Am I the only one who refuses to take an IQ test? I hate being tested - especially with a time limit, I rarely play games (chess and logic puzzles being the exception) but above all I don't understand how anyone could not have an emotional response being told 'your IQ is x'.
My mom is a children's psychologist who used to administer certain tests. I know I was tested as a child, due to requirements of the school I went to, but my mom didn't look at the results and never showed them to me.
She was worried that it could affect the way she treated me and my success (or lack of success) in school if she had some expectations based on a single number.
Are you saying it's rational to avoid things that might cause an emotional response? Should I not have attempted Stripe's CTF challenge since, as a web developer, it would have been demoralizing to fail?
The IQ test is, to many people, an evaluation of themselves and their capabilities. It may even be received as an assessment of one's limits.
If you think that the Stripe CTF challenge has the potential to evaluate and define you as an individual, then perhaps you should either think twice about it, or work really hard. For most entrants, and I guess probably you too, it's a harmless and fun challenge with very few implications for your core identity.
That's not the same thing: you're not given a time-limited test that has specific answers. A challenge means solving problems in creative ways: that kind of test is fascinating and in no way demoralizing unless you haven't learnt that even failure can be useful in it itself for the fact of trying.
Stripe CTF had a time limit and required very specific solutions. Figuring out the answers on an IQ test often involves creative problem solving. I don't see a difference except in an individual's preconceived notions about the significance of the test itself.
Yes, but the Stripe CTF isn't going to compare you to the entire body of humanity: just to the already-brilliant people who want to take a crack at it. I didn't know about the challenge, but I'd consider if I failed at it, that I don't have sufficient knowledge in a certain technology area, not that my ability to abstract and reason is measured to a global degree.
No, I refuse to take an IQ test as well. Not because I would feel afraid to have an IQ score associated with me. Rather because I think that the concept of an IQ score is rather silly and I question our overall ability to measure it via a standardized test.
First, Intelligence (as probably this article says) is an ever evolving concept and its multidimensional. Accurately measuring it seems probably impossible, the least really hard. The way we attempt to measure it, is via standardized tests - but those don't really prove much because instead of really measuring what they should measure, they usually end up measuring "test-taking" abilities.
Just think about Einstein and Leonardo da Vinci for that matter. Einsten did terrible in school and would have probably done terrible on an IQ tests. Leonardo da Vinci (arguably the greatest genius of all history) was rather slow in problem solving, but increadibly effective. He would have probably done terrible on a timed standardized test.
Please don't spread legends. Einstein excelled in school, and his grades were fine (his only weak subject was French, which he apparently had little interest in). See http://www.albert-einstein.org/article_handicap.html .
I may be wrong, but I'm reasonably confident that Einstein did not do well in elementary school and while he was in school in Italy. He also failed his University admission exam: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/bpeins.html
Yes, you are wrong. Einstein did very well in elementary school, and was accepted to a competitive gymnasium at age 9. He also did very well at the gymnasium, although he didn't like the rigid structure. He left school at 15 and applied to university with special permission. He was not admitted due to mediocre grades in French and Latin; his exam grades in Physics, Mathematics, and Chemistry were excellent. He finished another year at school and passed the entrance exams with excellent grades. Hardly an underachiever, although it's true that you couldn't tell the later greatness from this.
In fact, he had finished Euclid's Elements textbook at age 11 and had taught himself calculus by 16 (not an unusual accomplishment these days, I admit -- I also taught myself calculus at 15. I am no Einstein.)
In no way was Einstein deficient -- he would at least be described as advanced, just maybe not as a prodigy.
No, you're the one that's wrong. Einstein did poorly in elementary school, being classified as mentally retarded. He indeed fast-tracked to gymnasium and university after one of his teachers observed his talent at math.
This doesn't mean he was stupid. Go and read "The Einstein Syndrome" [1], it's a fascinating read.
Your information is completely ridiculous, and doesn't become less so because it has appeared in some books. It has been debunked not by some random guy on the internet, but by the Albert Einstein Archives at Hebrew University, to which he willed his documents - as I cited earlier.
Einstein started in the second grade of elementary school at age 6 1/2, was one of the top students in his class, and was admitted to a competitive gymnasium at 9 1/2. He studied not just "math", but Latin, Greek, art, music (he was a very talented violinist who could have played with any number of orchestras), literature, history, philosophy, and theology. He did very well in all of these, was not "fast tracked" to anywhere, and tried, on his own, to enter university more than 1 year early. This failed, largely because French was not a strong subject for him. He studied it in Munich, where it was a lot less important than in multi-lingual Switzerland. After half a year of schooling in Switzerland, he passed the university entrance exams with flying colors, both in sciences and humanities. He was not an incredible child prodigy, but he was doing fine, and nobody ever thought he was mentally retarded. Enough.
I was tested once, in high school, for the so-called 'gifted' program. We were not supposed to be shown our scores, but I did see mine. No emotional response. It told me what I was already knew... that I was good at taking standardized tests. Real problem solving skills came later, and were largely a product of working with people who were experienced, patient, and generous.
It's a sign of a high EQ to have a neutral response to being told 'your IQ is x'. It's actually just another part of the battery of psychological tests.
That could easily be true without people lying (though probably not). If you take a test and score a 99, you aren't exactly about to run around saying "Hey everyone, I'm very slightly below average according to an IQ test!"
There is a lot of selection bias there. 9 out of 10 people I see day-to-day make more than twice the per-capita median income. That isn't evidence that the median income is incorrectly computed.
The kind of people who go around talking / bragging about their IQs are likely to overlap with that set of people that score well on formal cognitive tests, IQ or otherwise. (See, the entire membership of "Mensa", for example.)
(And if a person who was very into tests and intelligence also scored 95, you'd probably not hear a peep out of them - it would misalign with their self image.)
Finally, the typical person scoring 80-85 in IQ is not likely to be the kind of person who enjoys taking such tests, or considers their IQ or their intellectual ability as an important aspect of their personal identity.
I got a bit of confirmation of that while taking an IQ test at a Mensa meeting. The proctor mentioned that generally something like 2/3 of the people who took the test there scored well enough to get in.
Did you have an emotional response when you learned that you could only hold "7, plus or minus 2" things in your short-term working memory? Or when you found out what your adult height was going to be for the rest of your life?
The 7 plus or minus two thing is universal. Adult height non-universal, but less emotionally sensitive. Even so, it's easy to be sensitive about one's height.
IQ is a comparison between you and everyone else, on a topic which is close to the core of our being, especially for the kind of people on this forum.
I guess I shouldn't have assumed everyone thought like me. :) Is it more sensitive than intelligence in general, or just IQ? Would you react more strongly to being called "shrimp" than "stupid"?
I don't care about names. But looking down instead of up makes quite a big difference.
I don't really believe in IQ as anything more than a statistical artefact in the first place. But of course, different people are going to perform differently on different tasks.
>Did you have an emotional response when you learned that you could only hold "7, plus or minus 2" things in your short-term working memory?
Well, no - because I could use tools to extend that. And it's not about insecurity, as I'm quite comfortable with myself and my brain. I just don't see it as being a valuable reference. However, I know if I had a number I'd start comparison-shopping and I might feel either elated (if high) or depressed (if low). Is anyone here, if you have had an IQ test, honestly prepared to say that you didn't or wouldn't be curious about what that meant and that it wouldn't affect how you viewed yourself?
I just don't need to know. I guess that for me, as long as there isn't a 'goal' or a 'fence', the sky's the limit.
You can extend your effective IQ using tools as well. I bet your IQ as tested while you have access to an internet-connected computer would be way higher than your IQ as tested on a closed-book test.
I doubt it, unless you could find a cheat sheet for the test you are taking. It's not like the test is asking about information, facts or calculations; what would you type in to Google to answer a question like this? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Rav...
It's not like purely visual questions are the only ones you'll encounter. And the Internet has plenty to offer for your question too, you just have to involve some actual people.
IQ tests are timed. It's usually not worth it to look up any answer, because the time it takes you to do this would make you skip so many other questions that your score would take a massive hit.
It's the same thing with the SAT (before they added the writing sections). It usually paid to just guess & move on if you faced a difficult question, because the time spent thinking about it would cost you so many other answers that you were better off just eating the penalty for getting it wrong. People who could actually complete the (old) SATs were at a strong advantage, as one of the most common failure modes was simply not being able to answer all the questions.
I have a very emotional response each morning, when, depending on the quality/duration of sleep I had the night before, and whether I had a late night snack, I'm able to memorize the 10 digit (Yes, 10) passcode for whatever conference call I have to dial into. I know it's going to be a good day when (about 10-20% of the time) - I can nail it in one try. Not so much when it takes me a round trip to the calendar entry. Particularly when the conference service times out.
Does anyone have a good source or summary on this "7, plus or minus 2" thing? I teach the LSAT, and have noticed it empirically when students try to solve the Logic Games section.
I've love to know more about the research backing this up. I googled, of course, but I'm sure there must be a good discussion of this that I've missed.
I don't refuse to take them but midway through I always start thinking about the philosophical implications Wittgenstein rule following paradox, computational learning theory and solvable games.
I also wonder if I would have a higher IQ (or would that be an IQ that appears higher?) were I not to think those thoughts (and would I be stupid for thinking them in that case?)
> I don't understand how anyone could not have an emotional response being told 'your IQ is x'.
This is a wild guess: You're probably ~young, with high aspirations for yourself, you don't think people should ever be prejudged. You have great promise and show all the signs of competence, but you haven't actually achieved anything particularly noteworthy, yet.
I base this hypothesis on the theory that once you achieve certain things, and you have confidence in yourself, you won't give two shits about what some IQ test says. In fact, if it scores low, if you are genuinely competent, you would think "wow, now that's an interesting development, let's investigate" rather then feeling that you've been somehow slighted.
