vix86 wrote:

I thought a score of a 100 on an IQ test was average. Scoring a 110 is in no way bad unless you think you are extraordinary and should be scoring 150 or something.

IQ tests all have different scales, it's the percentile that counts.

Thanks for the feedback guys. I'm preoccupied at the moment, so I can't really post
a decent reply to everyone, so I'm just gonna demonstrate my current feelings about my
life (the failures, unaccomplished goals, ect.)through a nice video. I do think negative,
and it creates a sort of negative energy, which is still energy,which I try to use to move on, and achieve my goals....if I can. Note that the video only demonstrates my feeling toward myself....nothing more. Enjoy (It's valid until the 0:54 second, after that it doesn't concern me)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebMSZoYt … anslated=1
Childish? Yes. Analyse

Last edited by Raschaverak (2010 March 23, 4:10 pm)

whitefox wrote:

As others have said, IQ is definitely overrated. Don't give it too much thought.

@ruiner - I'd be interested to hear what evidence you have to suggest that IQ and academic performance (I'm assuming that's what you were referring to) were likely correlated due to self-fulfilling prophecy. I've seen studies where a teacher knowing a student's (supposed) IQ caused improved academic performance, but have yet to see one where student's IQs were measured, no one knew the result but the researcher, and the children's academic performance was not significantly correlated with their IQ. Do you know of any studies like this, or something similar that could back up your claim?

Sincerely,
A lazy psych. major trying to leech off the knowledge of others;)

I can provide general links as to my thoughts on 'g' and IQ, but what I meant by self-fulfilling prophecy was in regards to arguments that because we can correlate success on various measurements with other measurements, we (ie some people) assume that the cause is genetic or neural, rather than based on the actual environment/education of people as applied to the sorts of cognitive tasks they are tested on. I'll grab some links (this is exhausting ;p)

To put it another way, I see various forms of logical fallacies in this research across the board, from depression and medication* to IQ... that doesn't mean I think they're completely wrong**, but that they are taking too many steps in one direction, as it were:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlatio … _causation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_relationship

*Not to dredge up an old argument but I want to counterbalance my earlier arguments in another thread while I'm at it, because I think drugs are useful, but more as a general jumpstart: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277931/ ; http://www.psychiatry.info/psychiatrist … psychosis/ ; http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/03/m … s_031710w/

**Related: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/conten … amp;db=all

Here's where I'm coming from, but looks like this section had been 'spun' a bit by the latest editors... a problem with Wikipedia articles, the more rabid proponents will end up editing the 'criticisms' sections of articles so that 'responses to criticisms' end up overwhelming the criticisms, regardless of the actual research consensus... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_in … enges_to_g

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_neo-Pi … _Demetriou - I didn't know about this person till I read their thoughts on 'self-awareness' which goes in hand with metacognition and the like. To be fair, here's a recent article on intelligence that talks about the biology beneath intelligence, but I think stuff like this emphasizes neural substrates too much (ie not just existing and interacting, but primarily determining) the way people searching for neural correlates of consciousness mistakenly think consciousness must have 'qualia' rather than being 'fame in the brain' - http://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4705.full

I have no problem with IQ or 'g' as long as it's understood they're socially constructed measurements and dependent on self-study/education/etc. with obvious physical variables, rather than genetics and suchlike. Most people devising these tests or 'brain training' things, from what I've seen, have really poor insight into domain-specific/PDP cognition and the like, even though they enjoy compartmentalizing tasks into 'math' and 'language', etc, so it's kind of a separate 'design' related problem I have with those types.

http://sciencewatch.com/dr/fbp/2009/09a … ungET1.pdf - Article and peer commentary...

Basically anything that doesn't view metacognition and self-controllable fluidity and constant dynamics as the primary emergentist/embodied aspects and determinants of intelligence, specific or general, then I disagree with it. ;p

Ha, I was just getting ready to argue for this concept of 'g' and the speciousness of measuring it to become more like a dynamic understanding the way some can think of consciousness and how to apply it to new models of education, and I was going to chide Demetriou for not realizing this amidst all their talk of 'Self-awareness in g' (someone have this article, by the way? I can't find) and modularity... then I found this, which argues for a plastic (even down to the brain) notion of general intelligence to be applied... when they put it this way, it reminds me of my own theories about processing vs. retaining information and how to conflate them in the SRS, haha.

Can we be intelligent about intelligence? Why education needs the concept of plastic general ability

Between that and the extensive, what I would call almost 'emergentist' peer commentary referenced in above sciencewatch article, I am feeling mollified but still wary.

Bonus: 'Counterfactual' Thinkers Are More Motivated and Analytical, Study Suggests

Last edited by ruiner (2010 March 23, 7:36 pm)

@ ruiner - Thanks for the lengthy response. There were some interesting reads in there. I guess what bugged me in your original statement is what you alluded to in your above post: the very limited understanding we have of how to define intelligence. It's of course therefore very difficult to measure something if you aren't sure what it is.

It would be pretty stupid of me to argue that brain plasticity doesn't play a big role in the brain and that metacognition (I learned a new word today!) can't play a role in this. That being said, to suggest intelligence is only 1% genetic seems very extreme to me (I don't know whether you were exaggerating or not). I can't think of a single physical attribute where genetics does not play a significant (although often not most important) role. To suggest that the brain is somehow an exception to this rule seems unlikely.

I agree with you that searching the brain for intelligence or consciousness are futile efforts, especially when our understanding of both is very limited. However, this does not mean that they don't have a strong biological basis. I don't think it would be ridiculous to suggest that while the brain's plasticity may allow for changes in ability, the extent to which it can change may hinge on genetic factors. No evidence to support this, just conjecture.

One final point:

ruiner wrote:

I have no problem with IQ or 'g' as long as it's understood they're socially constructed measurements...

I agree with this statement. They are socially constructed measurements, but what are they trying to measure? I would argue they are measuring socially constructed phenomenon. As far as our daily lives are concerned, most of our activities are societal constructs. Therefore, to the extent that tests like IQ tests are accurate measurements of societal constructs, it would seem that they would predict success at life (or at least its more superficial components). When people are worried about their intelligence, like the OP, I think their real concern is whether they have the ability to succeed in life (school, career, language learning, etc.). To the extent that these things can be measured by tests (and I believe that to some extent they can) the issue of intelligence becomes irrelevant for these individuals. It really becomes something for the realm of academic interest alone.

I hope this rant made some kind of sense. I can't even remember what point I was trying to make