/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15321060
they're important to your real life success

>>15321066
But shouldn't an IQ test measure cognitive ability instead of facts one has memorized?

>>15321075
The quantity of facts one has memorized is a function of one's cognitive ability.

>>15321060
There isn't one.

>>15321086
That might be true, but there's also a factor of sheer dumb luck that could prevent an otherwise bright test taker from knowing the answers.

>>15321060
In the language of OP vocabulary = lacking, IQ tests = slacking and rationale = quacking. Then OP =
a. autism
b. one trick pony
c. bragging
d. ?

>>15321108
marge

>>15321108
That would be obvious by looking at the test subscores though, and if the discrepancy were large enough would indicate a learning disability.

>>15321075
vocab is one of the best tests of fluid intelligence

>>15321060
My school made me do an actual IQ test (dont ask why), and it had a section where they gave you 2 words and asked for you to identify a possible relationship. The rest was all spatial puzzles and 'complete the pattern'.

>>15321165
>My school made me do an actual IQ test (dont ask why)
They all do.

>>15321060
I didn't know there was a general knowledge section of IQ tests, but the reason for including any test would be because it is highly correlated with all other mental abilities, and thus representative of general intelligence.

>>15321075
It turns out that our ability to know the meaning of words comes down to our ability to reason about their meaning in context, not from memorizing their dictionary definitions.

That may be surprising for you. It is surprising and unintuitive to most, but that is the conclusion from researchers who looked into it: knowledge of word meaning comes from mental abilities to derive their meaning and not from memorizing their meaning.

>>15321108
I think this just speaks to a misunderstanding of what an IQ test is actually measuring. Obviously you can point out a million different reasons why an IQ test might imprecisely gauge an individuals capacities, but truthfully it's irrelevant because what it's actually measuring is how scores are distributed on a population level and the relationship between the population distribution and generalized measures of outcomes. People really don't seem to understand that an IQ test is not measuring your particular life outcomes as if it were some totally deterministic factor, rather simply that on the aggregate, a given range of scores corresponds to various probabilities of different outcomes which we've agreed upon as having some correspondence to intelligence or lack thereof. Furthermore this relationship is a little misleading, as below mean scores tend to have a tighter correspondence to given measures of life outcomes than do above mean, meaning IQ tests are much better at predicting stupidity than intelligence.

>>15321060
They were added to improve female test scores

>>15321471
Also it would be good to mention that personal score changes during their life and so the score is also limited to the age group in which it is taken.

The point about the skewing of accuracy towards stupidity rather than genius is an interesting one and very uncomfortable to people throwing midwit label on everything because it reveals that people with 140 have a higher statistical chance to succeed in intelectual pursuits than those with 110, but it might actually be like 15% chance for the former and 10% for the latter.
Statistics are ironically wery hard to comprehend for even the most intelligent people because they require a person to go against his natural tendency to find patterns in everything