is the idea of an IQ the current containment of knowledge just at the current time, or the is it the capability of knowledge that can be held. What i mean by the first sentence is the measurement of the IQ that has just been taken in the test the IQ that you currently have but also having the capability of raising it, or is it the maximum capability?
2007-09-17 05:51:03 · 5 answers · asked by hidavedavid 3 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Medicine
In theory, a person's IQ is always the same, and any change in IQ means that one of the tests was inaccurate.
In practice, there are so many problems and contradictions regarding the concept of IQ that it is not taken very seriously anymore. Certainly an IQ of 70 or 130 reflects a significant deviation from the norm, but a variation of 5 or 10 points could be a reflection on the test as much as the person.
For example, it is possible to produce two IQ tests such that males perform 3-4 points better on one, whereas females perform 3-4 points better on the other. This is decidedly not a quality you would want from an objective statistic.
2007-09-17 16:08:32 · answer #1 · answered by TFV 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, testing IQ is not accurate or consistent across tests, so it really is a basic score. It THEORETICALLY is based on intelligence capability, so what someone scores at 6 yrs old should be the same as what they score at 20. This doesn't actually happen, so the tests are somewhat flawed. Also, IQ tests are based upon an older definition of intelligence. Gardner's multiple intelligences is now what is seen as the most accepted. However, for some diagnostic purposes, IQ tests are still administered.
In short, it SHOULD measure capability, but in reality it does measure what someone knows to a point.
2007-09-17 13:01:33 · answer #2 · answered by Lindsay A 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I accidently exited when I shouldn't have before. basically iq=(mental age/physical age)*100 so if mental age goes up no. there would be no limit. if there is I haven't reached it. if iq was knowledge based then why do i suck for iq. I know the periodic table almost completely, pi to thirty to fifty digits, apparently the biochemistry of my kidney condition better than the future doctors for it. i've scored below average on online iq test. when i was a grade eight student I tried to teach the grade nines the periodic table for there test they had.
2007-09-17 13:56:24 · answer #3 · answered by SCIENCE_MAN_88@YAHOO.COM 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the particular test being used. Most of them are supposed to show sum of knowledge and potential for learning, though.
It's generally considered reliable, but not absolutely perfect. There are a lot of variables. For example, somebody might not be feeling well on the day of testing and score lower. Sometimes the tests are criticized for cultural bias and people who are not part of the dominant culture may score lower because of this.
2007-09-17 12:59:36 · answer #4 · answered by majnun99 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
IQ is suppose to test your logical/problem solving abilities. It isn't a test of "knowledge" it is more a test of how quick you can learn/figure something out. In this essence, it isn't suppose to be something that fluctuates as you learn more. It is suppose to be your inherent ability to think logically/problem solve which generally aren't learned traits.
2007-09-17 13:03:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋