(no subject)

Date: 2012-12-31 10:59 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
The best available definition for "intelligence" is "intelligence is the quality measured by intelligence tests", and since intelligence tests measure a combination of problem-solving ability; memory retrieval speed and agility; and cultural background, these tests aren't exactly the most precise instruments.

What's worse is that what they mean by problem-solving on IQ tests is tasks such as identifying the order of three pictures in a story, finding the missing item in a visual field, or looking at and rebuilding a pattern with blocks. I mean, you could practice those things, but they're not particularly useful life skills. The assumption is that being good at those tasks will make you better at more concrete real-world tasks. The problem is that if you actually test real-life tasks, then your actual level of skill will matter - whereas IQ is supposed to be an inherent quality that doesn't vary over one's lifetime. Indeed, I had three professionally done IQ tests in my life and the results were always the same. But does that mean we've figured out the basis of intelligence? Or just found some characteristics of someone's ability that happen to be fixed over time?
Anonymous( )Anonymous This account has disabled anonymous posting.
OpenID( )OpenID You can comment on this post while signed in with an account from many other sites, once you have confirmed your email address. Sign in using OpenID.
User (will be screened if not on Access List)
Account name:
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.


Notice: This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.


tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
Tim Chevalier

October 2017

8910 11121314
15 161718192021

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags