I'm a mathematician with an interest in psychometry. Currently thinking about creating my own IQ test, and I came to ask myself a few questions.
The overall IQ score should be a weighted average of verbal intelligence, pattern recognition, short term memory and spatial intelligence. But how should I weight these different areas.
Consider the extreme cases of an autist who can only into pattern recognition while having absolutely no verbal skills. Now consider the opposite, i.e. a rapper with extremely good verbal intelligence but who failed calculus in school. How should we compare these two? Which one would be more intelligent in the end?
Any input would be highly appreciated.
I remember... once upon a time... that intelligence was all about your brain. How good you were a math, physics, puzzles, etc.
Then people who were good at sports would called athletic. People who would have good verbal skills would be called articulate. A person with good social skills would be called outgoing. A person with artistic talent would be called talented.
Now to hell with you. People good at sports have 'spatial intelligence'. Good verbal skills have 'verbal intelligence'. Social skills is now 'social intelligence' and I'm sure they have some bullshit made up intelligence for art too, I've seen those pictures posted on fucking facebook one too many times.
I'm tired of this you fucking morons. No, you are not intelligent. You are not smart. You may be articulate, talented, athletic but you are not fucking intelligent. Stop making up definitions just because it makes you feel good.
I am not athletic and I don't give a fuck. You don't have to tell me that I am 'mentally athletic' or some bullshit like that. I am articulate too and that is fine.
Fuck right off OP, and take your gang of facebookers with you.
Why do you feel the need to reinvent a functioning wheel? There are already tests that separate dimensions of intelligence.
On what theoretical basis did you pick those dimensions? How are they weighted? Why?
>People good at sports have 'spatial intelligence'.
Spatial intelligence is about visualizing geometric shapes in higher dimensions. I'd rather say athletes have good control of their body.
I don't think an overall IQ score is needed nowadays. Let the user decide how they want to weight the different aspects, or dimensions, your test will measure. It seems a lot more useful for them this way anyway.
I suppose the dimensions should be as independant as possible and you can probably have a normalized score for each of them.
Since they are likely to be a bit correlated, I suppose you'll have to normalize them using a multivariate normal distribution.
If you really want to come up with an overall score anyway. Have a group of people take your test and another well established test. There's probably ways to calibrate your test so it is consistent with the global IQ scores from the well established test.
You can also research the g-factor. From Wiki:
The g factor (short for "general factor") is a construct developed in psychometric investigations of cognitive abilities. It is a variable that summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflecting the fact that an individual's performance at one type of cognitive task tends to be comparable to that person's performance at other kinds of cognitive tasks. The g factor typically accounts for 40 to 50 percent of the between-individual performance differences on a given cognitive test, and composite scores ("IQ scores") based on many tests are frequently regarded as estimates of individuals' standing on the g factor.
By not using weighted averages. Make it input all the different scores into a function, and make it so that any change in the IQ by one score is influenced by all the other scores.
You would probably need some complex math for that, and you would probably need to invent some math yourself.
Anyway, look up the concept of Indifference Curves. It would show a tradeoff between different scores. For example - what verbal score you need to have and what pattern recognition score you need to have, for any possible pair (or n-tuple) of verbal and pattern recognition scores for the IQ score to be the same.
It's very sad that psychologists don't know proper math, so they end up creating shitty, unpredictive, unfalsifiable or bordering falsifiable models based on 1st year college math. Why isn't at least a Bachelor level of math required for psychologists? That would weed out a lot of idiots from psychology (like those pseudo-scientific Freudian psychoanalysts and such).
Isn't this going to become moot once we have a human brain model in a few years? My advise would be to focus your bran capacity at helping those that are currently trying to model our brain, because they sure need all the help they can't get.
> Currently thinking about creating my own IQ test
Unless you can identify neural pathways specifically associated with the g factor and invent a brain scanning method to show levels of activity in those pathways, don't bother, you're just circlejerking yourself at this point.
Your psychometric instrument won't be used by anybody but yourself.