Music Banter - View Single Post

William_the_Bloody · 03-17-2016, 12:22 AM

Intelligence part 2: Can we reliably measure intelligence?

Introduction:

Is there a scientifically reliable way to measure intelligence? And if there is, are the results largely inherent, or driven by environmental factors?

This could possibly be the most important series of questions I research for my journal, for the findings could have a profound impact on how we view equality, particularly if there is solid evidence to back up the notion that income inequality is largely driven by inherent differences in peoples intelligences.

I should therefore note that these questions have already been answered to a large extent by my first journal entry on intelligence, where it was discovered that we do not definitively know what creates differences in intelligences between people, or by how much, and to what degree. In fact, scientists are still debating on what constitutes intelligence, and if it’s quantifiably measurable.

So this begs the question; how reliable is our current way of measuring intelligence?

IQ tests:

We currently measure human intelligence through intelligent quotient (IQ) tests. These tests operate by subjecting an individual to a series of cognitive exams that are used to determine their overall intelligence relative to the general population.

The most popular IQ test used today, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) was created by David Wechsler an American psychologist who believed that intelligence was made up of specific elements that could be isolated and measured, and because they were interdependent upon each other, they could be combined to assign an IQ number that determined one's overall intelligence.

The WAIS itself is broken down into two subscales that measures one verbal IQ and performance IQ. The verbal IQ, measures one's verbal intelligence (Reading comprehension ect) and contains a working memory component, while the performance IQ measures one's problem solving ability (Puzzles ect) and contains a processing speed component.

Combined together, these tests assign a person's intelligence a number in which 95% of the population falls between 70 and 130, with anything below 70 referring to retardation, and anything above 130 referring to being gifted. 100 is considered the average mean.

It should be noted that IQ tests are measuring what psychologists believe constitutes intelligence, not what actually does. As explained before, there is no concrete biological evidence (that I know of) that specifically states x and x in the brain = your level of intelligence.

IQ tests are therefore subjective, not objective, and though I am loathe to use the phrase theoretical construct, that is exactly what they are.

A good way to explain why they are theoretical constructs is to use the analogy of a sports car. Imagine you have a high performance car, and you have an idea why one may be performing better than another, but you do not fully understand how each part of the engine operates. You measure how fast it can do a lap or the time it takes to jump from 0 to 80km per hour, but you have no idea as to why. Likewise, we may be able to measure that someone can solve spatial problems quicker than another person, but we have no idea as to why, and here in lies the problem.

IQ tests are subjective, and because of this, they have been mired in controversy since their inception, most notably around the issue of race, as they have been used in the past to justify racial segregation by perpetuating the myth that income inequality is the result of inherent differences in our intelligence, when other cultural and environmental factors have been in play.

One such controversy was the 1993 book the Bell Curve, which tackled the issue of race, and despite conceding that intelligence is determined in part by environmental factors, the book strongly leaned towards the belief that our IQ’s are genetically predetermined, via claiming that IQ’s are largely fixed after the age of 5. We now know however that this is not the case, as studies as shown that the IQ’s of teenagers can fluctuate dramatically…

If you think intelligence is set in stone, think again. A new study shows that IQ can fluctuate dramatically during adolescence, with some teens raising or lowering their scores by about 20 points. Psychologists have long believed that intelligence was fixed, and parents and educators often use IQ scores to determine whether children are "gifted" or need extra help at school. But the study suggests things are a bit more complicated.

IQ scores fluctuate dramatically in kids, study says - CBS News

In fact it appears that they can increase as a result of numerous environmental factors from being a musician, to having greater access to education, to getting regular physical exercise, to playing video games, and even possibly being a cab driver!?!

A new study has concluded that musicians have higher IQ scores than non-musicians, supporting other recent research that intensive musical training is associated with an elevated IQ score.

Do Musicians Have Higher IQs Than Non-Musicians? Yes, Says Study

A new study from Norway finds that students who remain in school longer than their counterparts have higher IQ scores.

Study: More Education Increases IQ Score

These navigational demands stimulate brain development, concludes a study five years in the making. With the new research, scientists can definitively say that London taxi drivers not only have larger-than-average memory centers in their brains, but also that their intensive training is responsible for the growth.

Cache Cab: Taxi Drivers' Brains Grow to Navigate London's Streets - Scientific American

Here we show, for the very first time, that commercial video games can be used to reliably measure individual differences in general intelligence (g). One hundred and eighty eight university undergraduates took part in the study. They played twelve video games under strict supervision in the laboratory and completed eleven intelligence tests. Several factor models were tested for answering the question of whether or not video games and intelligence tests do measure the same underlying high-order latent factor. The final model revealed a very high relationship between the high-order latent factors representing video game and intelligence performance (r = .93)

Can we reliably measure the general factor of intelligence (g) through commercial video games? Yes, we can!

We have discovered that video game players perform 10 to 20 percent higher in terms of perceptual and cognitive ability than normal people that are non-game players,

Group

The research group analyzed the results of both physical and IQ tests when the men enrolled. The study shows a clear link between good physical fitness and better results for the IQ test. The strongest links are for logical thinking and verbal comprehension.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1202101751.htm

Obviously the claim of differing IQ scores in race is an important one, which I will be touching upon at a later date, but the point I’m trying to make here is that either intelligence is extremely fluid, IQ tests are very subjective, or both, as it appears that anything from breastfeeding to ping pong could have the ability to improve your IQ scores, so how is it that anyone can reasonably believe that IQ tests are an accurate measure of our inherent intelligence?

Well the answer may be found in the fact that they have found some correlation between IQ’s and income.

Past studies have shown that intelligence positively affects income ,or the money a person makes per year. "Individuals with a higher IQ typically have a higher educational attainment and a higher occupational status and that is very well established," said Ruth Spinks, a behavioral and cognitive neuroscientist. Participants with higher IQ scores tended to earn higher incomes, with each additional IQ point associated with an income boost of $202 to $616 each year. For example, a person with an IQ that's in the top 2 percent of society (130 points) would rake in between $6,000 and $18,500 per year more than an individual with an average IQ of about 100 points.

Not So Smart? You Can Still be Rich!

It does seem plausible then that the cognitive exams of IQ tests measure some form of human intelligence as one can notably see a difference between someone who has an IQ of 130 to someone who has an IQ of under 70, but can we sum up someone’s intelligence to definitively say that one person is smarter than another? A recent study published in a Neuroscience journal would suggest that we cannot.

An individual's IQ score — long-held as the standard measure of human intelligence — is not a valid way of assessing brainpower, say Canadian researchers. A team from Western University is debunking the concept of general intelligence, saying that there is no single component that can account for how a person performs various mental and cognitive tasks. Instead, human intelligence is made up of multiple and distinct components, each of which must be looked at independently.

IQ myth debunked by Canadian researchers - Technology & Science - CBC News

Different circuits within the brain are used for different thought processes, the researchers showed, meaning separate tests of short-term memory, reasoning and verbal skills are needed to measure someone's overall intelligence.

IQ tests 'do not reflect intelligence' - Telegraph

In short, the Canadian researchers have found that we have multiple intelligences that operate separately from one another, and therefore cannot be combined into one overall general intelligence score, in other words IQ scores are bunk… but the jury is still out on them.

In conclusion, despite their usefulness, it would appear that IQ tests in their present form are not a reliable or accurate way to measure ones inherent intelligence, and therefore any claim that income inequality is largely the result of innate differences in individual intelligences in largely conjecture, which cannot be validated by science.

Next up: Do different personalities lead some to have more financial success than others? And are bullies rewarded for in life for their behavior?

03-17-2016, 12:22 AM	#36 (permalink)
William_the_Bloody Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Sunnydale Cemetary Posts: 2,093	Intelligence part 2: Can we reliably measure intelligence? Introduction: Is there a scientifically reliable way to measure intelligence? And if there is, are the results largely inherent, or driven by environmental factors? This could possibly be the most important series of questions I research for my journal, for the findings could have a profound impact on how we view equality, particularly if there is solid evidence to back up the notion that income inequality is largely driven by inherent differences in peoples intelligences. I should therefore note that these questions have already been answered to a large extent by my first journal entry on intelligence, where it was discovered that we do not definitively know what creates differences in intelligences between people, or by how much, and to what degree. In fact, scientists are still debating on what constitutes intelligence, and if it’s quantifiably measurable. So this begs the question; how reliable is our current way of measuring intelligence? IQ tests: We currently measure human intelligence through intelligent quotient (IQ) tests. These tests operate by subjecting an individual to a series of cognitive exams that are used to determine their overall intelligence relative to the general population. The most popular IQ test used today, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) was created by David Wechsler an American psychologist who believed that intelligence was made up of specific elements that could be isolated and measured, and because they were interdependent upon each other, they could be combined to assign an IQ number that determined one's overall intelligence. The WAIS itself is broken down into two subscales that measures one verbal IQ and performance IQ. The verbal IQ, measures one's verbal intelligence (Reading comprehension ect) and contains a working memory component, while the performance IQ measures one's problem solving ability (Puzzles ect) and contains a processing speed component. Combined together, these tests assign a person's intelligence a number in which 95% of the population falls between 70 and 130, with anything below 70 referring to retardation, and anything above 130 referring to being gifted. 100 is considered the average mean. It should be noted that IQ tests are measuring what psychologists believe constitutes intelligence, not what actually does. As explained before, there is no concrete biological evidence (that I know of) that specifically states x and x in the brain = your level of intelligence. IQ tests are therefore subjective, not objective, and though I am loathe to use the phrase theoretical construct, that is exactly what they are. A good way to explain why they are theoretical constructs is to use the analogy of a sports car. Imagine you have a high performance car, and you have an idea why one may be performing better than another, but you do not fully understand how each part of the engine operates. You measure how fast it can do a lap or the time it takes to jump from 0 to 80km per hour, but you have no idea as to why. Likewise, we may be able to measure that someone can solve spatial problems quicker than another person, but we have no idea as to why, and here in lies the problem. IQ tests are subjective, and because of this, they have been mired in controversy since their inception, most notably around the issue of race, as they have been used in the past to justify racial segregation by perpetuating the myth that income inequality is the result of inherent differences in our intelligence, when other cultural and environmental factors have been in play. One such controversy was the 1993 book the Bell Curve, which tackled the issue of race, and despite conceding that intelligence is determined in part by environmental factors, the book strongly leaned towards the belief that our IQ’s are genetically predetermined, via claiming that IQ’s are largely fixed after the age of 5. We now know however that this is not the case, as studies as shown that the IQ’s of teenagers can fluctuate dramatically… If you think intelligence is set in stone, think again. A new study shows that IQ can fluctuate dramatically during adolescence, with some teens raising or lowering their scores by about 20 points. Psychologists have long believed that intelligence was fixed, and parents and educators often use IQ scores to determine whether children are "gifted" or need extra help at school. But the study suggests things are a bit more complicated. IQ scores fluctuate dramatically in kids, study says - CBS News In fact it appears that they can increase as a result of numerous environmental factors from being a musician, to having greater access to education, to getting regular physical exercise, to playing video games, and even possibly being a cab driver!?! A new study has concluded that musicians have higher IQ scores than non-musicians,* supporting other recent research that intensive musical training is associated with an elevated IQ score.* Do Musicians Have Higher IQs Than Non-Musicians? Yes, Says Study A new study from Norway finds that students who remain in school longer than their counterparts have higher IQ scores. Study: More Education Increases IQ Score These navigational demands stimulate brain development, concludes a study five years in the making. With the new research, scientists can definitively say that London taxi drivers not only have larger-than-average memory centers in their brains, but also that their intensive training is responsible for the growth. Cache Cab: Taxi Drivers' Brains Grow to Navigate London's Streets - Scientific American Here we show, for the very first time, that commercial video games can be used to reliably measure individual differences in general intelligence (g). One hundred and eighty eight university undergraduates took part in the study. They played twelve video games under strict supervision in the laboratory and completed eleven intelligence tests. Several factor models were tested for answering the question of whether or not video games and intelligence tests do measure the same underlying high-order latent factor. The final model revealed a very high relationship between the high-order latent factors representing video game and intelligence performance (r = .93) Can we reliably measure the general factor of intelligence (g) through commercial video games? Yes, we can! We have discovered that video game players perform 10 to 20 percent higher in terms of perceptual and cognitive ability than normal people that are non-game players, Group The research group analyzed the results of both physical and IQ tests when the men enrolled. The study shows a clear link between good physical fitness and better results for the IQ test. The strongest links are for logical thinking and verbal comprehension. https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1202101751.htm Obviously the claim of differing IQ scores in race is an important one, which I will be touching upon at a later date, but the point I’m trying to make here is that either intelligence is extremely fluid, IQ tests are very subjective, or both, as it appears that anything from breastfeeding to ping pong could have the ability to improve your IQ scores, so how is it that anyone can reasonably believe that IQ tests are an accurate measure of our inherent intelligence? Well the answer may be found in the fact that they have found some correlation between IQ’s and income. Past studies have shown that intelligence positively affects income ,or the money a person makes per year. "Individuals with a higher IQ typically have a higher educational attainment and a higher occupational status and that is very well established," said Ruth Spinks, a behavioral and cognitive neuroscientist. Participants with higher IQ scores tended to earn higher incomes, with each additional IQ point associated with an income boost of $202 to $616 each year. For example, a person with an IQ that's in the top 2 percent of society (130 points) would rake in between $6,000 and $18,500 per year more than an individual with an average IQ of about 100 points. Not So Smart? You Can Still be Rich! It does seem plausible then that the cognitive exams of IQ tests measure some form of human intelligence as one can notably see a difference between someone who has an IQ of 130 to someone who has an IQ of under 70, but can we sum up someone’s intelligence to definitively say that one person is smarter than another? A recent study published in a Neuroscience journal would suggest that we cannot. An individual's IQ score — long-held as the standard measure of human intelligence — is not a valid way of assessing brainpower, say Canadian researchers. A team from Western University is debunking the concept of general intelligence, saying that there is no single component that can account for how a person performs various mental and cognitive tasks. Instead, human intelligence is made up of multiple and distinct components, each of which must be looked at independently. IQ myth debunked by Canadian researchers - Technology & Science - CBC News Different circuits within the brain are used for different thought processes, the researchers showed, meaning separate tests of short-term memory, reasoning and verbal skills are needed to measure someone's overall intelligence. IQ tests 'do not reflect intelligence' - Telegraph In short, the Canadian researchers have found that we have multiple intelligences that operate separately from one another, and therefore cannot be combined into one overall general intelligence score, in other words IQ scores are bunk… but the jury is still out on them. In conclusion, despite their usefulness, it would appear that IQ tests in their present form are not a reliable or accurate way to measure ones inherent intelligence, and therefore any claim that income inequality is largely the result of innate differences in individual intelligences in largely conjecture, which cannot be validated by science. Next up: Do different personalities lead some to have more financial success than others? And are bullies rewarded for in life for their behavior?