Int = IQ?

[Nifft]

I don't use any INT = NxIQ formula because the two measurements are abstract and unrelated.

QFT.

Cheers, -- N

 

[mara]

There are all sorts of different IQ tests, of course.

Yep. I'm particularly fond of tests like these.

'no such thing as intelligence' - I meant no such thing as a single intelligence, in the way there is strength or dexterity. Claims that there are multiple intelligences which do not in any way correlate fit this. Where intelligence-related abilities do correlate, that indicates a single underlying intelligence, or 'g'.
Of course you can argue there are multiple different sorts of strength or dexterity likewise, but they do correlate - with muscle mass, with hand-eye co-ordination.

The existence of 'g' is questionable. Stephen J. Gould addresses it a bit here.

 

[Roman]

Nope. Because the guy who invented IQ testing stated that his test would not be able to measure above average intelligence. It was only designed for testing learning disabilities.

No subsequent modification to or defense of IQ testing indicates to me that scores over 100 accurately measure anything at all.

Although I am also sceptical with respect to IQ's potential for measuring intelligence (indeed, it is difficult to even agree on what is intelligence), the fact that many psychologists do use it, does indicate that there may be something to it - they are supposed to be the experts on the matter after all. Nonetheless, I too am sceptical.

 

[Roman]

Plenty of people with measured IQ below 60 speak just fine. If you have a low IQ it might be because you're organically retarded, ie you have a mental disabilty which might also inhibit your speaking ability, but you might be a perfectly normal functional person. Khoi San (bushmen) measure around 57 median IQ, and of course they can speak just fine and are not mentally retarded!

The estimates I've seen put median chimpanzee IQ at around 25-30, which fits D&D's INT 2-4 listing, and median monkey IQ around 12. If dogs have a measurable IQ, which I doubt, it's probably below 12, at least for most breeds.

Can I see some sources for these claims? I am not disputing them, but I would love to have some confirmation of chimpanzee and monkey IQs (and hopefully also how they were measured).

While there are some political attempts to claim there's no such thing as intelligence, general intelligence or 'g' seems to be mostly about brain processing power, much as strength is a factor of muscle power.

If that were the case, than 'g' should be measurable in objective units rather than relative units (such as IQ). 'G' then should be expressible in something like 'core operations per second' or other such units. I would love to see a conversion formula of IQ into such objective units, but I doubt there is one, which leads me to question the idea that 'g'/IQ actually measures the processing power of the brain.

The simplest measure of your g is how fast you respond to a stimulus, eg in a "light goes off, press buzzer" test, how fast you begin to move hand towards the buzzer after a light goes off correlates closely with IQ as measured by other tests.

Ouch, this test would indicate a very low intelligence in my case.

 

[Roman]

An average dog has roughly the same IQ as a 3 year old human child. If we assume Int 3 is the minimum needed for speech, dogs should have Int 3 too; since 3 year olds can usually speak more or less coherently (if not perfectly). Assuming a dog has an IQ of 25-30 (as you're guessing, and it sounds about right to me), the whole Int*3 = IQ thing works out pretty good, actually.

I am honestly mystified as to how you come to the conclusion that dogs are as intelligent as 3 year old human children.

On a side note, they say an IQ of 20 is just enough to figure out how to open a door...

Do you have any source on this? It is quite interesting - do you have also any other comparisons of what IQ is required for other specific tasks?

 

[Slife]

While there are some political attempts to claim there's no such thing as intelligence, general intelligence or 'g' seems to be mostly about brain processing power, much as strength is a factor of muscle power. The simplest measure of your g is how fast you respond to a stimulus, eg in a "light goes off, press buzzer" test, how fast you begin to move hand towards the buzzer after a light goes off correlates closely with IQ as measured by other tests.

Looks like Stephen Hawking isn't so smart after all.

(I don't think measuring intelligence based on physical coordination is very accurate)

 

[fusangite]

Although I am also sceptical with respect to IQ's potential for measuring intelligence (indeed, it is difficult to even agree on what is intelligence), the fact that many psychologists do use it, does indicate that there may be something to it - they are supposed to be the experts on the matter after all. Nonetheless, I too am sceptical.

(a) Most cognitive psychologists are not cognitive psychologists
(b) The majority of both psychologists and cognitive psychologists reject IQ

 

[interwyrm]

I think that was me; roughly mapping a 3d6 bell curve INT to IQ distribution.

Maybe you posted it somewhere too, but I have proof of my posting!!!

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3220078&postcount=48

 

[Roman]

(a) Most cognitive psychologists are not cognitive psychologists
(b) The majority of both psychologists and cognitive psychologists reject IQ

I don't know about that. The APA apparently seems to consider IQ as valid, at least according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ

As I said, I am sceptical about IQ's validity as a measure of a concept as nebulous as intelligence, but I am willing to defer to experts, since they surely must know more about it than a layman like me. Still, in order to 'fully' accept the validity of IQ as measuring some kind of 'general processing power of the brain', I would probably need to see some kind of conversion into 'objective units' I described above along with a reasonable justification for the conversion rate.

(Looks like Stephen Hawking isn't so smart after all.

(I don't think measuring intelligence based on physical coordination is very accurate)

I agree that measuring intelligence based on reaction time is highly suspect, but I think Stephen Hawking is not a good example to illustrate this, as he is physically disabled, so that would automatically skew the results. To see whether it is valid; one would need to look at reaction time and IQ in the physically healthy population. I can see what S'mon was getting at: a faster reaction time indicates greater general processing speed of the brain, but I am still sceptical, as there could be a huge number of other factors influencing reaction time (it could be governed by a specific loop relatively unrelated to other brain functions, or it could go through a specific decision-making bottleneck, or it could even indicate a lower processing power of the brain but concentrated attention, etcetera, etcetera).

 

[S'mon]

Looks like Stephen Hawking isn't so smart after all.

(I don't think measuring intelligence based on physical coordination is very accurate)

It could equally be measured by an eye-flick in Hawking's case. Note that it is the time-to-*begin* to react that correlates with other IQ measurements, not the completion of an action, which is more to do with hand-eye co-ordination.