Measuring Intelligence?

[RSK]

hmmm... i'm heading out soon. but will definitely give that a thought.

i think its an interesting question though... how to measure 'potential'... wow, its going to be a tough one. i'm going to the bar tonight, and will definitely try to get that question out there!

see ya later, and hope to see some nice creative interesting responses

[NeoSeminole]

IndiReloaded says:

"Humour - i will measure this as the amount of laughs generated by a standardized number of jokes provided to a suitably large n of subjects across a defined population."

how would you differentiate types of humor and control for fake laughs or people who 'laugh on the inside?' All you gave me was a very crude experiment for measuring humor.

"Charm - i will measure this as the number of smiles a particular set of males are able to generate in female subjects using a standardized set of verbal lines, then suitably randomized to control for male-specific attributes."

why does each male need to use the same verbal lines or the same number of lines? (your description isn't clear which one it is) What if a guy uses more lines but generates more smiles in the women? How would randomization control for female bias? (e.g. 2 guys have the same charm but one is more attractive than the other hence all the women are more responsive to him. How would you control for this so the experimental findings aren't skewed?)

"Your turn."

there's an app for that =]

[NeoSeminole]

IndiReloaded says:

"Your question is irrelevant. We are discussing a definition of intelligence, not an imbecile. That word was never defined. You are confounding the argument. Stick to one definition at a time."

how is my question irrelevant? B/c it disproves your argument? haha. "Imbecile" is simply a classification of people belonging to a certain rank of intelligence. It has no bearing on our disagreement. You claim that a good exam measures intelligence but conveniently ignore the obvious implications when a person doesn't take it. Does a score of 0 mean they suddenly become retarded or 'could' they have potentially done well if they took the test?

[Sanctuary]

IQ tests don't measure potential. Neo disagreed but he's wrong. Read my last post for an explanation.

I do think IQ tests measure potential in some way but they're not a reliable predictor of future success because there are so many other variables at play.

If the working definition of intelligence involves potential, you shouldn't need to use the word twice in this^ sentence. The reason you do, though, is b/c what you CAN measure is intelligence (not potential).

Actually, I was being redundant on purpose to show that they mean the same thing. I could've just as easily said ".. they simply don't have the intelligence to become a physicist because they don't have the potential to absorb or apply the knowledge required."

Depending on how you want to define it, of course. I understand your point, but without measuring *something*, how can I know their capability? What I am saying, again, is that it is not their 'potential' I am measuring.

My point is a very simple one, really.

I stand firm on the belief that it is some form of potential that you're measuring with those IQ tests but because there are so many other factors at play, kids that score high on an IQ test will not necessary do better in life than someone who scores average. Merely, as Neo (I think?) previously stated, that they have a higher ceiling for what they're capable of. Whether or not they realize their full potential is a different argument even if it's the topic of the thread.

I get what you're saying in that how can potential be relevant if we can't even measure it but because we can't reliably measure potential doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Regardless, surely a test that can weed out kids of low intelligence can reasonably - to an extent - point out the kids with high intelligence.

I think intelligence is something that you're born with and doesn't increase over time. Because of this, I do feel that it is potential to learn/do things in addition to any other definitions that you wanna tack on.

[Measuring Intelligence is] actually the topic of this thread. Read the title if you've forgotten.

lol! I guess I was tired and didn't notice the title. I just got owned!

So, my question stands: if any of you show me how you can accurately measure *potential* (I've already gave an example of measuring intelligence) then I will concede your definition better than mine.

Geez Indi you're such an academic lol. Sure we can't reliably measure potential yet, but how can you say that when the word intelligence is commonly used, it's not sometimes referring to someone's potential?

[Only-virgins]

Wait, Indi are you actually trying to provide a way to measure humor? lol that is going to fail.

[IndiReloaded]

Wait, Indi are you actually trying to provide a way to measure humor? lol that is going to fail.

Well, I gave an example of how one might at least try. I agree, its not very useful, same as trying to measure potential. My point, in fact.

because we can't reliably measure potential doesn't mean it doesn't exist

@ Sanctuary - your use of the word 'belief' just reinforces what I said about this topic being like arguing about religion. If you, or Neo, want to state that your definition is merely opinion, then fine I have no problem with it.

But, since the question was how to *measure intelligence*. I repeat: if you insist on defining it as POTENTIAL, you won't get very far in your measurements. Because you first need to show how to measure potential. Can you? The one attempt--IQ tests--I've already provided a reference that they do not, in fact, measure potential. They measure aptitude, in a specific way.

Neo - I'll wait for someone smarter to reply. Or your experiment for measuring potential.

EDIT - OV is here now, Neo. You can learn from him how to properly argue a point.

[IndiReloaded]

IndiReloaded says:

"Your question is irrelevant. We are discussing a definition of intelligence, not an imbecile. That word was never defined. You are confounding the argument. Stick to one definition at a time."

how is my question irrelevant? B/c it disproves your argument? haha. "Imbecile" is simply a classification of people belonging to a certain rank of intelligence. It has no bearing on our disagreement. You claim that a good exam measures intelligence but conveniently ignore the obvious implications when a person doesn't take it. Does a score of 0 mean they suddenly become retarded or 'could' they have potentially done well if they took the test?

1. It doesn't disprove anything. Learn to follow the thread of an argument.

2. You didn't define imbecile. If its relevant, define it and state its relevance.

3. I already answered your last question. Go back and read my answer then post a demonstration you understand before I continue.

"Imbecile" is simply a classification of people belonging to a certain rank of intelligence. It has no bearing on our disagreement.

I agree ^ it has no bearing. You contradict yourself. Do you even have your own arguments clear in your head? It seems not.

Can you go back and address my post that directly states that IQ tests do not reliably measure potential? That article clearly states you are wrong, Neo. Or do you disagree with those experts?

Still waiting for what *would* reliable measure potential.

[Only-virgins]

Well, I gave an example of how one might at least try. I agree, its not very useful, same as trying to measure potential. My point, in fact.

I never would claim that you can measure intelligence/potential.

[IndiReloaded]

Here's an example of my thinking on this. What I'm looking for is a precision of language that allows something to be learned, which you guys have not yet acheived.

Your comment, Sanctuary:

Actually, I was being redundant on purpose to show that they mean the same thing. I could've just as easily said ".. they simply don't have the intelligence to become a physicist because they don't have the potential to absorb or apply the knowledge required."

^What do you mean by 'potential'? Potential implies (by mine and most dictionary defintions) a FUTURE outcome. How do you measure this?

Now, if you had written this instead:

".. they simply don't have the intelligence to become a physicist because they don't have the ability to absorb or apply the knowledge required."

Well, this is quite different. Ability is something I can measure.

And yes, for practical purposes, there is a big difference. People get paid for actual ability for work/grades/performance. Not their potential.

If we were, then you should all be able to NOW drive expensive cars, own expensive houses and take exotic vacations based on your potential.

Again, I invite you to tell your employers or professors this.

[IndiReloaded]

I never would claim that you can measure intelligence/potential.

Well, this is what I am trying to show. That, if you change your definition and drop the useless *potential* part, you can.

Sure, I could have just posted right after RK with: sorry, can't be measured. But 'intelligence' is just another human construct. We can define it how we like. Which will affect what we can learn about it.

Now, if you want to argue its about as useful as trying to measure God, well, that's a different argument.

Come on OV, do I really need to explain to you the value of having precise definitions when trying to measure something?

[Sanctuary]

Can you? The one attempt--IQ tests--I've already provided a reference that they do not, in fact, measure potential. They measure aptitude, in a specific way.

Isn't aptitude in a way synonymous with potential? Hell, it practically means the same thing as intelligence lol.

But, since the question was how to *measure intelligence*.

The only reason I'm even debating with you is because if you scroll back to the first page, you started the debate with Neo on the definition of intelligence not on how you measure it.

You can't 100% reliably measure intelligence and potential but you can do it to a reasonable extent. I went to a high school that had an admissions test partly based on IQ (it was abstract yet simple mathematics and reading comprehension based). I had friends who studied like mad and they didn't do very well. In fact, some found that no matter how much they studied on practice tests, their scores remained the same. I goofed off and didn't study at all and passed with flying colors. And when I got into that school, it quickly became apparent that everyone in this school caught onto things fairly quickly probably because they all possessed some minimum level of intelligence. And because of that, I'd say my school had more potential for brain surgeons and rocket scientists than that your typical high school. And I'd be bragging but I wouldn't be lying if I said I bet my high school produces more members of intelligentsia than that of a typical high school. But there is a clear difference between my former and latter statements. One is potential and one is actual success.

If you're looking for some kind of perfect correlation between tests and their ability to measure potential, I can't show you or prove that to you and you know as well as I do that no one can.

So in conclusion:

Are intelligence tests perfect? No
Do they reliably predict success? No
Do they measure potential? I would think so

[IndiReloaded]

You think so... how? Makes no sense based on your first two statements.

You think so = you believe (but without any actual proof or data?). Sure, okay. You are entitled to your religion. I don't agree with you. Equally valid.

As for starting with a definition--that is ALWAYS how you begin to measure something. There is no other way to do it and get meaningful answers. If you definition...sucks (to use Neo's eloquent terminology)...then so will your measurements.

GIGO. Simple.

[Sanctuary]

How can you explain what happened in my high school without saying there is some correlation between an IQ test and it's ability to measure IQ?

[IndiReloaded]

I don't know what happened in your high school.

I'm not saying IQ tests don't measure IQ. I'm not saying you can't try to make a correlation (but experts say its a 'highly variable' one--that's science speak for "it sucks", btw).

I'm saying they don't measure potential. Because they don't. They measure your aptitude for certain types of problem solving *at the time you took the test*. Think of them as a snapshot of your intelligence (as I define it) at the time you took the test.

Anything you add to that result is guesswork and dependent on any number of poorly definable factors. The sum of which you'd like to describe as a quality called "potential". I'm fine with the idea, its nice to imagine but its useless in terms of trying to measure it.

Read the article excerpt I posted. They explain the history and problems of IQ tests better than I can. It was written by 'experts' in this field, something I'm not.

[Sanctuary]

I don't know what happened in your high school.

My school = IQ test for admissions

Mostly everyone in my school was intelligent (actually I can't think of anyone who wasn't), hence conclusion that can be drawn is that the test worked to some extent in predicting intelligent students.

I'm not saying IQ tests don't measure IQ. I'm not saying you can't try to make a correlation (but experts say its a 'highly variable' one--that's science speak for "it sucks", btw).

I'm saying they don't measure potential. Because they don't. They measure your aptitude for certain types of problem solving *at the time you took the test*. Think of them as a snapshot of your intelligence (as I define it) at the time you took the test.

Maybe this is the problem we're having - perhaps it's the way we define IQ but I don't believe it can change over the course of a person's life.

If you can believe IQ tests can measure IQ in some way, would you agree that a person with high IQ has more 'potential' than one who doesn't?

Of course you might say those tests don't measure IQ accurately or something. But in the case of my school, it did so with noticeable results. Unless, I'm an absolute terrible judge of what makes a person intelligent.