Log in

View Full Version : IQ tests 'fundamentally flawed', use for measuring intelligence a 'fallacy'



Flying Purple People Eater
12th November 2013, 11:45
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-finds-8425911.html




IQ tests are 'fundamentally flawed' and using them alone to measure intelligence is a 'fallacy', study finds

Results cast into doubt tests that have been used to link cognitive ability to race, gender and class

STEVE CONNOR Friday 21 December 2012

The idea that intelligence can be measured by IQ tests alone is a fallacy according to the largest single study into human cognition which found that it comprises of at least three distinct mental traits.

IQ tests have been used for decades to assess intelligence but they are fundamentally flawed because they do not take into account the complex nature of the human intellect and its different components, the study found.

The results question the validity of controversial studies of intelligence based on IQ tests which have drawn links between intellectual ability race, gender and social class and led to highly contentious claims that some groups of people are inherently less intelligent that other groups.

Instead of a general measure of intelligence epitomised by the intelligence quotient (IQ), intellectual ability consists of short-term memory, reasoning and verbal agility. Although these interact with one another they are handled by three distinct nerve “circuits” in the brain, the scientists found.

“The results disprove once and for all the idea that a single measure of intelligence, such as IQ, is enough to capture all of the differences in cognitive ability that we see between people,” said Roger Highfield, director of external affairs at the Science Museum in London.

“Instead, several different circuits contribute to intelligence, each with its own unique capacity. A person may well be good in one of these areas, but they are just as likely to be bad in the other two,” said Dr Highfield, a co-author of the study published in the journal Neuron.

The research involved an on-line survey of more than 100,000 people from around the world who were asked to complete 12 mental tests for measuring different aspects of cognitive ability, such as memory, reasoning, attention and planning.

The researchers took a representative sample of 46,000 people and analysed how they performed. They found there were three distinct components to cognitive ability: short-term memory, reasoning and a verbal component.

Professor Adrian Owen of the University of Western Ontario in Canada said that the uptake for the tests was astonishing. The scientists expected a few hundred volunteers to spend the half hour it took to complete the on-line tests, but in the end they got thousands from every corner of the world, Professor Owen said.

The scientists found that no single component, or IQ, could explain all the variations revealed by the tests. The researcher then analysed the brain circuitry of 16 participants with a hospital MRI scanner and found that the three separate components corresponded to three distinct patterns of neural activity in the brain.

“It has always seemed to be odd that we like to call the human brain the most complex known object in the Universe, yet many of us are still prepared to accept that we can measure brain function by doing a few so-called IQ tests,” Dr Highfield said.

“For a century or more many people have thought that we can distinguish between people, or indeed populations, based on the idea of general intelligence which is often talked about in terms of a single number: IQ. We have shown here that’s just wrong,” he said.

Studies over the past 50 years based on IQ tests have suggested that there could be inherent differences in intelligence between racial groups, social classes and between men and women, but these conclusions are undermined by the latest findings, Dr Highfield said.

“We already know that, from a scientific point of view, the notion of race is meaningless. Genetic differences do not map on to traditional measurements of skin colour, hair type, body proportions and skull measurements. Now we have shown that IQ is meaningless too,” Dr Highfield said.

The smarter test: Try it yourself

These questions evaluate the three components of intelligence.

Memory

Candidates would be asked to remember and repeat a sequence, digits 3, 6, 1, 9, 6, 2, 5, 3 for example

Reasoning

If Box A is twice as big as Box B and Box C is half the size of Box A, which is bigger, C or B?

Verbal skills

If you are given the statement, “A does not follow B”, and then shown the letter B followed by the letter A, is the statement true or false?

Answers: They’re both the same size; False

Flying Purple People Eater
12th November 2013, 11:46
Just realised this article is a year old. The Independent has a very weird way of placing it's dates...

Oh well.

the debater
12th November 2013, 18:08
Is it true that creativity and IQ are different qualities? Is it possible they can influence each other? Very interesting topic.

Tim Cornelis
12th November 2013, 18:15
Just realised this article is a year old. The Independent has a very weird way of placing it's dates...

Oh well.

Its*

Thirsty Crow
12th November 2013, 18:20
Its*
Youve really got a thing for grammar, dont you?

*You've

** don't

Bonus points for recognizing an error in my post.

:lol:

RedSunrise
12th November 2013, 18:24
The IQ test is insanely idiotic... Just think of how it was created: Who made the test? A dumb person? You would have to be smarter than EVERYONE to even consider creating a test to judge intelligence. On top of that, what is "smart"? If there is no right answer, but one of them is still considered wrong, the only dumb person is the test maker.

That is why I will never take an IQ test. Or an Emotional IQ test because I will score 5 :lol:

Tim Cornelis
12th November 2013, 18:26
Youve really got a thing for grammar, dont you?

*You've

** don't

Bonus points for recognizing an error in my post.

:lol:

You've really got a thing for grammar, haven't you?

Sea
12th November 2013, 20:50
Who made the test? A dumb person?A dumb person with a very high IQ.

Flying Purple People Eater
12th November 2013, 22:01
The IQ test is insanely idiotic... Just think of how it was created: Who made the test? A dumb person? You would have to be smarter than EVERYONE to even consider creating a test to judge intelligence. On top of that, what is "smart"? If there is no right answer, but one of them is still considered wrong, the only dumb person is the test maker.

That is why I will never take an IQ test. Or an Emotional IQ test because I will score 5 :lol:

It was actually made by a French guy who wanted to use it to find children struggling at school in order to get them special educational assistance. He was strongly against the use of it to label people based on scores.

The guy who bought the test to America, however, was a whackjob racist eugenicist, and tried to get national results to class Americans into 'Normal, Idiots, Morons and Imbeciles' - they actually forcefully sterilized thousands of people who took an IQ test and got a low score. Pseudoscience run amok leads to crazy shit.

Flying Purple People Eater
13th November 2013, 00:52
Something else interesting is that one of the people most commonly cited by these butters, Cyril Burt, whose experiments involving large numbers of twins who were separated at birth to try and make the notion of IQ out to be completely hereditarian, was found to have completely fabricated his experiments and results (even the people he was supposedly worked with were searched up and found to not have existed).

A brief summary:


The story of Burt's undoing is now more than a twice-told tale. Princeton psychologist Leon Kamin first noted that, while Burt had increased his sample of twins from fewer than twenty to more than fifty in a series of publications, the average correlation between pairs for IQ remained unchanged to the third decimal place—a statistical situation so unlikely that it matches our vernacular defi- nition of impossible. Then, in 1976, Oliver Gillie, medical corre- spondent of the London Sunday Times, elevated the charge from inexcusable carelessness to conscious fakery. Gillie discovered, among many other things, that Burt's two "collaborators," a Mar- garet Howard and a J. Conway, the women who supposedly col- lected and processed his data, either never existed at all, or at least could not have been in contact with Burt while he wrote the papers bearing their names. These charges led to further reassessments of Burt's "evidence" for his rigid hereditarian position. Indeed, other crucial studies were equally fraudulent, particularly his IQ corre- lations between close relatives (suspiciously too good to be true and apparently constructed from ideal statistical distributions, rather than measured in nature—Dorfman, 1978), and his data for declining levels of intelligence in Britain.

Burt's supporters tended at first to view the charges as a thinly veiled leftist plot to undo the hereditarian position by rhetoric. H. J. Eysenck wrote to Burt's sister: "I think the whole affair isjust a determined effort on the part of some very left-wing environ- mentalists determined to play a political game with scientific facts. I am sure the future will uphold the honor and integrity of Sir Cyril without any question." Arthur Jensen, who had called Burt a "born nobleman" and "one of the world's great psychologists," had to conclude that the data on identical twins could not be trusted, though he attributed their inaccuracy to carelessness alone.

I think that the splendid "official" biography of Burt recently published by L. S. Hearnshaw (1979) has resolved the issue so far as the data permit (Hearnshaw was commissioned to write his book by Burt's sister before any charges had been leveled). Hearnshaw, who began as an unqualified admirer of Burt and who tends to share his intellectual atdtudes, eventually concluded that all alle- gations are true, and worse. And yet, Hearnshaw has convinced me that the very enormity and bizarreness of Burt's fakery forces us to view it not as the "rational" program of a devious person trying to salvage his hereditarian dogma when he knew the game was up (my original suspicion, I confess), but as the actions of a sick and tortured man. (All this, of course, does not touch the deeper issue of why such patently manufactured data went unchallenged for so long, and what this will to believe implies about the basis of our hereditarian presuppositions.)

Hearnshaw believes that Burt began his fabrications in the early 1940s, and that his earlier work was honest, though marred by rigid a priori convicdon and often inexcusably sloppy and superfi- cial, even by the standards of his own time. Burt's world began to collapse during the war, partly by his own doing to be sure. His research data perished in the blitz of London; his marriage failed; he was excluded from his own department when he refused to retire gracefully at the mandatory age and attempted to retain con- trol; he was removed as editor of the journal he had founded, again after declining to cede control at the specified time he him- self had set; his hereditarian dogma no longer matched the spirit of an age that had just witnessed the holocaust. In addition, Burt apparently suffered from Menieres disease, a disorder of the organs of balance, with frequent and negative consequences for personality as well.

Hearnshaw cites four instances of fraud in Burt's later career. Three I have already mentioned (fabrication of data on identical twins, kinship correlations in IQ, and declining levels of intelli- gence in Britain). The fourth is, in many ways, the most bizarre tale of all because Burt's claim was so absurd and his actions so patent and easy to uncover. It could not have been the act of a rational man. Burt attempted to commit an act of intellectual par- ricide by declaring himself, rather than his predecessor and men- tor Charles Spearman, as the father of a technique called "factor analysis" in psychology. Spearman had essentially invented the technique in a celebrated paper of 1904. Burt never challenged this priority—in fact he constantly affirmed it—while Spearman held the chair that Burt would later occupy at University College- Indeed, in his famous book on factor analysis (1940), Burt states that "Spearman's preeminence is acknowledged by every factorist (1940, p. x).