Are IQ tests valid?

**Morbius Sire** · June 13, 2012, 12:40 PM

Recently I've tried my luck on one of the online IQ tests.

And I was wondering, are IQ tests credible? as in, are they a good indicator of analytical intelligence?

Do they represent intelligence in a properly scientific manner?

**John I Tzimisces** · June 13, 2012, 01:17 PM

If you need to ask about the validity of an online IQ test then perhaps you have your answer.

edit: A less snarky answer: the validity of even non-online IQ tests is questionable as they often rely on culturally specific information or a certain level of schooling. Intelligence is an ambiguous concept in reality: we "know" it when we see it, but most people deem themselves to be above average when this is obviously impossible.

**Morbius Sire** · June 13, 2012, 05:48 PM

The snarky answer was pretty concise for my question

Either way, the result I got [even if it is questionable] was pretty good..so all's well.

**The Despondent Mind** · June 13, 2012, 05:55 PM

When a IQ test acknowledges me as the Genius Supreme then it will be valid .

**Phier** · June 13, 2012, 08:31 PM

Most online IQ tests are not valid IQ tests. If they say "Test your IQ" in a banner add, they are testing your IQ being all they want are your stats and email address to spam.

I'm sure there are some valid IQ tests online.

As for IQ tests being valid, I think they are quite valid and cultural bias is used as an excuse. Such bias might be evident giving an IQ test in Nigeria that was written in the US for US students, but its an excuse when its used to explain away IQ differences in the US itself, especially when socioeconomic factors are factored out.

When I was about 7, I was performing poorly in school. They thought perhaps I was shall we say "special". I had what amounted to a laboratory with a friend of mine who was two years older in his house, but school was boring so I played the system, pretended I couldn't do the boring assignments and they left me alone. So my parents had me tested though I was completely unaware I was being tested. I spent the better part of a day at my school with a specialist who, it turned out gave me a whole battery of IQ tests. After being tested things changed rather dramatically for me at school and at home and I was basically forced to become a good student, though it took some time for me to really focus. This is not the interesting part of the story.

Years later I found the original report on my testing with the various types of IQ listed. I was about 16 at the time. I decided to do what we did before the internet and go to the library to see what I would score on an IQ test at that time. Even though I took the test almost 10 years before, when I had very little schooling, and in fact was horrible at the basic skills taught up to second grade when I took the test (it is why they gave it to me in the first place), my scores were almost identical to the IQ scores when I was 7. In college I tested again and I'll be damned if I didn't get the same scores again. So for me, be it a 7 year old who was basically ignoring all school work for those first 2 years of schooling, to someone in college the numbers never varied more than a couple of points.

Now perhaps the "white maleness" of 7 somehow permeated my bones at 7 to the point where I scored higher due to cultural bias, or perhaps, at least for me, IQ tests are at the very least, quite precise. Being these scores have been backed up by other forms of testing which are considered "valid" as IQ tests, such as the GRE pre 2000 (before they neutered it) and by Norton Analogies (and this one I would say would qualify as culturally biased), they seem pretty accurate too.

**~~removeduser_4536284751384~~** · June 15, 2012, 08:04 PM

I live in a country without an IQ testing fad, so I don't know much about them. Doesn't acquired knowledge influence your IQ? Won't doing tests with similar questions one after the other increase your score as you get practice?

**Elfdude** · June 25, 2012, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by Phier

As for IQ tests being valid, I think they are quite valid and cultural bias is used as an excuse. Such bias might be evident giving an IQ test in Nigeria that was written in the US for US students, but its an excuse when its used to explain away IQ differences in the US itself, especially when socioeconomic factors are factored out.

The thing I struggle with here is that there is no standardized rule for controlling for socioeconomic status or SES. Some studies assume as little as three different possible SES which in turn tend to even out (go figure with large studies of only slightly discriminated groups will only produce on average slight differences). This is the struggle I have with all IQ because there is no effective or accurate way to account for this SES.

http://pan.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/1/173

Originally Posted by Phier

When I was about 7, I was performing poorly in school. They thought perhaps I was shall we say "special". I had what amounted to a laboratory with a friend of mine who was two years older in his house, but school was boring so I played the system, pretended I couldn't do the boring assignments and they left me alone.

I did a similar thing, I just manipulated my classmates into doing the boring stuff for me though

Originally Posted by Phier

So my parents had me tested though I was completely unaware I was being tested. I spent the better part of a day at my school with a specialist who, it turned out gave me a whole battery of IQ tests. After being tested things changed rather dramatically for me at school and at home and I was basically forced to become a good student, though it took some time for me to really focus. This is not the interesting part of the story.

An interesting anecdote.

Originally Posted by Phier

Years later I found the original report on my testing with the various types of IQ listed. I was about 16 at the time. I decided to do what we did before the internet and go to the library to see what I would score on an IQ test at that time. Even though I took the test almost 10 years before, when I had very little schooling, and in fact was horrible at the basic skills taught up to second grade when I took the test (it is why they gave it to me in the first place), my scores were almost identical to the IQ scores when I was 7.

This isn't typical. IQ scores typically hit a plateu from development to childhood with high IQ's often disappearing and low IQ's often increasing by the end of schooling.

Originally Posted by Phier

In college I tested again and I'll be damned if I didn't get the same scores again. So for me, be it a 7 year old who was basically ignoring all school work for those first 2 years of schooling, to someone in college the numbers never varied more than a couple of points.

It's rather impressive that you were able to maintain the gains you had as a child.

Originally Posted by Phier

Now perhaps the "white maleness" of 7 somehow permeated my bones at 7 to the point where I scored higher due to cultural bias, or perhaps, at least for me, IQ tests are at the very least, quite precise.

Now I'm going to describe the average differences. I don't care if they don't immediately apply to you but I'm betting many will.

Actually the white maleness starts its IQ benefits even before then. You begin with a higher standard of care at the hospital. From there you continue on with a better neighborhood, better socialization opportunities. If you have one parent with a good job you also have the opportunity of having a 24/7 tutor there to help you develop. Your environment is rather stable which means you don't waste much time on returning your state of mind back to the norm so you can pursue higher learning. You also benefit from a family who has a much higher standard IQ on average meaning they can further help you develop your own IQ. Studies show that IQ in families rarely exceeds variance of about 12 points which when you're working with an average IQ of 80-85 on average vs the white average of 100 is a pretty massive handicap.

This is all before you hit the outside world.

Now because you tend to have more money and live in safer neighborhoods which are also more stable a better school is almost a given. The percentage of minorities inside of cities vs outside of cities is drastically different and unsurprisingly its the inner city schools which fair the worst. This includes lack of good textbooks, lack of money to support new programs, lack of teachers willing to teach in a hostile environment, lack of care about individual children etc etc etc. When your school spends money on metal detectors and a police drug dog OVER improved education materials something is obviously wrong especially when those materials are already obsolete.

Now I can go the opposite way too. Whites typically have much better nutrition and higher birthweights of their children because of this. Further different substances and pollutants the child would be exposed to will be much different. It's much less common for minorities to recieve a well balanced diet and to have all sorts of nutrition deficiencies. Protien of critical importance is often much lower in these diets instead focusing on fats and carbohydrates (aka the poor man's diet). This is without considering endocrine disruption, this is without considering abuse rates, crimes rates and relative health of said families. How many other things can you think of which do have a demonstrated impact on IQ?

My problem isn't with them on an individual level but rather on a macro-scale level of interpretation. Because while the factors are fantastic in individual placement, they fail spectacularly to create an accurate overall impression of different groups strengths of weaknesses because they fail and most likely could not take the variables into account. Either that or mysteriously voting Democrats have a higher average IQ than voting Republicans.

Though many studies have shown a large distinction between whites and blacks no study has convincingly demonstrated a true cause of this except maybe the Flynn effect. It's only thing which explains the variance which we see with the other minorities as well. For example Ashkenazi jews who's average IQ are 115 have a much higher standard of living than most whites. Meaning we too could be suffering from a relative flynn effect. I have yet to see any study which can explain the variance as well or as clearly and as predictable as the flynn effect can.

Originally Posted by xcorps

I think IQ tests are the most irrellevant possible measurement of learning capacity that could possibly exist. How can you consider a person with an IQ of 142 highly intelligent if you don't know which of the multitude of tests where taken?

Overall the variance on this is surprisingly small. The problem occurs when you try to account for different groups.

Originally Posted by xcorps

How can a single test score be relevant to a persons intelligence when a multitude of environmental factors affect the outcome of the test? Having a good breakfast before taking the test can change the outcome by two points. Not having a full nights sleep the night before can affect it by another two points. A child who doesn't really want to take the test and blows it off might score at primate level..but it might be that the child would rather be doing quantom calculations than filling in bubbles with a number two pencil so he filled in the answers to make an interesting design on the paper.

It's unlikely but it's not like it hasn't happened. Still overall this is rare.

Originally Posted by xcorps

IQ tests don't measure intelligence. They measure how well you take a test in comparison with a bunch of other kids. Scoring a few deviation points outside the norm is not a measure of intellect. It's a way to quantify and categorize people so they can be labelled.

This is very true. They measure exactly what they're designed to measure and that is the IQ whether that truly means intelligence or not is highly debatable.

Originally Posted by Phier

If they are completely irrelevant you should have good examples of those with very low IQ's who excel at say theoretical physics?

Blowing off a test is not an example of someone with a poor IQ, its an example of someone not taking the test.

Well you do have examples of low IQ's in fields like physics, it's rare but they do exist. Their average is 130 which is indeed much higher than average but remember what the IQ test tests in regards to skills is very much the skillsets that physicists use. On the other hand the same skills in the IQ test do not necessarily imply any bonus in your ability to understand political science over say the average person's. Which is to say IQ tests heavily test spatial, mathematical and abstract reasoning which of course are required to conceptualize high mathematics and physics. Further you do see massively increased IQ's in PHD graduates across the board. Unfortunately more studies would be needed to determine if they started intelligence and ended up in their natural fields or if they developed their intelligence.

Intervention studies show that IQ is roughly 40% environmental and 60% genetic. This 40% can be massively effected by different Socioeconomic variables.

**Col. Tartleton** · June 13, 2012, 11:37 PM

IQ tests are obviously accurate at determining your IQ.

Whether that translates to how smart you are is above my pay grade.

**Claudius Gothicus** · June 14, 2012, 08:03 AM

IQ tests, the real ones performed by trained psychologists, are quite valid. But they have to be updated, due to the everchanging nature of educational progress(among other factors).

**Timefool** · June 14, 2012, 01:13 PM

I don't like how its scored. They divide your score from the questions by your age (hence the quotient part of Intelligence Quotient), and they subtract points for time spent taking the test. So the older and slower you are, the higher you need to score to be equal with a younger or faster person.

**Col. Tartleton** · June 15, 2012, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Timefool

I don't like how its scored. They divide your score from the questions by your age (hence the quotient part of Intelligence Quotient), and they subtract points for time spent taking the test. So the older and slower you are, the higher you need to score to be equal with a younger or faster person.

Well speed should obviously be a factor. The test was to determine military officers. They want people who can think quickly and get things right. I consider that being smart.

**xcorps** · June 15, 2012, 01:05 AM

For a little more snark:

If you take an online IQ test, you fail it every time.

Less snark: I think IQ tests are the most irrellevant possible measurement of learning capacity that could possibly exist. How can you consider a person with an IQ of 142 highly intelligent if you don't know which of the multitude of tests where taken? How can a single test score be relevant to a persons intelligence when a multitude of environmental factors affect the outcome of the test? Having a good breakfast before taking the test can change the outcome by two points. Not having a full nights sleep the night before can affect it by another two points. A child who doesn't really want to take the test and blows it off might score at primate level..but it might be that the child would rather be doing quantom calculations than filling in bubbles with a number two pencil so he filled in the answers to make an interesting design on the paper.

IQ tests don't measure intelligence. They measure how well you take a test in comparison with a bunch of other kids. Scoring a few deviation points outside the norm is not a measure of intellect. It's a way to quantify and categorize people so they can be labelled.

**Phier** · June 15, 2012, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by xcorps

For a little more snark:

If you take an online IQ test, you fail it every time.

Less snark: I think IQ tests are the most irrellevant possible measurement of learning capacity that could possibly exist. How can you consider a person with an IQ of 142 highly intelligent if you don't know which of the multitude of tests where taken? How can a single test score be relevant to a persons intelligence when a multitude of environmental factors affect the outcome of the test? Having a good breakfast before taking the test can change the outcome by two points. Not having a full nights sleep the night before can affect it by another two points. A child who doesn't really want to take the test and blows it off might score at primate level..but it might be that the child would rather be doing quantom calculations than filling in bubbles with a number two pencil so he filled in the answers to make an interesting design on the paper.

IQ tests don't measure intelligence. They measure how well you take a test in comparison with a bunch of other kids. Scoring a few deviation points outside the norm is not a measure of intellect. It's a way to quantify and categorize people so they can be labelled.

If they are completely irrelevant you should have good examples of those with very low IQ's who excel at say theoretical physics?

Blowing off a test is not an example of someone with a poor IQ, its an example of someone not taking the test.

**xcorps** · June 15, 2012, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Phier

Blowing off a test is not an example of someone with a poor IQ, its an example of someone not taking the test.