Getting back on track for the "Common sense IQ" thjread

[Keneke]

So, these types of tests would be completely inaccurate to measure IQs, because some people just don't know about plumbing and stuff. It's the same for previously-administered IQ tests that have verbal, mathematical, and reading comprehension. You just have to know those things.

Notice that most modern IQ tests are pattern matching.

[Iamme]

Keneke---You're absolutely right. The thread is 'tongue in cheek'. It was intended to garner interest. After all, Jref'ers are into high I.Q. type stuff. ( Remember all the posts the old 'Mensa' thread got? ) I have told other people about JREf...that it is like a 'think tank'.

So, if you happen to be a cardiac surgeon, but don't know houses....ask us what the first thing a heart doctror should do before surgery...or whatever. If you work for a newspaper, ask us if we know how all that print gets on the paper in only 24 hours. Stuff like that.

[Lord Kenneth]

Personally, I think IQs are pointless and meaningless. I'd rather see how someone reasons then a score based on how well they perform on a particular test on a particular day.

[Keneke]

But those tests do show reasoning on the most intuitive, non-cultural level. Would a genius who lives in an apartment and has a maintenance man take care of the plumbing know anything about it? What if he or she had a phobia of bugs and didn't want to get under the sink or house?

[Iamme]

Lord Kenneth and Keneke---I believe that when it comes to judging ones I.Q., that a persons ability to think random thought patterns, and even run through one's mind, a host of questions relative to trying to solve a problem on some basic level, goes a long way, in my definition of I.Q.

Obviously, a person has to have a certain basis of knowledge of things in general. If a person has no knowledge, it be pretty hard to find ones I.Q.

I.Q. tests also rely on speed. I don't necessarily agree with this. A lot of people might be plain old stupid, and all the time in the world will not get them any closer to solving a problem. Others (Like, I think *I* fall into this category), are not the world's fastest, but do have the ability to run the gamut of questions necessary to finally solve the problem.

In an I.Q. test they are going to display like 9 squares with various shapes in the squares and have you pick two that are a representation of some similarity. It is a mental 'processing' problem. Some will look at it and 'get' it very quickly. Others would NEVER get it. And still others would wind up getting it, after they talked it out saying, "Well, this is like that, but this isn't like that, but this has that, and that one don't have that....and a half-hour later they get it. Too late...but they can get it.

In many walks of life, that is all that matters. But, if you want to be a trial lawyer and someone gets you in a corner, you can't just stand there for a half-hour processing data in your head. Likewise, if you are a brain surgeon...the patient could be dead on the operating table by the time you figured out how to solve your problem.

But 'intelligence is still very vexing to try to quantify, IMO. For this very cracker-jack lawyer, or surgeon, they might be dumber than a box of rocks when it comes to analyzing why on a two-brake bicycle mechanism, it isn't working right. And along comes some guy who practically flunked out of school and who isn't really used to working on bikes...and can solve the problem. It' weird.

The wiring in the brain is more complicated, I believe, than what a test can reveal. But, they are the best we can do, as using this as an indicator.

I am at an advantage when it comes to many mechanical things, perhaps because even if I haven't seen THAT particular mechanicl device, there are 'carry-overs' from one device to another. Similar electrical functions may be used. Similar fastening methods might be used. The diagnostics require a similar mindset that people who diagnose gadgets in general would use.

I have not been formally schooled...heck, no library books either, on how to fix all the stuff I can. But I have this 'instinct' on all kinds of repairs, because I have developed that necessary inquisitive order for diagnosing. For example, if you learned rudimentary electrical, then it's not a stretch to be able to tackle an outage in a dryer. Then you observe this and that and, then you feel bold with a washing machine. You have to know what kind of questions to ask. Some have this ability and some don't. I don't know why. I picked up on refrigeration without knowing hardluy a lick about it. How? I simply know certain rudimentary things which allow me to probe deeper to ask MORE things, and test for those things...which I have the ability to do because I learned THOSE things from OTHER devices. See what I mean?

Religious people are going to tell you that the answer to all this is simple. That God made us all different, with different abilities. That if we all could do only the same things as one another, we, as a human race, would be in big trouble. We never would have advanced past the child rearing/food gathering stage.

William Teller knew nuclear devices. Do you think he could have master minded a complex wicker basket, like they make in India...by some illiterate? Maybe not.

Intelligence is a fascinating subject that is short on total answers.

[Keneke]

Of course. We haven't even gotten to the EQ yet, or any of the other factors of a person's capability. But...
If a person has no knowledge, it be pretty hard to find ones I.Q.
...is not entirely correct. Intelligence is thought power, whereas knowledge is what is gained. Kind of like a computer processor and a hard drive. Sure, there's things on the "hard drive" that make the "processor" optimize (such as the rules of logic, intuition, and DirectX), but one must see the difference.

As far as speed being an unfair factor in IQ testing, that is true. The ability to concentrate and finish what you have started are measured in the EQ, and someone with a low EQ is going to bring down his scores through the inability to function under pressure. Perhaps if there was a long amount of time available to finish a set number of problems, IQ could be more accurately assessed.

I wonder how they measure EQ....

[Iamme]

And...how would an I.Q. test measure to see if a person has great 'vision'. Vision...such as being able to picture a complex structure or gadget, before even drawing it on paper. Some of these gifted people do not even have to work off drawings. They just build it! They can be book-stupid, yet have this talent! And such talented people...the dreamers...the builders...are who give us what we have about us, in this world of ours. While the 'snmart ones' ponder the 'why's' of everything....maybe even including this.

[rockoon]

I propose the development of an IQ test that includes all the knowledge needed to solve and does not rely, infact avoids, all references to knowledge gained elsewhere.

You would begin by proposing a new reality where everything about it is totally unlike our reality.

Maybe quantum mechanics is a start :-)