Thread:User talk:WaitingforGodot/IQ tests/reply (31)

I think we might all be operationalising intelligence a little bit differently. The way I think about is as the processing speed of your brain. Imagine it is the megahertz/gigahertz and ram capability of your brain (a distinctly cognitive outlook). It correlates strongly with things like reaction time or inspection time tasks (how quickly you can react to stimulus or decide which of two lines is longer) probably because the faster your nerves can 'transmit' the faster your brain can 'think'. Most authors would define it as how quickly a person can learn and operationalise new information - there might be small differences between definitions but not great big fatal ones. Obviously intelligence is different to education. Intelligence is fluid, it can be applied to ANY field, whereas education is crystallised it can only be applied to specific fields. That's why tests like Ravens or Catells are considered more intelligence loaded, they contain very little variance due to prior learning - you have to learn how to do the test as you go along.

There are problems - Retesting effects to my mind are the most obvious and dire (it's where I do my research). However, the proof always lies in the pudding, what can you do with IQ scores? How about predict work performance to a correlation of .6? How about the BEST single predictor of work performance; in the absence of previous work performance data?

The flynn effect might actually be because people are getting smarter through environmental effects. Don't tell Schlafly, his head might explode.