IQ (moved subtopic)
^^Hey Luciom, can you remind me again how smart JD Vance is? Above, same, or below the average MAGA chode?
I have no problem with schools using affirmative action to help people like Vance with humble backgrounds.... but maybe not in law school where these idiots start becoming dangerous. And they got to find smarter people then Vance or the whole thing just looks ridiculous and all you're doing is de-valuing your own department.
Why would you think that jw? Like you’ve never taken an IQ test, prob don’t know anything about them, but when someone retells what their experience is, you say oh you’re prob wrong
Why do you think that?
Because I know several people whose children have taken IQ tests as part of neuropsych evaluations, and I know at least one person who administers such tests. Also, I was unable to find any verification of your claim on the internet.
We took two tests. One of them was a Wonderlic test (which isn’t an IQ test obviously). I did not feel good about my performance on that. I am a very slow test taker and the Wonderlick is all about speed.
Don’t remember much about the second one tbh. Things other people are saying about pattern recognition with shapes and numbers and all kinda rings a bell I guess.
They were both pen and paper tests in a quiet classroom for a couple hours on a Saturday afternoon. If there was a doctor there tazing me in the balls to distract me, I blocked that part out.
I don’t even remember getting the results back. Just a letter from Mensa congratulating me on doing well enough to be in their club and a welcome packet. Again though, pretty confident it’s not the wonderlic that did it.
I never actually did anything as part of my membership. Probably name dropped it a couple of times before it became clear to me how humiliating that was.
Can't wait for PW to post his results, expect he'll be somewhere with the rest of the "Po" club.
I don’t have any proof. I was told I scored 137 by my mum. I seem to remember it was under 140 and over 130
Like I said tho, find me three forum people who scored higher than I did on the asvab and I’ll pay you $50
There are all kinds of different IQ tests. Which begs a question about g-factor. If there’s a measurable general intelligence associated with each individual that can be summed up by One Number, and that individual has 5 different scores from 5 different tests, which of the 5 numbers is the One Number?
Because I know several people whose children have taken IQ tests as part of neuropsych evaluations, and I know at least one person who administers such tests. Also, I was unable to find any verification of your claim on the internet.
IQ testing is part of the field psychometrics and a typical part of a psychology education. IQ as a concept it arose in the field of psychology, and its precursor which it is very much based on upon, g-factor, is the work of Charles Spearman, a British psychologist doing work in the early 1900s.
Who administers them varies. It could often be a psychologist, especially in research settings. However, it's not like using a ready-made instrument is some wildly technical task. That can be a problem in itself, because exactly what IQ means is hazier than most laymen think. So while administering a test can be easy, the results might very well be used in dubious ways. One could imagine a company using IQ testing as guidance for deciding promotions, which over time would probably render the relationship between IQ testing and how well people do in your company somewhat fallacious.
Tests are generally performed as a typical school test, which is to say at a desk, in a quiet environment, using pen and paper (or digital equivalent). Some tests are timed, some or not and test times can vary. There are many different instruments that seek to measure IQ, they are in effect statistical models that are designed to correlate with the aforementioned "g-factor", a practice dubbed "g-loading".
A set population for testing (for example "adults in the US") will have its average result set to be scored at a 100. This so you can compare scores across population that vary hugely in results, for example children versus adults or for comparing regions with wildly differing access to formal schooling (though regions with little to no access to formal schooling generally has no systematic IQ test, so this works imperfectly). It also allows us to compare results over time, because due to the
, a lot of populations have had an enormous increase in test results. If we didn't regularly set a new average result for a 100, the average today would be a much higher number than the average of the early 1930s for example.
Despite this, people get a kick out of comparing average scores across regions (they'll use the test results set to a general average score), which is really something the IQ test is not designed to do well. This has even given rise to some pretty racist literature. Interestingly, many countries in the west are now likely to be overtaken in these "absolute scores" by certain countries from regions that previously had worse results. I suspect those racist theories will suddenly be less popular.
Sauce: My own education and profession.
As far as I can tell, what you are describing has absolutely nothing to do with the administrator attempting to distract the person taking the test.
What you are describing is something like the following:
Materials and Procedure. Instructions and procedures for the health questionnaire, vocabulary, and dementia screens were identical to those for the first study. The primary measure used in this experiment was a computerized version of the Army Beta Symbol-Digit Substitution Task (SDST, Yerkes, 1921). For all participants, a code table of 9 symbols each matched with a single digit, appeared at the top of the screen (see Figure 3). There were seven practice items and 93 test items, each of which consisted of a single symbol above a blank box. Each symbol was up to .6cm2 in area and centered in a 1.1cm2 box. The blank box below the symbol was conjoined to the box containing the symbol and was also 1.1cm2. The high-distraction version was presented in a format similar to the paper-and-pencil version, with all practice and test items simultaneously visible on the screen and arranged in a grid of 4 rows of 25 items each. For the low-distraction condition, each item was presented individually in the center of the screen.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article...
It sounds like tame deuces is very familiar with this area. If I am wrong, and if in fact it is typical for the administrator to attempt to distract the test subject during an examination, I'm sure he will correct me.
pretty sure all of td's posts are attempts to distract us while he measures our responses
As far as I can tell, what you are describing has absolutely nothing to do with the administrator attempting to distract the person taking the test.
What you are describing is something like the following:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article...
It sounds like tame deuces is very familiar with this area. If I am wrong, and if in fact it is typical for the administrator to attempt to distract t
I def had a higher score in a section that said something about ability to perform while distracted. I believe the distractions for me were music and maybe dude clicking his pen but I dunno.
Anyway what’s your point.
pretty sure all of td's posts are attempts to distract us while he measures our responses
Interesting, go on.
It sounds like tame deuces is very familiar with this area. If I am wrong, and if in fact it is typical for the administrator to attempt to distract the test subject during an examination, I'm sure he will correct me.
It could be. Some quick research tells me that there was some ideas a decade or so back that IQ is in part decided by your ability to filter out distraction. Following that idea, you could theorize that by introducing unfamiliar distractions, you would be leveling the playing field for all participants. The latter is basically just me doing guesswork, so pinch of salt required.
Another reason and one that strikes me as more likely is that you're interested in how distraction and stress affects your performance, rather than just the intelligence score itself.
TL;DR inside:
Spoiler
Let's say you wanted to issue a test for combat pilots, so you have one part of the test regime that scores you with no distraction and one part that scores you with distractions. Assuming the distractions were relatable to the professional, you could argue that you now have an instrument that predicts how much someone's performance would drop under stressful situations. It would be imperfect though, as we vary quite a bit in how good we are at mastering stressful environments, meaning people could potentially have pretty different curves of development on such a test. So I'm unsure if this would be a wise way test to screen candidates, but you could perhaps argue it is a good way to differentiate people at a lager stage in training (who would you send to become freighter pilots vs who would you send to become fighter pilots). I would also think that just going for the intelligence score would be a bit narrow in such a test regime. You'd probably administer performance tests that went broader than that.
As for the specific test that is referred to in the quote PointlessWords found, that is battery test used in the US military. This isn't a test that in itself uses external distraction, but a classic pen & paper test here translated to a digital format. However, this study introduces distractions to one group when administering the test. They use the test as a measurement of "processing speed, and compare results between the high-distraction and low-distraction groups. Basically, they want to see how certain distractions affect your ability to think quick.
I think it is a good example of how it can be a little bit tricky do research on the subject, exactly what was done in the study above and what the quote meant isn't that difficult to figure out, but it is a lot easier with a bit of training in the field.
i found pw's test center
Interesting, go on.
It could be. Some quick research tells me that there was some ideas a decade or so back that IQ is in part decided by your ability to filter out distraction. Following that idea, you could theorize that by introducing unfamiliar distractions, you would be leveling the playing field for all participants. The latter is basically just me doing guesswork, so pinch of salt required.
Another reason and one that strikes me as more likely is that you're interested in how distraction a
The test I quoted wasn’t a military test afaik.
I'm pretty sure that IQ tests are administered by psychologists, not medical doctors. And I'm 99% certain that the administrator does not try to intentionally distract the test subject during the test.
This is correct, or at least was my experience.
Also, much of the test is administered verbally, so a test taken entirely on paper was likely not the same thing I did.
Another reason and one that strikes me as more likely is that you're interested in how distraction and stress affects your performance, rather than just the intelligence score itself.
I have no doubt that there have been studies that focused on the extent to which distraction impacts cognitive performance. There may well be tests where distraction is an element.
The question at hand is whether attempts by the administrator to distract the test subject are a feature of a typical IQ test.
In other words, if I hired a psychometrician to give me an IQ test, would that person attempt to distract me during the test?
I mean, PW is a genius for sure - after all the barrels of ink spilt on this debate in the last few days, he just swans in and proves the "IQ is not intelligence" crowd right in one fell swoop. Well, either that, or his mom lied to him I suppose.
I have no doubt that there have been studies that focused on the extent to which distraction impacts cognitive performance. There may well be tests where distraction is an element.
The question at hand is whether attempts by the administrator to distract the test subject are a feature of a typical IQ test.
In other words, if I hired a psychometrician to give me an IQ test, would that person attempt to distract me during the test?
If we say typical test, then the answer is no.
My mom let me read my report years later. It was like 8 pages or so iirc. I honestly wish I hadn’t read it… The sections were all scored and my lowest score *haunts* me.
I’ll tell you guys my highest and lowest scores for funnies just because I think it’s interesting how vast the difference is between them as it relates to measures of intelligence.
So my highest score was for letter number sequencing
Spoiler
180, I maxed out the test
And my lowest score was for picture arrangement
Spoiler
90 😊 I could just imagine too many scenarios and couldn’t figure out which one was most logical
Please laugh with me at my low so I can put it behind me :cries:
Crossnerd has me curious now, but I honestly don't have the patience for a test these days. I'd last 5-6 questions, tops.
It took hours
I’ll tell you guys my highest and lowest scores for funnies just because I think it’s interesting how vast the difference is between them as it relates to measures of intelligence.
So my highest score was for letter number sequencing
Spoiler
180, I maxed out the test
And my lowest score was for picture arrangement
Spoiler
90 😊 I could just imagine too many scenarios and couldn’t figure out which one was most logical
I took some online ones for shits and giggles before and I always score pretty poorly on any sections to do with pictures, patterns etc.
