Many I.Q tests incorporate general knowledge into their questions. What is the relationship between knowledge and I.Q? Also, why do I.Q tests often involve a time constraint? Is person who took a longer time to arrive at the correct answer less smarter another who took a shorter time? Can a person's I.Q change drastically over time? Everyone who has knowledge can tell me all you know. Rest assured, i'd read through every post.
2006-09-30 06:20:26 · 8 answers · asked by Whore_of_Babylon 2 in Social Science ➔ Psychology
A lot of questions - in order
1) Psychologists would distinguish between fluid intelligence (problem solving, abstract) and crystalline intelliigence (facts we know) both are thought to be part of what we mean by the commonsense definition of intelligence.
2) Time constraint - Intelligence is thought to have something to do with the speed of processing. Often very literally - See A Jensen "Straight talk about mental testing"
3) The whole point of the IQ is that is is a quotient of performance over chronological age and therefore measuring it at different points in a subjects life would be likely to produce variation. Drastic changes might be relatively unexpected by things as varied as brain injury and bad hangover would make a significant difference. There is also a noticeable effect of practice on performance.
Generally you should also be cautious about IQ scores people report from tests administered to them some time ago. Given the developmental nature of intelligence this would be particularly true of scores in childhood and adolescence.
Fluid intelligence seems to peak in the mid-20's. This is why mathematicians usually do their best work early. In contrast crystalline intelligence could be expected to continue to develop over time as we learn more. The question would then become at what point we forget more than we take in.
If you are interested in the debate about intelligence Leo Kamin has been a vocal and insightful critic of IQ testing taking on HJ Eysenck and C Burt and his books and articles are well worth a read.
2006-09-30 06:43:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
As a member of MENSA I can say this about IQ tests.
1. General knowlegde is not a test of intelligence, just of memory.
2. IQ tests are formed using abstract concepts, shapes, numbers, patterns that the sitter is required to sort into a meaningful solution. True IQ tests, like the mensa one, don't use general knowledge.
3. The time factor is important, there are more questions than you can answer in the tests, but the more you can answer correctly in the time, the smarter you are.
4. The mensa IQ test gives a maximum score of 161 on an exponential sliding scale, each point is twice as hard to get as the last one. The average IQ is 100.
To learn more....
http://www.mensa.org/index0.php?page=10
2006-09-30 13:30:59 · answer #2 · answered by stevensontj 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hey there,
For sure, Daniel B. gave the best answer.. Just to add my two cents.
i always thought this topic was interesting. Binet, designed the these kinds of tests to measure how children would compare against a sample. From the sample, you get a norm. When children take the tests they will either will score with their peers, higher or lower. So knowledge is very important (but judgement is just as important, Binet really believed this) He also never believed that these IQ tests should never be used against someone because he did not feel that it was the most accurate way to measure someone's ability. He also believed that IQ can obviously change over time, For one, environment plays a huge part in our IQ. It can affect our IQ drastically.
2006-10-01 01:09:02 · answer #3 · answered by Psychogirlfrog 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't trust any IQ test that involved asking general knowledge questions. Generally, IQ tests are divided into three categories - verbal ability, numerical ability and visuo-spatial ability. The time taken for a standard IQ test incorporating the three categories is 30 minutes, and is such that everyone has an equal time to do the test. Whether you take longer to answer or not is not really the criteria, but how many correct answers you give. Your IQ will change over time, but not drastically.
2006-09-30 13:38:45 · answer #4 · answered by Scabius Fretful 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
IQ tests aren't terribly accurate. People like them because they make it easy to put people in little groups. Some people, however, just don't test well. There may also be racial or gender biases in the tests, from the way they word things to assuming knowledge that not everyone may have. They also don't measure intellegence, but rather the aptitude for learning.
2006-09-30 13:30:33 · answer #5 · answered by random6x7 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I admit I can't answer every one of your questions; but I know this,.. I.Q is different from knowledge in that I.Q is ones ability to suss things out that don't require general knowledge,.. ie,.. why two squares make a rectangle,... or why 2lbs of lead is the same as 2lbs of feathers etc etc,....
I hope the two links below help explain it further,... enjoy.
2006-09-30 13:26:00 · answer #6 · answered by wildimagination2003 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first test given is the most reliable. Since you learn how to take the test better the more you take it. The time constant is to judge people who get equivalent answers and to adjust for previous tests. If you score the same score the second time but do in it half the time, the odds are that you memorized it.
2006-09-30 13:24:41 · answer #7 · answered by Cabhammer 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are as realible as Scientology tests!
2006-09-30 13:22:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋