Auto-SummaryThe post argues that IQ tests are inaccurate representations of intelligence, focusing primarily on visual sequencing, factual knowledge, spatial visualization, verbal analogies, and mathematics. It suggests that intelligence encompasses emotional intelligence, personality, communication skills, and prediction abilities. The author contends that these aspects are more indicative of intelligence than mathematical or memorization capabilities. They also question the bias in IQ tests, which may favor certain personality traits, and argue that intelligence should be assessed based on an individual's specific context and comparative advantage. The post concludes by encouraging a broader perspective on intelligence, beyond traditional IQ tests.
I have to agree with the collective that says IQ tests are non accurate. First they only test for visual sequencing, factual knowledge, spatial visualization, verbal analogies, and mathematics. In everyday life these subjects studied only have so much influence. What about communication, emotional intelligence, and personality? With all forms of intelligence or psychological tests, they are based on interpretation of the results. The interpretation of the results determine your personality or your intelligence.
Philosophy questions reality and the way it is interpreted. So my philosophy of IQ tests is are they an inaccurate representation of intelligence. We take pictures of deep space and present them in beautiful pictures. Realistically the human eye cannot see the wavelengths of light from the pictures we take in deep space. A real picture of deep space is black. The wavelengths of light are outside the range of human vision. The pictures of deep space are re calibrated to the human spectrum of vision. Thus, every picture of space isn't real. The picture is merely data that is converted something we can never see, to something we can. So the question is, are pictures of space even real?
So IQ tests are a interpreation of intelligence. This intelligence is based on an interpretation of intelligence. But is this representation of intelligence proof of actual intelligence? Is math and memory the highest forms of intellectual capacity? So if you can learn every language in the world, I would believe you are a genius. But I only determined that you are a genius based on your memorization ability and not mathematics. What if a man had an ability to get any woman he desired? That has nothing to do with math or memorization. Isn't that man's ability to get women based on confidence and communication?
So what is intelligence? Emotional stability, confidence, memory, are my determinations of intelligence. IQ tests can't be the ultimate measure of intelligence. Many engineers have a high level of mathematical capability but lack communication skills. What about a hospitality coordinator for a vineyard? They have a high level of communication ability but lack mathematical capability. Who smarter of the two? The engineer will have a higher IQ test score then the vineyard coordinator. But the coordinator has far more communication skills. Maybe the engineer makes more money the the vineyard coordinator; maybe not. So who is smarter of the two? It all depends on the interpretation of intelligence.
In reality a IQ test is just one way of determining intelligence. What I don't understand is why an IQ test is the historical and current form of intelligence rating. I would believe that today intelligence would be rated on how much money you make. CEO's make the most money. So aren't they the most intelligent individuals? A CEO doesn't have to have a higher mathematical capability. A CEO intelligence is based primarily on predicting future trends, communication and organization. So this is why I don't think a IQ test is the ultimate test of intelligence.
I believe communication, prediction and organization are the ultimate means of intelligence. But my personality type is structured and organized. So my view of intelligence is bias to these traits that I have. So an IQ test is based on a series of individuals who have certain traits they view as superior to other traits. So aren't all tests that determine intelligence bias? Thus intelligence is based on an more then just a IQ test, psychological test and etc. Thus all tests currently that only focus on certain areas and not all areas of intelligence must mean that all intelligence tests are inaccurate.
Intelligence for every set of variables is intelligence. But for every set of variables is a different set of variables. Shouldn't intelligence be based on what you are trying to achieve? Comparative advantage is when a particular person or collective focuses on what they do best. For instance an individual who has a natural ability for law becomes a lawyer in a city. A man in a rural area with a climate and soil that is good for growing vegetables becomes a farmer. We benefit from comparative advantage in society by individuals and countries doing what they do best based on the variables besides there personality traits. So shouldn't an IQ test be specific to where a person lives and what they do?
All I am saying is that an IQ test only tests for certain personality traits. One man might be the best sniper in the world, but his IQ test is 70. But isn't the sniper more intelligent then you; one who lacks the primal instinct to hunt?
If you actual read the entire post you have superior patience then most people. I hope you had as much fun reading my post as I had writing it. If you haven't read any philosophy, I do recommend you pick up a book or take a class at a local college. Questioning reality is truly a intellectually stimulating thought process I hope you all can enjoy. Thanks for your time and your thoughts.
|