Why do so many people think that IQ is not a good measure of general intelligence?

Question

I see 'IQ is meaningless', or' IQ tests are all culturally biased' in just about every response to a question about IQ. What evidence are people that write this kind of thing referring to? What culturally skewed test are they referring to?

A.Mercer, on line tests aren't acurate. If you want an accurate test you need to do a proper sit down test from one of the big recoginsed test organisations. If you do that you won't vary by more than a few points, and they also provide a score for each type of test.

There's a kind of IQ test for people that can't read called 'Raven's progressive matrices.' Illiterate/can't spell doesn't mean stupid.

I got righteously annoyed by an IQ test that included questions about football and cars. Talk about a gender bias.
Modern IQ tests aren't supposed to contain anything like general knowledge questions of that kind, only things like 'hat is to head, as hand is to ...'
That's were the issue of cultural bias comes in.

Purveyor, you're assuming I don't know the subject that well. Believe me, I am very well researched in the history of IQ testing, it's been my major interest for the past couple of years. I know all the background by now. I just want to see someone actually show me some evidence that they have no relevance, when everything I've looked up show that IQ is a pretty good indicator of life outcome/success.

Answer 1

This is a massive field of investigation and argument in academic fields such as psychology and education.

The IQ test was originally piloted on and measured for reliability against the performance of white schoolchildren in England and the US.

Obviously (hopefully) there are going to be cultural differences between the schooling of a Chinese child and an English one, for example. So IQ tests will bring out the best in an English or American child, but may not test the skills and abilities taught to say an Ethiopian child. Does that mean that the Ethiopian child is naturally less intelligent? (of course not). It's like learning ballet for five years then entering a dance off against a breakdancer in a Bronx nightclub - you're on a loser...

To answer the rest of the question, you need to read up on it yourself, really, because it's a massive area and I don't know how to condense it into a bitesize chunk.

Suffice it to say that there is a lot of research evidence that shows that IQ testing is only about 25% accurate in predicting academic outcome of kids it's designed to test (uk and US whites). IQ tests also only test a select number of skills in a specific way, meaning that many peoples' strongest attributes would not be tested at all, but they might be weak at the ones on the test - or some people might get lucky and happen to have all their strong suits tested and none of their weak points found out.

We still don't fully understand the full extent of what intelligence is and how it works - which is why the robots that Sci-fi films promise us haven't taken over yet.

A good starter text is "Psychology: The Study of Mind and Behaviour" by Gross, or "Introduction to Psychology" by Coon. Don't rely on Wikepedia because it's written by any old person who fancies it, like on here.

Answer 2

Here is my problem with IQ. It is not consistent. There are tons of those tests online. Take a few of them. They do not always give the same score or even the same area of score. So one version of the test the person is a genius and another version the person is not. IQ might be a very general indicator but that should not be definitive answer as to whether a person is intelligent or not.

Excellent, provide me with a study that has been done to show that the tests provided by these organizations are consistent. I will bet the same thing will happen. Take the test multiple times and you will get multiple results. You might be able to get a grouping and go from there but you would need to take the test multiple times for it to be worthy as a measuring tool. It is like gathering data for science. You do not rely on a single piece of data. You need to get multiple hits to make the study of any significance.

Answer 3

At uni, for a stats course, I had to read Race, Intelligence and Education by Eysenck which is about how the original IQ tests were developed. When they first developed the tests, they found that Chinese and black people scored well. Eysenck concluded that there must be something wrong with the tests, and the tests were changed until white people could outscore black and Chinese people. That's why people talk about cultural bias. But what I don't know, is whether modern day IQ tests have had all racial bias taken out.

Answer 4

All tests are culturally skewed. The one most often referred to is probably the Wechsler.

When you are my age, you will realize that IQ means very little. It doesn't measure drive, the ability to stick to something, the ability to study, emotional health, and just plain luck. The IQ test generally means that if you get a high score, you take tests well and you may be good at some kinds of problem solving...and will therefore probably be able to get through college (thus required for college entrance).

Answer 5

Clearly they score low.
Having said this ,I believe there are a number of different types of these tests that pick up on varying skills.
e.g.
Some tests require time limits and some dont.There are people who score well with time constraints but who ultimately score less than others without time limits.
I have never heard the expression"culturally skewed",but nevertheless,Im sure that this is possible.One may be asked to follow a sequence in a question that means more to a candidate who has lived in a particular country.However,i'm sure that IQ tests are available to suit all candidates.

Answer 6

Because IQ tests are just an attempt to measure something that is extremely hard to measure.
You cant compare IQ's, based on IQ tests, fairly because the test are full of questions that some people are just going to find easier becuse of the content not because theyre less intelligent. Plus there's so many variables that its just really not reliable. The colours used and the wording of questions and the layout and everything could affect an individuals speed and performance.

Plus in different cultures people are going to be better at different things. In a less developed country they may be better at recognising patterns than number problems, and vice versa in other countries. This could just be that they dont deal with numbers on a daily basis, or at least not as much as one would in a more developed country.

You cant really say someone is more intelligent than another because they can work out the difference between 4 patterns quicker. People can excel in intelligence in different areas. People think in different ways.

IQ tests are just bad practise of science and a waste of time.

Answer 7

ALL STANDARDIZED TESTS, that's what they're referring to. And it's true, it's been scientifically proven. The evidence is published by various science mags.. Same thing with SAT tests as an indicator of intelligence, it's bogus, and favors those in certain races and of certain backrounds.
The "culturally skewed" tests are: ALL IQ TESTS, sat's, Mcats, LSAT's, and pretty much all standardized tests in the US. Does it mean that people accross ALL cultures can't do well? NO> It simply means the set-up, the questioning, and pretty much every aspect of the test favors certain folks, and puts others as a disadvantage. So, they say it cause it's TRUE. You can find the research on-line, unless that is, you're not that smart !

Answer 8

I've taken IQ tests and questions were asked about US history. Someone from India could be a genius but not be familiar with US history. Neither do IQ tests measure common sense or business sense. I doubt Sam Walton (founder of Wal Mart) would have scored as a genius but he certainly was successful at understanding business and what people wanted. Heck, Einstein would sometimes get lost walking home! How's that for smart???

Answer 9

Because all forms of intelligence can't be measured with a right or wrong answer.

I was in an honors program and we found many people who had the instincts for being a good Dr. and other fields weren't allowed much of a chance to get in those fields because their "grades" in other classes that didn't have squat to with medicine kept them out. Good grades means not much more than spitting back info......it doesn't measure if you really "know" the information.

There are people who "know" stuff that has become a part of their life or their culture but they don't have the "book learning" to get the piece of paper that says yep, you officially know it. But they are more knowledgable than the "experts" in many cases.

Having information and knowing how to use it and apply it is something that can't be measured. Countless times people say....well, according to the book it says, or doesn't say, and many times the book is wrong or incomplete. There's something to be said for instinct that can't be exactly tested or measured.

Answer 10

In essence when Horst J Eysenck devised his first tests to establish the 'intelligence quotient' they included questions relating to models of cars and other such things that were more to do with knowledge and experience and not just testing the intellectual capacity of the individual.

IQ tests have been much refined since and yet the subject is still hotly debated. Much to do with history and some earlier work from 19th Century which is now outrageously racist. You have only to search IQ through wikipaedia and see how much is open to dispute there.