. The landscape always dictates to the intelligence need for a certain share of egoism, simply because: (a) the system under consideration is not isolated, always in contact with systems with different levels of intelligence and (b) stability implies mirror relationships (i.e., equilibrium) between any interacting systems.

Egoism always kills, indirectly, through maintaining own conservative stability and blindness to the signs of change or through impermissible destruction the landscape to the advantage of own stability.

Good intelligence must feel and anticipate change. It is a balancing system with critical control, located in a dynamic environment, constantly evolving. It requires the ability to sacrifice a part of egoism in order to maintain equilibrium.

Equilibrium is the golden mean. We see all the fruits of it, but often forget that all processes far from this golden mean are subject to rapid dissipation. If it is sad for a person or a civilization to be in such zone, for nature it is indifferent. Intelligence will triumph with you or without you. So, it's not difficult to understand the problems of this "intelligent ape."

Aleš,

You must be joking ! Feynman may have seen himself as an inventor (he liked joking and reversing things …) but he is known - and received the Nobel prize - for his scientific discoveries. Edison could have had a look for scientific discoveries, however he is world known for his inventions (over thousand patents). Einstein has got 5 patents, but he is world known for his scientific discoveries which also earned him a Nobel prize, not for his poor 5 inventions. Solvay was eager to make a scientific discovery, but he is known as an inventor and compensated for his lack of success in scientific discovery by creating conferences gathering scientific discoverers (with as many Nobel prizes as possible).

To contemplate oneself or things in the future is common human feature. Thought experiments are for everybody not only a characteristic of inventors. Of discoverers too. When you cannot make the scientific experiment or want to find arguments for a discussion (see Einstein vs Bohr on Quantum Mechanics, or Schrödinger's cat), you start with thought experiments. To jump with the mind into an experimental future basing on acquired knowledge (not only resulting from experiments by others) and own thoughts is common scientific attitude. A scientific theory is not necessarily based on empirical discovery, though it may be based on one or several former empirical discoveries. But it can be fully just the result of thinking. To be corroborated (or invalidated) by further observations and experiments.   

As we have already dicussed elsewhere, the difference is in the attitude of the mind : to discover how nature works (discoverer) or to invent something useful (inventor).

Of course this is schematic. You can always extend your definition to include anybody or anything you want !

One common error: IQ can't be acquired by training.  It is a empirical data that the IQ doesn't vary much in the course of the whole life, and that's what make its pertinence. It is perhaps discouraging, but it is so. Technically, the IQ is the comparative rate of intellectual development. For children it is then not an absolute value, their abilities constantly improve, but always at about the same rate. Teaching may seems to have an effect, but the effect is greater for more gifted children.

Now we distinguish fluid and crystallised intelligence. Fluid intelligence is a given, and it allows to win more crystallised intelligence, which is a set of tools, usual thinking schemes etc. It is clear that no one can have a great achievement without much work, so crystallised intelligence is anyway required, and not a plus.

The hoax is the 25 score of Poincaré, there was't IQ tests at his time, anyway we can't know. But people we a IQ of 25 are barely able to swallow, it is a very heavy handicap. Or is it 125? There are plenty of such mythologies in this domain. It is not possible to be a great scientist without an IQ above average, there is no proven exception. A clear distinction must be made between properly measured IQ, and apparent IQ as seen by idiots, since they haven't the ability to evaluate it, and for them intelligent people are the ones who look like idiots.

Please let us try to understand, how the I.Q. is measured?

Then it will be obvious to us that accuracy depends on how efficiently  the questionare is prepared to measure the IQ.

Always please note that it is a statistical average. It is never possible to measure it absolutely, it is just a guess.

Humberto

Excellent point and illustrates a devastating confounder in this kind of 'test'.  Participant and observer bias are the main confounders in subjective theories such as intelligence testing.  Where confounders are ignored or not accounted for the results of any such tests are a toxic mix of guesswork and self fulfilling ideology.  

Obvious intellectual measures mental ability ,strength , & also understanding the effective working system of their action of life . 

Intellectual ability can not be guided only by intelligence Quotient .Ability has a measurement of the working force of mind with the power of faith ,& will power & only thru such measure which may help us to find intellectual ability .

This is my personal opinion 

not at all; some people show to have low IQ but they have amazing talents; and talents are part of intelligence, there are 8 types of intelligence including social; self-smartness, & others; those cant be measured with the IQ test

Aleš,

>> “It is you who redefined accepted meanings of invention/discovery. I accept that most scientists uses these terms loosely and presume their interpretation is right because everyone is doing it.”

and

>> “.... we name it discovery. In intellectual property law, this definition is embedded in the article requiring invention not to be discovered (by observation)”

I don’t redefine anything. I just recall obvious observed differences between “inventors” and “discoverers”. But I of course accept that you name things otherwise (as you put it : "we name it discovery”, etc.) as you’ve already several times said that you’re an inventor and confirm here that “In intellectual property law, this definition is embedded in the article requiring invention not to be discovered (by observation)”.

So inventors will indeed be very touchy on following the intellectual property law. Thank you to inform me of these definitions written in a law (I’ll have to read this intellectual property law once ….!).

However I don’t think to be obliged to adhere to these definitions as long as I’m not intending to enter myself into a patenting procedure (I’ll be very careful then of what I write in order to comply with the law ….. but only then).

Now in another thread :

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_basic_invention_principle_at_work_in_the_world

you write :

>> “Discovery only follows by empirical confirmation ...” of “... a good hypothesis (=prediction)”.

and also :

>> “GR (and SRT) were Einstein's hypothesis until others confirmed them by experiments.”

I fully agree with these sentences. This made GR (and SRT) become discoveries.

So I don’t think to be wrong when I say that Einstein was rather a “discoverer” than an “inventor”.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_basic_invention_principle_at_work_in_the_world

Intelligence Quotient (IQ) is not only a factor for intellectual achievements. Hard work, devotion to a field and social (and national) structure of the community determine the intellectual achievements of a person.

Europe, US and developing countries have a strong scientific framework (including knowledge society), so that achievements in such countries are higher than developing countries.

Sometimes intelligent minds have not a sweet heart. Such intellects can harm the society. Some intelligent people are deceived by others, the surrounding people minimize their achievements.

That is my personal opinion.

Aleš,

I don’t think to have missed anything :=)

I just understand now (after 839 answers …) that the word “invention” in the question of Bob in the other thread is restricted to the definition in the intellectual property law.

At first sight this is a bit strange because in his question Bob explains :

>> "But, I am most interested, not in the role of invention in modern technology, but in your opinions on the type of "invention" at the other-end-of-time's-arrow ..."

and also :

>> "How do you define THAT type of invention ?"

This seems to allow different personal definitions. But, if « invention » has to be understood in the sense of the intellectual property law as you explain it, then Bob’s question acquires another meaning and my reactions to it might have been different ...   

Interresting thoughts

What do IQ tests measure-SMITH LECTURE- POWERPOINT DOWNLOADDownload pptxwww.buffalo.edu-content-www-romanell-...-What-do-IQ-tests-measure.pptx