Thoughts on the IQ test? I ask because /pol/ and /leftypol/

What IQ test?
There are many different ones.

>>8441018
Sorry, I mean the idea of standardized tests which attempt to measure intelligience with an "IQ" - intelligience quotient.

Basically, /pol/ thinks that these tests are correct and they do accurately measure intelligience, and that one's score cannot be signifigantly improved via repetition or study. /leftypol/ argues that IQ tests do not accurately measure intelligience and that one's score can be improved through repetition and study.

The argument occurs because /pol/ argues that IQ tests show that whites (and maybe asians) are generally smarter than other races. /leftypol/ argues that this is because of the social and economic disparity between whites and other races, allowing whites to study more and repeatedly take IQ tests, skewing the results in their favor.

>>8441038
No one test is going to be 100% "correct", it gives the examiner a better understanding of cognitive functions, spatial reasoning skills, etc

iq tests are only accurate in distinguishing between retards average and intelligent, you cant distinguish between someone who got 120 and 130 but if youre getting below 100 youre a fucking imbecile and if youre getting above 140 youre just smarter than average not genius

>>8441154
I like to use the word "quick witted"
You absorb information easily basically,while others have to study harder than you to grasp the concepts.

/pol/ is right again

But really it depends on the test.

Any test that includes questions about definitions of words and similar ilk are meaningless.

But questions about things like shape re-arrangement, gears, and so on are 100% proof of intelligence unquestionably. Maybe not the """only""" form of intelligence. But the one that can be measures and the one that is important.

>>8441038
I don't think IQ is really a good measure, but im certainly not /leftypol/

>>8441617
Actually, "not good" might not be entirely truthful

File: 1471240553993.jpg (17KB, 429x399px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 429x399px

>>8441015

The answer to the secret question is to convince the proctor to give you the answers.

>>8441015
Brainlet compensation thread? Did you score below 120 on an IQ test or something you dumdum ?

I believe there are some IQ tests that are quite reliable in predicting academic success assuming a diligent student. Pretty sure that's what they were originally designed for. I've read that different countries have recorded different mean IQ scores for their populations, but I was never interested enough to look into how legitimate the figures were.

Although cultural ignorance has historically been used as an explanation for why blacks seem to get lower average scores on these tests, a properly formulated IQ test shouldn't require any general knowledge. The questions are meant to be unique challenges that the participant couldn't practice or study for. However, these tests still require the ability to comprehend problems described through language, so I'm not entirely ready to discount the possibility that in countries or in populations with very poor literacy and general language competency that lower mean IQ scores are the result of an educational disadvantage.

Only a humble psych grad over here.

>>8441015
IQ tests are a meme, how many times do we have to say this

>>8441015
There's a cornucopia of IQ tests, all of which have to be given under the administration of a licensed psychologist. There's truth in IQ tests.
>>8441154
That's entirely dependent on the test. When I took the test when I was 13 I scored 123 full scale (standard deviation was 15 points. But 136 in verbal skills and 133 in perceptual reasoning (which put me in the 99th percentile of people my age) but only in the 94th percentile for my full scale IQ.
Also, there isn't a 'IQ test', theres expansive swath of different tests.

>>8441038
>/leftypol/ argues that this is because of the social and economic disparity between whites and other races, allowing whites to study more and repeatedly take IQ tests, skewing the results in their favor.
You're full of shit. No way /leftypol/ argues this.

>>8441015
> biology
>>>/lit/