is this truth or false?

[Dumb girl]

Someone's saying :" IQ tests just prove how good you are at taking IQ tests"

 

---) I know it's false but I don't know why. Can you tell me for that, please?

[Owl]

I'm one of those who believe that statement is true, actually.

 

A few decades back IQ tests had a large following. I think the idea you could measure someone's total intelligence with a single test was very appealing to some individuals. There was a lot of talk about making IQ tests a standard part of every job application, using them as entrance exams for higher education, and so forth. You'll note things like that are rarely heard anymore.

 

The reason? It eventually dawned on someone that instead of providing a broad-based "intelligence quotient" that everyone could be measured by, IQ tests really only tested an individual's ability to answer certain specific kinds of question. It's almost like a game; one that some people happen to be good at. You also get better at writing them with experience. You might as well use a game like backgammon or bridge as a yardstick, and say people good at those games are smart and everyone else is dumb. That's the basis for the quote you provided, and in that sense it's true.

 

There's nothing wrong with IQ tests being used as part of a larger testing package. They're adequate at gauging some types of cognitive reasoning -- mathematical logic, for example. The danger comes when the IQ test is used on its own to brand someone as "smart" or "not smart".

 

The part of Southern Ontario in which I grew up had an experiment in progress when I was in the 4th grade. At the time every child in the province was required to take a standardized IQ test (this was in the early 1980s). My county education board had the bright idea that those who scored unusually high would be encouraged to go to a special school for gifted children, and those who scored unusually low could go to a school of their own (being kids, we called it the "dumb school"). I was one of the few who scored very high, and I spent the next four years in this ridiculous "gifted" program -- ridiculous because a single IQ test was no basis for declaring any of us to be child geniuses. We were all just kids, and there were plenty of trouble-makers, slower kids, and kids with learning-disabilities just like an "ordinary" school.

 

What was worse, the "dumb school" also contained mostly ordinary kids -- basically normal children who spent the next four years being treated like idiots by well-meaning teachers and counsellors. Those of us who went to the "smart school" were fine, with the notable exception that we all got used to the extra attention we received -- which was abruptly taken away when we entered high school and were dumped right back into the mainstream. Most of those I know who went to the "dumb school", by contrast, were warped for many years afterward. They cancelled the whole program a year after I finished it.

 

As a rule, intelligence is very esoteric. It has so many different facets, and is so poorly understood, that to try and get a reading from a couple hours of testing is ludicrous. IQ tests really don't prove anything over and above the test-taker's ability to write IQ tests.

 

That's my opinion.

 

Someone's saying :" IQ tests just prove how good you are at taking IQ tests" ---) I know it's false but I don't know why. Can you tell me for that, please?

[Miss Mojo]

hi dumb girl (you're so kind to yourself - not!)

 

i think tests in general are a load of codswallop.

 

i know some very, very intelligent people whose test results would actually "prove" that they are not very intelligent. why? because some people panic when it's time to do a test. for a lot of people, the words "immense pressure", "test" and "mental blocks" are mutually exclusive.

 

i remember in my final year of high school, i managed to blitz a modern history exam and come in the top 10% of the state.....it probably had something to do with the fact that i memorised word-for-word a 4 page essay i had written on the boxer rebellion. it was just sheer luck that i actually had that same essay question in my final exam. i could have been asked to write an essay on anything else. that test only proved to me that i can memorise an essay if i take the time.

 

the next year, when i was at university, i was too concerned with partying with friends. i had a science exam that was meant to take 3 hours, and i hadn't studied a damn thing. i didn't know most of the answers.....i guessed nearly every answer and walked out of that exam after 45 minutes. any answers that weren't multiple choice, i basically pulled out of my butt.

 

it turned out that only 3 people out of 250 passed that exam - i was one of them. it wasn't my knowledge that made me pass the test....it was a damn fluke. yet again, that test proved diddly squat.

 

a person with very little knowledge of a subject can actually fluke a test result (as i once did), and a person with a great knowledge of a subject may pass with flying colours because they have a very good memory (as with my history exam)....of course, there are some academics out there who will always achieve top results, and academics whose test results will only prove that they don't do very well at tests. compare test results with the results of an assessment you have been given to do, and you will probably find that the results vary drastically.

 

well, i've rambled enough. my point is - no. i don't believe that tests are always indicative of intelligence.