Isn’t intelligence somewhat like the word “good” - as in, someone must be “good at” something, rather than inherently. Are cars “good”? (sometimes but not always…) Are cats? Are people? e.g. regarding the latter, there are many tasks for which a computing device is much better than most people - e.g. sorting a list of >1000000 elements, within one second (and then doing that task, without pausing or slowing down or error, in perpetuity). So the term “good” is only definable given a known fitness landscape.
Which then becomes somewhat naive to try to extrapolate beyond that - bc then someone good at sports could be said to be “intelligent” (at performing their particular sport?), or someone with high emotional flexibility at adaptive to new circumstances, etc. Ironically enough, someone with good accounting skills (always thinking within the box, that being the whole point for them) would likely make a horrible scientist (who needs to think OUTSIDE of the box), and potentially though not guaranteed vice versa.
So intelligence must be reflective of… SOMETHING, blah blah hand waving meaning things that “I” am good at, basically. I know right, I have all the best-er-est words, I am such a jenius, and so on.
How would that measure the intelligence of a tribal person who has not seen abstracted geometrical shapes?
So yeah, they would be less “intelligent” at performing those tasks that are measured by the test. Corollary: people on average may legitimately have gotten more intelligent over time, depending on availability of schooling. Thus necessitating adjustment of the measurement system, if the real goal was not to measure “intelligence” and rather to provide some kind of separation among people based solely on that singular metric (which itself should be questioned, if the people doing so are wise rather than merely intelligent:-).
The things I think the standard IQ test measures are more about a combination of an ability to quickly visually process information, and some elements of mathematics/logical thinking. I’ve scored +1.3~2.0 z score at various points in my life, and I think that the elements are that I can read extremely quickly and perceive math problems very quickly.
I’ve frequently worked with students who understand math and patterns very well, they just struggle with some element of the visual processing. They transpose numbers and letters when they see them, they switch up letters in geometrical figures, they get so overwhelmed with the stress of reading under eye or the clock that the words mix up and they miss the meaning.
They have the low “IQ” has measured. But they are capable of understanding the concepts - just not conveying them in the way that a standardized instrument can (or even should?) measure.
Ie; I don’t think it’s that great a measure beyond the sub 80 - which is a meaningful deficit and is acknowledged in the process of diagnosing for developmental delays/impairment. (It also can entirely be overcome in some cases with good support - like istfg as someone who has been paid to do this kind of thing the difference is that poor/middle class kids don’t get help)
Isn’t intelligence somewhat like the word “good” - as in, someone must be “good at” something, rather than inherently. Are cars “good”? (sometimes but not always…) Are cats? Are people? e.g. regarding the latter, there are many tasks for which a computing device is much better than most people - e.g. sorting a list of >1000000 elements, within one second (and then doing that task, without pausing or slowing down or error, in perpetuity). So the term “good” is only definable given a known fitness landscape.
Which then becomes somewhat naive to try to extrapolate beyond that - bc then someone good at sports could be said to be “intelligent” (at performing their particular sport?), or someone with high emotional flexibility at adaptive to new circumstances, etc. Ironically enough, someone with good accounting skills (always thinking within the box, that being the whole point for them) would likely make a horrible scientist (who needs to think OUTSIDE of the box), and potentially though not guaranteed vice versa.
So intelligence must be reflective of… SOMETHING, blah blah hand waving meaning things that “I” am good at, basically. I know right, I have all the best-er-est words, I am such a jenius, and so on.
So yeah, they would be less “intelligent” at performing those tasks that are measured by the test. Corollary: people on average may legitimately have gotten more intelligent over time, depending on availability of schooling. Thus necessitating adjustment of the measurement system, if the real goal was not to measure “intelligence” and rather to provide some kind of separation among people based solely on that singular metric (which itself should be questioned, if the people doing so are wise rather than merely intelligent:-).
The things I think the standard IQ test measures are more about a combination of an ability to quickly visually process information, and some elements of mathematics/logical thinking. I’ve scored +1.3~2.0 z score at various points in my life, and I think that the elements are that I can read extremely quickly and perceive math problems very quickly.
I’ve frequently worked with students who understand math and patterns very well, they just struggle with some element of the visual processing. They transpose numbers and letters when they see them, they switch up letters in geometrical figures, they get so overwhelmed with the stress of reading under eye or the clock that the words mix up and they miss the meaning.
They have the low “IQ” has measured. But they are capable of understanding the concepts - just not conveying them in the way that a standardized instrument can (or even should?) measure.
Ie; I don’t think it’s that great a measure beyond the sub 80 - which is a meaningful deficit and is acknowledged in the process of diagnosing for developmental delays/impairment. (It also can entirely be overcome in some cases with good support - like istfg as someone who has been paid to do this kind of thing the difference is that poor/middle class kids don’t get help)