Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
IQ to INT equivalent
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael Tree" data-source="post: 950059" data-attributes="member: 1455"><p>Once again, many of the biggest problems people have with IQ tests stem from misunderstandings by laymen and the belief that major problems with the earliest tests still exist in current tests.</p><p></p><p>To a certain degree, it's like criticizing modern physics because earlier physicists believed in ether and phlogiston, or saying modern neurosurgery is quackery because in the past neurosurgeons did frontal lobotomies.</p><p></p><p>IQ tests do not in any way measure "innate genetic ability" in isolation from environment and upbringing. That's not a fault, it's a simple reality. A person's abilities are <em>always</em> influenced by environment. Would Mozart have been a fantastic composer if he wasn't raised with music? Would olympic runners have been such great athletes if they were malnourished as children? Would great scientists have been so great if their mothers drank alcohol when they were in the womb, or if they went to bad schools? Not likely. That's not to say that there isn't a significant genetic component to IQ tests, just that in any individual person it's impossible to untangle the effects of genes and environment.</p><p></p><p>There is also a <em>lot</em> more to IQ tests than a single number. As others have mentioned, test reports are typically several pages long. (Good) IQ tests are composed of multiple subtests, each measuring performance on different tasks. Sometimes a person performs consistently on all these subtests, in which case the total IQ number is a reasonable approximation of their abilities. However, when subtest scores vary significantly, that provides information into that person's areas of strengths and weaknesses. Those who would criticize the fact that a person getting 115 scores in both verbal and non-verbal performance subscores has the same overall IQ score (115) as a person getting 100 verbal and 130 performance subscores are missing the point. In the latter, the overall IQ score is essentially meanigless, and should not be given any weight.</p><p></p><p>Situational and historical factors must also be used when interpreting IQ tests. The differences in scores between different cultures and regions that others have mentioned do exist, though much much better than they used to be. But when interpreting the results of IQ tests these need to be taken into account, not ignored, pretending they don't exist.</p><p></p><p>As for the statistical basis of IQ tests, yes, many of the earlier ones were seriously flawed. So what? Modern tests have a much sounder statistical foundation.</p><p></p><p>Overall, Gould seriously overstates his case (as usual - Gould is a propagandist arguing for a specific position, rather than a scientific reviewer aiming to give a balanced view of all the positions). Gould's overemphasis on 'G' as a concept ignores the fact that, in practice, IQ tests are used for a <em>lot</em> more than just the overall IQ score. It's true that sometimes a full-scale IQ score is valid for a person, and sometimes it's not (as I described above), and any qualified tester would tell you that. Arguing that the variable validity of G as a measure is a fundemental flaw with testing seriously misses the point.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael Tree, post: 950059, member: 1455"] Once again, many of the biggest problems people have with IQ tests stem from misunderstandings by laymen and the belief that major problems with the earliest tests still exist in current tests. To a certain degree, it's like criticizing modern physics because earlier physicists believed in ether and phlogiston, or saying modern neurosurgery is quackery because in the past neurosurgeons did frontal lobotomies. IQ tests do not in any way measure "innate genetic ability" in isolation from environment and upbringing. That's not a fault, it's a simple reality. A person's abilities are [i]always[/i] influenced by environment. Would Mozart have been a fantastic composer if he wasn't raised with music? Would olympic runners have been such great athletes if they were malnourished as children? Would great scientists have been so great if their mothers drank alcohol when they were in the womb, or if they went to bad schools? Not likely. That's not to say that there isn't a significant genetic component to IQ tests, just that in any individual person it's impossible to untangle the effects of genes and environment. There is also a [i]lot[/i] more to IQ tests than a single number. As others have mentioned, test reports are typically several pages long. (Good) IQ tests are composed of multiple subtests, each measuring performance on different tasks. Sometimes a person performs consistently on all these subtests, in which case the total IQ number is a reasonable approximation of their abilities. However, when subtest scores vary significantly, that provides information into that person's areas of strengths and weaknesses. Those who would criticize the fact that a person getting 115 scores in both verbal and non-verbal performance subscores has the same overall IQ score (115) as a person getting 100 verbal and 130 performance subscores are missing the point. In the latter, the overall IQ score is essentially meanigless, and should not be given any weight. Situational and historical factors must also be used when interpreting IQ tests. The differences in scores between different cultures and regions that others have mentioned do exist, though much much better than they used to be. But when interpreting the results of IQ tests these need to be taken into account, not ignored, pretending they don't exist. As for the statistical basis of IQ tests, yes, many of the earlier ones were seriously flawed. So what? Modern tests have a much sounder statistical foundation. Overall, Gould seriously overstates his case (as usual - Gould is a propagandist arguing for a specific position, rather than a scientific reviewer aiming to give a balanced view of all the positions). Gould's overemphasis on 'G' as a concept ignores the fact that, in practice, IQ tests are used for a [i]lot[/i] more than just the overall IQ score. It's true that sometimes a full-scale IQ score is valid for a person, and sometimes it's not (as I described above), and any qualified tester would tell you that. Arguing that the variable validity of G as a measure is a fundemental flaw with testing seriously misses the point. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
IQ to INT equivalent
Top