Int = IQ?

[S'mon]

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

Marxists like Gould generally do not accept g or any attempt to measure intelligence. In particular they do not accept measurements that result in varied median population measurements by country, race, social class, etc.

I'm not sure where this discussion shades over into political discussion? So much science is politicised these days.

 

[S'mon]

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).

Parker & McKinney, (1999): Origins of Intelligence: The Evolution of Cognitive Development in Monkeys, Apes & Humans; Baltimore, MD, pub. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Applying the Piaget stages of human development, monkeys top out at about a 2 year old human toddler, ca IQ 12 (where 100 is median European adult/18 year old human), while apes reach roughly the level of a 3-4 year old, ca IQ 22.

 

[S'mon]

II 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...

Correct, it's not a perfect (1:1) correlation by any manner of means.

 

[mara]

Marxists like Gould generally do not accept g or any attempt to measure intelligence. In particular they do not accept measurements that result in varied median population measurements by country, race, social class, etc.

I'm not sure where this discussion shades over into political discussion? So much science is politicised these days.

Right, calling him a Marxist makes the problems with the tests disappear so you can ignore them completely. I see.

-Mara
wandering off

 

[mcrow]

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.

Yeah, I agree. I'm not sure that IQ testing 100% accurately measures intelligence, but I think that it does work as reasonable "yard stick".

It think we can all agree that anyone who scores high on an IQ test is probly very smart.

I just saw an article somewhere about 2 year old who qualified for Mensa with something like a 138 IQ.

 

[interwyrm]

Right, calling him a Marxist makes the problems with the tests disappear so you can ignore them completely. I see.

-Mara
wandering off

I actually read (most) of his book, The Mismeasure of Man. S'mon is kind of right. It seems like the major basis for Gould's ideas is a rationalization based on disgust at the idea that two populations could have measureably different intelligences. It's not exactly Marxist, but I think what S'mon is trying to get at it is that Gould refuses to acknowledge that people have different capabilities and that those capabilities can be measured in some way.

If I remember right, the two major complaints were that using a single factor to measure intelligence (g) is insufficient, and that tests are inherently culture-biased.


As for animals and little kids, I read somewhere that Koko the Gorilla had an IQ tested somewhere in the 70s. There are quite a bit of people on EnWorld who are past the same percentile on the other side. I'm surprised Mensa would allow a test given to a two year old. There are tests for babies, but they are notoriously inaccurate. The baby tests, at least, involve measuring how long a baby pays attention to a new object. The less time, the higher IQ.

 

[mara]

My objection was that he's stating his position as if it's neutral and objective, when it is not. Putting forth a bit of science that has a racist and classist history then calling politics on objections to that science silences a dissenting viewpoint while portraying the original science as falsely politically neutral and dispassionate.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

IQ scale    3d6 scale    percentile
55        5.4        0.15
70        7.1        2.2
85        8.8        16
100        10.5        50
115        12.2        84    (aside: this is about average for PCs)
130        13.9        97.8
145        15.6        99.85

In other words, assuming that 3d6 describes the distribution in the general population (and I like to stick with that benchmark), an ability score of 16+ is about as unusual as an IQ of 145+

Interestingly, that works out to every two points/+1 bonus equaling one standard deviation.

Which is what I'd always kind of figured.

Brad

 

[Jolly Giant]

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

I didn't; others did. I have no idea how exactly. My source for this is an encyclopedia of dogs.

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?

I read it an article about IQ, years ago. Can't remember where, I'm afraid. I listed examples of how much IQ was needed for different tasks. The one with the door was the one that stuck in my mind. I remember that IQ = 79 or less was defined as 'mildly retarded' and 59 or less 'severly retarded' (clinically and legally speaking). And IIRC, IQ = 1 was defined as 'pupils contract when exposed to bright light'.

 

[Roman]

I didn't; others did. I have no idea how exactly. My source for this is an encyclopedia of dogs.

Fair enough, but it just does not seem credible. Three year old children can be pretty smart and can communicate effectively and in precise manner. As much as I like dogs, I have to acknowledge that they are simply not that smart - there is no way you can get a dog to talk (using proxy signals), even though it often seems that way with our best friends.

I read it an article about IQ, years ago. Can't remember where, I'm afraid. I listed examples of how much IQ was needed for different tasks. The one with the door was the one that stuck in my mind. I remember that IQ = 79 or less was defined as 'mildly retarded' and 59 or less 'severly retarded' (clinically and legally speaking). And IIRC, IQ = 1 was defined as 'pupils contract when exposed to bright light'.

Very interesting, especially with regards to the IQ = 1 definition. A pity that you cannot remember the article, as I would love to find out more about it, but a quick internet search did not find anything.