Do IQ tests really measure intelligence?

Question

If they do, how come you get a progressively higher score the more you take them? Is it that having a high IQ means you're good at IQ tests or is your intelligence actually increasing?

Answer 1

Well, what is intelligence?

Define it for me.

Can you? Probably not. Not without giving your own arbitrary opinion on the matter. The fact is, noone has put forth a properly defined model of intelligence that has been universally accepted.

So in reality, IQ is just 'IQ', meaning that it is a fairly accurate and standardized measure of specific mental abilities. Is it perfect? No, of course not. But it's a way to lay a groundwork for what intelligence is, and to test it in a concrete way.

Also, taking many IQ tests tends not to raise your IQ that much. Several points, but the increase seems more artificial than real, since most of it comes from increasing your test taking and guessing skills.

Answer 2

They sort of measure Intelligence (or a subsection), but depending on the test, limited types of intelligence. Usually it tests for fluid (figuring things out) and Crystallized intelligence (facts). It does not measure other intelligences (kinestetic, musical, artistic etc.) As far as getting higher scores each time, this is the Test-Retest phenomanon. People do better on all tests the more they take them (in general). That is why one should not recieve the same test within 3 months, and preferably not for 6 months.
Also you have ceiling and floor effects. A ceiling effect is when someone does so well on a test that the test is no longer accurate, and they get a score that is possibly accurate or lower than their actual IQ. For instance for the WAIS can't really test above 135 or so, so even someone with a higher IQ will still score around there or lower (you'd have to understand how the test is scored for me to explain that more thoroughly.) Anyway, this means that when people brag about their IQs in the 160s and 170s, I would wonder what test they are using.(Some tests do go that high, but they really aren't used).
The true reason IQ tests were developed was that in France they wanted to be able to see who was mentally retarded so they could get more appropriate education. Now they are often used as part of a battery to check for learning disabilities.
If you wanted to really measure intelligence you would have to ask all of the possible questions, so the tests try to use representative questions.

Answer 3

Depends, are you taking the same test over and over again? If so, you shouldn't be asking this question because it's obvious. But if not, my answer is no. I don't really trust IQ tests because it doesn't ask every question covering every area which is needed to get a person's true intelligence. IQ tests only give a certain amount of questions on certain areas. You could have gotten an IQ test with questions that you don't know and got a very bad score. But thats just the test's fault, you know youre smarter than that and you can do better, you didn't know the answers on that IQ test but you do know much more other stuff. So i don't think so, the only way ur IQ increases is by studying and through expierence

Answer 4

Well, what is intelligence? We don't know exactly what the tests measure, but we do know that the results correlate well with the ability to solve problems & with success in life.

Yes, the more you do one type of test the higher your score. This is also true of crosswords, Sudoku & a lot of other things that correlate well with "intelligence". The fact is that IQ tests are meant to be taken as a one-off: one practice to give you the idea, then the test. This is exactly so that you get, as far as possible, a measure of innate intelligence rather than acquired skills.

The respondent who said that the tests were introduced and designed to prove racial superiority is just plain wrong. Some tests are inadvertently biased, but a lot of work has gone into designing tests which are as far as humanly possible value-free: for instance nonverbal tests involving sets and sequences of abstract black/white patterns which do not depend on cultural or racial factors.

The reason you have to give your age is that up to the age of 16 the brain develops very rapidly. An average 10-y-o brain can spot more patterns, logical connexions etc. than an average 9-y-o brain. If you are 8 but perform as well as a 10-y-o, your actual age is still 8, but your mental age is 10.

So to get a reading allowing comparison between children of different ages,, you divide mental age by chroological age. You then multiply the result by 100 and that is the IQ. So our little genius above has IQ 10/8 x 100 = 125. The average is 100.

Tests for adults are of course scored on a different basis. IQ does not remain the same throughout life, but (unless you get Alzheimer's) actually varies surprisingly little in most cases.

For those who are interested, the first serious IQ tests were developed by the US army in WWI precisely to pick out the privates who were officer material, regardless of their background or previous education. It worked extremely well and still does in all sorts of areas - hence the continuing high level of confidence in & use of these tests.

A word of warning: most of the test-your-own-IQ sites on the Net are unadulterated, fermented holy cr@p. Do not trust them, gentle maiden.

Answer 5

They may show a basic level of intelligence but they do not show that some people perform above their IQ and some below it. They take no account of social background which may have an effect on the way questions are answered
In other words it is a crude method which has it's advantages.

I did hear of one company who rejected a candidate on his IQ score, it was very high, because the thought was that someone with a lower IQ would put the extra effort in to master the job

Answer 6

It depends who sets the IQ tests, and what parts of "intelligence" you're looking for.

For example MENSA look for people who can slove logic puzzles, shape puzzles and word puzzles (i know that is a broad generalisation, but its to show my argument).

However, IQ tests run by psychologists to measure IQ - for example in people who may have a learning disability, or have a mental health problem that may be impeding a particular part of their thinking - look at lots of areas, and give individual scores for each section. For example a person may have above average intelligence in all sections but verbal reasoning, but therefore their overall IQ score would be low bacuse of the verbal reasoning - as this woul impact on their intelectual ability. Hope that makes sense.

Answer 7

IQ tests don't measure intelligence per se, they measure the brain's capacity for learning, the higher the IQ, the faster and more accurately one learns new things.

Answer 8

These tests are indicative of the expected intelligence level . The most important conclusion of the IQ tests is that they indicate "interactive collective dissociated, abstract, power of focus and concentration." A person with high IQ level tends to rise in life as compared to those with lower IQ.

Answer 9

When you do a test have you noticed that they ask for your age, so it's logical that your IQ changes over time. Me I'm just good at IQ tests as they are usually logic problems. Have often wondered why it's not called a logic test.

Answer 10

Meh, debateable. They don't really because you can train to become good at them. I remember meeting a Mensan who trained for ages and took about 25 tests before she eventually got a good enough score to get in. It tests all sorts of things, like word power, maths skills, lateral thinking etc, and is the best test for intelligence we have, but doesn't really measure genius potential precisely.

ETA: I think an aptitude test is as good an indicator of IQ. What they're trying to get at is the way you think - are you lateral, logical etc?