That would be quite accurate if people rolled for stats using 3d6. But almost no one does. Our group, for example, does 4d6, drop the lowest. Most other groups use a point-buy method. Even for NPCs, you've got "X" number with the elite array skewing results upwards, and you've got elves (and many humans) with that pesky +2 racial bonus.
And then you have animals, like chimpanzees (which can learn sign language) with an Int of 2 (IQ substantially below 60).
D&D doesn't lend itself to real-world comparisons.
I think most of those involved in the debate were capable of figuring out that 98th percentile (IQ 130) is roughly a 17 Intelligence score if you apply a real-world IQ distribution. It's just that some people feel that 18 isn't intended to represent one person in 216, but one person in 2,160,000. That is, that "normal" people don't roll 3d6.
Frankly, I can see the appeal of both scales, but I'm inclined to lean toward your interpretation. Possibly because it gives me an Intelligence of 17 instead of 14. :P
That would be quite accurate if people rolled for stats using 3d6. But almost no one does. Our group, for example, does 4d6, drop the lowest. Most other groups use a point-buy method. Even for NPCs, you've got "X" number with the elite array skewing results upwards, and you've got elves (and many humans) with that pesky +2 racial bonus.
And then you have animals, like chimpanzees (which can learn sign language) with an Int of 2 (IQ substantially below 60).
D&D doesn't lend itself to real-world comparisons.
Players are heroic and so is the elite standard array. Its an analysis of the general population. The NPC class standard array is a 3 point buy and I think modeled well by a typical set of 3D6 rolls.
As the recent Paizo blog addressed animal INT is different than human INT.
The racial bonuses are an interesting point. I guess this works better for 3.5 humans than Pathfinder humans.
you know i like that its not that far off from how i usually handle the idea of int yours is more direct i think i always did it like so
8 = 80
9=90
10=100
etc.
but yours actually makes more since as opposed to a 20 int giving 200 IQ. ofcourse iq is very objective in and of itself but its still a easy reference.
Its an analysis of the general population. The NPC class standard array is a 3 point buy and I think modeled well by a typical set of 3D6 rolls.
But we're dealing with a game in which a given sample is almost NEVER representative of the population (in direct contrast to most statistical baseline assumptions). Population statistics really shouldn't come into it, IMO.
I think most of those involved in the debate were capable of figuring out that 98th percentile (IQ 130) is roughly a 17 Intelligence score if you apply a real-world IQ distribution. It's just that some people feel that 18 isn't intended to represent one person in 216, but one person in 2,160,000. That is, that "normal" people don't roll 3d6.
Frankly, I can see the appeal of both scales, but I'm inclined to lean toward your interpretation. Possibly because it gives me an Intelligence of 17 instead of 14. :P
yea it gives me a 17/18 as well.
I dunno if I could comprehend a 7th or 8th level spell tho, lol
yea it gives me a 17/18 as well.
I dunno if I could comprehend a 7th or 8th level spell tho, lol
I'm pretty sure I couldn't -- for one thing, I lack the persistence. Of course, I might feel differently if having the persistence meant I could fly, walk through walls, etc. :P
IQ is one of those things with extreme outliers. I'm smarter than most people I meet, but the extreme outliers (Good Will Hunting types) are much, much smarter than I am. If you want to fit those folks on the 3-18 scale, then that pushes, say, Mensa down to the 13-14 range. Otherwise, you have to assume there are people walking around with 24 Intelligence in the real world. 3D6 was never designed with demographics in mind...
Its an analysis of the general population. The NPC class standard array is a 3 point buy and I think modeled well by a typical set of 3D6 rolls.But we're dealing with a game in which a given sample is almost NEVER representative of the population (in direct contrast to most statistical baseline assumptions). Population statistics really shouldn't come into it, IMO.
no no i think your thinking about it a bit wrong i think you would have to assume that all creatures intels are based on humans since humans are the 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 race and everything else gets ability adjustments so i think you would assume if something is on par with a human they have no bonuses or penalties to intel. i think you see where im going. so elfs as a whole have higher iqs cause that have +2 now some might be dumber but on a pop level there 20 or so iq points higher.
now hes relateing the average iq for us nowadays to int.the only problem i see is given that its int of a medeviael culture their average iq would be considerably lower as iq has increased over time as a whole on a population level. so if you really wanted to be hard core about it you could figure a reverse flynn effect; figure out what medeviel iq might have been. ofcourse that wouldn't be accurate just because well they didn't invent the test untill recently so youd just be guessing but i digress.
oh another thought maybe the peopel with iq's of 24 are high level people. i would think college and life experience translates to real life exp. and in real life you don't gain levels you get attribute and skill points like in White wolf games. so dude just put all his points into int for that 24 :D
I think most of those involved in the debate were capable of figuring out that 98th percentile (IQ 130) is roughly a 17 Intelligence score if you apply a real-world IQ distribution. It's just that some people feel that 18 isn't intended to represent one person in 216, but one person in 2,160,000. That is, that "normal" people don't roll 3d6.
Frankly, I can see the appeal of both scales, but I'm inclined to lean toward your interpretation. Possibly because it gives me an Intelligence of 17 instead of 14. :P
yea it gives me a 17/18 as well.
I dunno if I could comprehend a 7th or 8th level spell tho, lol
But remember you would also have to be a 15th level wizard to understand a 7th level spell so don't put your comprehension down you just have not spent your life reading eldritch tomes and harnessing their arcane power.
|
Back in the day, Intelligence was defined as representing an IQ of about Int*10. That was almost 40 years ago. Current psychology, particularly educational psychology, has generally moved to a broader understanding of what intelligence means in real life. How modern theories of intelligence relate to the Intelligence score is another story.
The problem in relating the two statistical distributions is in defining what constitutes the universe of in-game intelligence. 3d6 is a defined range that is only a subset of what is possible in game, whereas the IQ scale, in theory, has no finite maximum.
well there is but that would be a limitation of the test not the individual. i think the idea is just to say how smart should i portray my 8int or 18 int character? should i play the 8 like an imbecile or just average. i think thats the idea thats trying to be reached
There is never going to be any way to get people to agree on something as subjective as this.
Assuming an unenhanced human being could have a max int of 20, and looking at the people on the planet today and in the past who are considered to be the super geniuses of all time, it should be reasonable to conclude that Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Leonardo DaVinci, Stephen Hawking, Wehrner Heisenberg, Marie Curie and many others must be in that 20 int range.
A 19 intelligence would then be one "level" below that, which would include all those scientists, mathematicians, doctors, engineers and philosophers who populate the pantheon of "great thinkers" men and women like Immanuel Kant, Neils Bohr, Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, etc...
An 18 intelligence would then characterize those who have risen to the ability to comprehend what the 19 and 20 intelligence people have discovered or created. That would include anyone who has studied and mastered the most complex fields, like nuclear physics, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, relativity theory, etc.
A 17 intelligence would then be for those who just quite can't grasp the concepts the 18 intelligence people can, but who are still obviously much more intelligent than the norm, and who can at least interact with the 18, 19 and 20 int people without being totally lost. That would include anyone who has mastered any hard science, or who has delved into and understood the great philosophies of our time, etc...
Now, the hard part is that the types of people I have described above have DEMONSTRATED their intelligence, while millions of others have the capability but have never done the work or had the opportunity to demonstrate it.
So, if you think you have an intelligence of 18, you should be able to comprehend general relativity. Or find Kant's "Critique or Pure Reason" to be an enjoyable bathroom reading exercise. Or understand the human genome. Etc. If you feel those are beyond you, then you're probably maxed out at 17 at least.
I would consider this the most reasonable way to translate the D&D scale into the real world IQ. In that sense a 20 intelligence would probably be something like an IQ of 170, while a 17 would probably be an IQ of 130 or so. A 100 IQ would be a 10 int. I know what my IQ has tested at, but I know better than to list it here. :)
Its an analysis of the general population. The NPC class standard array is a 3 point buy and I think modeled well by a typical set of 3D6 rolls.But we're dealing with a game in which a given sample is almost NEVER representative of the population (in direct contrast to most statistical baseline assumptions). Population statistics really shouldn't come into it, IMO.no no i think your thinking about it a bit wrong i think you would have to assume that all creatures intels are based on humans since humans are the 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 race and everything else gets ability adjustments so i think you would assume if something is on par with a human they have no bonuses or penalties to intel. i think you see where im going. so elfs as a whole have higher iqs cause that have +2 now some might be dumber but on a pop level there 20 or so iq points higher.
now hes relateing the average iq for us nowadays to int.
the only problem i see is given that its int of a medeviael culture their average iq would be considerably lower as iq has increased over time as a whole on a population level. so if you really wanted to be hard core about it you could figure a reverse flynn effect; figure out what medeviel iq might have been. ofcourse that wouldn't be accurate just because well they didn't invent the test untill recently so youd just be guessing but i digress.About that Flynn effect. You can look up a lot of arguments about that on the internet. It seems to me that the aspect of "intelligence" that IQ tests measure has gone up, because it is stressed in schools and by society.
You don't get something for nothing, because I also see a whole lot of young people who don't know which end of a wrench to pick up. I know my older relatives did things I don't have the slightest idea how to do. Seriously they would see someone use a welding machine once, use it themselves a few times, then seem like they had been doing it for years....
you make a good point there is arguement over diffrent kinds of inteligence. physcial inteligence, emotional int, social int, math int, etc. i prefer the defenition of high int making it easier to learn things kind of giving it more biological substrate. which is kind of how it works in DND high int = more skill points therefore you learn quicker and more. you example is good but its hard to apply IQ on individual levels there is always alot of error involved especially with that lapse of time period. it really works best on the population level.
IQ is very subjective i think its all about the test you took to get there if you are real smart but don't speak english and you take a english iq test well.... you may not do so hot...
I gets even more complicated... using Einstein as an example, how many levels of Expert(Physicist) did he have? 4? 8? 12? Did he put all of his increases into Int? Did he take Skill Focus(Knowledge: Physics)? What were his traits? Did they add any bonuses to Knowledge(Physics)? What was his wisdom score? Do the areas of cognition that are represented by wisdom play a role in IQ?
On top of that, the maximum (externally)un-enhanced human intelligence score is 25 (18 + 2 racial + 5 level adjustment) so any percentile scale would have to spread either 3-25, or 1-25 if you are assuming that the PF stat system automatically weeds out characters with any mental conditions that effectively reduce them to animal intelligence.
With these discussions we'retrying to shoehorn an inaccurate, oversimplified representation of human cognitive ability, into an oversimplified, inaccurate (but lot's of fun) representation of reality. I hate to say it, but until human cognition can be accurately quantified, this type of discussion isn't really likely to reach consensus.
I would get a 16 with that chart lol
I would get a 16 with that chart lol
I would have a 17, so I kinda like it, lol. You know, that I would expect most RPGers would score high on this, considering the geeky nature of the average gamer.
|
|
I would have a 17, so I kinda like it, lol. You know, that I would expect most RPGers would score high on this, considering the geeky nature of the average gamer.
Yep, me too. That seems a bit high (I usually peg myself as more of a 16) but what are you gonna do?
And unenhanced humans max out at more like 22 than 20, due to leveling up. I don't think anyone in the real world equates to level 10+, but level 8? I can see that. Not often, but occasionally.
That plus the racial mod going into Int and taking it to 19 or 20 for people who have, say, IQs of 160+ might make this reflect the actual intelligence range of people a bit better. With folks like Einstein and Hawking having Int 21-22, a Skill Focus, and 4-8 ranks in their Knowledge of choice (for a +15-20 in the area). Most people, even those with Int 20, will have more like a +9 or +10 at most. Usually much less.
.
.
.
Also, speaking as a Psych student, while IQ/Int comparisons strike me as useful and fun, it seems worth noting that IQ isn't actually a particularly good measure of raw intellect in the real world. It's the best measure of that we've got...but psychometrics, while useful, are really still in their infancy. It's actually a good measure of, very specifically, coping with novelty. You get a new (not primarily physical) job and your IQ will predict very well how you'll do at it for the first month or two...but says absolutely nothing about how you'll do thereafter. It also says next to nothing about how good you are in any areas of expertise you may have (though in game terms, I guess that second could just reflect skill ranks making up for low Int).
id like to go ahead and say this is a fun topic for us psych majors yay
I think most of those involved in the debate were capable of figuring out that 98th percentile (IQ 130) is roughly a 17 Intelligence score if you apply a real-world IQ distribution. It's just that some people feel that 18 isn't intended to represent one person in 216, but one person in 2,160,000. That is, that "normal" people don't roll 3d6.
Frankly, I can see the appeal of both scales, but I'm inclined to lean toward your interpretation. Possibly because it gives me an Intelligence of 17 instead of 14. :P
yea it gives me a 17/18 as well.
I dunno if I could comprehend a 7th or 8th level spell tho, lol
ditto, I could probably understand a 7th/8th level spell with years of experience, I do study the symbolism of alchemy.
And unenhanced humans max out at more like 22 than 20, due to leveling up. I don't think anyone in the real world equates to level 10+, but level 8? I can see that. Not often, but occasionally.
There might be a few Tomes of Clear Thought floating around out there too. What books count probably varies person-to-person. ;)
And unenhanced humans max out at more like 22 than 20, due to leveling up. I don't think anyone in the real world equates to level 10+, but level 8? I can see that. Not often, but occasionally.There might be a few Tomes of Clear Thought floating around out there too. What books count probably varies person-to-person. ;)
Principia Mathematica probably counts.
So much of this is incredibly masturbatory. Does this thread reflect the stereoptype of gamers as really intelligent but lacking charisma? Would anyone like to do a bell curve breakdown of "facebook friends and correlative DnD Charisma scores"?
I'm just glad to know that a 16 will get you in Mensa.
I always thought that an 18 (or in PF, I guess 20) represented the upper limit of human ability. Beyond that, you need magic to raise your stat. Unless IQ's of 141 to 220 or so are all lumped into an 18 stat.
Also, while you can easily model scores up to 18 like this, Scores higher are more difficult. Granted this is less than 2% of the population, but I personally need two hands to count the number of people I know with IQs over 140. One of them is fairly young, I don't see a 6th grader having enough levels to get a 22 or so Int. So I guess I'm complaining because too many of my friends and colleagues don't fit well into your chart. Good work, though. I still like the old IQ=Int*10. It's easier to model.
Even taking into account the highest possible starting scores and appropriate feats people in real life will make skill checks that are inappropriate for a 1st level character. The basic character creation rules will not cover the 1 in a million person that has an intelligence way above the norm, since typically the players are supposed to be exceptional, but for every wizard character to be the equivalent of a supercharged Einstein would be rather boring. Such freaks will probably have to be represented by randomly provided 'racial paragon' template or something similar, if such a template gives maybe +4, the maximum possible for a venerable human would be something like 27, which might be Einstein-ish levels.
IQ also factors in relative age doesn't it, so per definition the intelligence bonus elderly people get will break the IQ / intelligence correlation.
P.S. my intelligence has been known to shift between 15 and 18 depending on which test I used to boost my ego.
Hmm. Using my lowest result (136), I am a strong 16. IQ tests tend to give quite varied results, and I am pretty sure the one where I scored 164 was a fluke. I detest math due to being rather impatient and having had nothing but horrid teachers, killing my interest for it from age 7. I know full well that it is only my cognition that has assimilated negative influences to affect my schema though, and I could likely accommodative new learning if I was presented a different perspective and incentive >_>
But disregarding the highs, I approve of this for the lows, as it is one of my personal peeves to see people carry on about int8 be so dumb you barely have the ability to reason, and int7 be effectively retarded.
But disregarding the highs, I approve of this for the lows, as it is one of my personal peeves to see people carry on about int8 be so dumb you barely have the ability to reason, and int7 be effectively retarded.
+42
.
..
...
....
.....
"People who boast about their IQ are losers"
— Stephen W. Hawking
The burn!
IMO IQ is the wrong way to measure it. The simplest and easiest way to demostratne how *dumb* an INT score is would be to use your base untrained Kowledge check of 10
An INT of 8 would equate to a 45% chance of kowing very easy answers when asked. They cannot take 10 becaue of the -1. A person with INT 10 not under pressure would have full common knowledge.
How easy is easy? Well a common monster in an area has DC 5 + CR. This means an INT 8 person is only 45% likely to be able to tell you about the orcas their coastal village hunts every season.
IMO IQ is the wrong way to measure it. The simplest and easiest way to demostratne how *dumb* an INT score is would be to use your base untrained Kowledge check of 10
An INT of 8 would equate to a 45% chance of kowing very easy answers when asked. They cannot take 10 becaue of the -1. A person with INT 10 not under pressure would have full common knowledge.
How easy is easy? Well a common monster in an area has DC 5 + CR. This means an INT 8 person is only 45% likely to be able to tell you about the orcas their coastal village hunts every season.
And that kinda makes sense. Note that passing a knowledge skill =/= knowing about a creature. I know OF scorpions, but I could not tell you what their diet consists of, if they have superior/inferior senses, or what manner of telltale signs that indicate their presence.
And sure, someone with Int8 and no education in the field is going to be clueless about the finer points of that given topic.
Also, people CANNOT take 10 on knowledge checks unless they have ranks, no matter if their int is 7 or 20.
Principia Mathematica probably counts.And unenhanced humans max out at more like 22 than 20, due to leveling up. I don't think anyone in the real world equates to level 10+, but level 8? I can see that. Not often, but occasionally.There might be a few Tomes of Clear Thought floating around out there too. What books count probably varies person-to-person. ;)
I laughed so hard at this, and i do think whitehead and russel would agree.
I heard a rumor about Principia Mathematica, it is said to have only been read by two people ever, whether these people are the authors is unknown. :)
I do have great respect for both of the authors and their work though, Principia Mathematica is a mathematical artwork, even if it takes them halfway through the second book to conclude 1+1=2.
The problem with the OPs method is it ignores IQ's below 60 and above 140. While that's fine for the 95% of the population, there are outliers. However, in game terms, while it's easy to get scores of 20 to start with (18 + 2 racial bonus for humans), it's impossible to get below 3 for a human and still be sentient (IQ 1 & 2 = non-sentient).
Therefore, INT 3 cannot equal IQ 60. INT 3 would be more akin to IQ 20 or 25, which is the upper end of Severe mental retardation. Even then, we would not classify such a person as an animal.
Someone with a 40 IQ is moderate mental retardation, but even someone with such an IQ can still be semi functional (in that they can say their name, answer simple questions such as what they want to eat, speak a language, etc).
I have a cousin who had an IQ in the low 50's. She suffered from schizophrenia and late onset mental retardation (she was fairly normal until puberty). She could still speak (not well), understood the difference between Their, They're and There (although she couldn't read or write any longer), and generally did not react the way one might expect of an IQ 100 (or even IQ 80) person. But she could fix herself a sandwhich without making a giant mess (she made a little mess), could understand childrens TV shows (loved bugs bunny), and could carry on a simple conversation.
So, per the OPs post, she would have been an INT 2 and non-sentient. Sorry, doesn't quite work that way. Again, the lower end would need to be moved out to about 30 I think, to represent that 3 is minimum for sentient thought to occur, along with the ability to use language. Which, if you scale that on both sides of the bell curve, should put the upper end of unaugmented humans in the 20 to 24 range (doable without magic in the system) and make a 7 int somewhere in the 70's (borderline functional without assistance).
Seeing as how IQ is a really bad way to measure intelligence in the real world, I see no reason to even WANT to connect it with D&D. Also, there's the political aspect. If we are to believe "IQ and Global Inequality" and extrapolating that upon this, people from Nigeria would have a -6 racial modifier to INT... Which is, well, I don't really know where to start.
Intelligence is a very loose word that's been used in a lot of different contexts. Pathfinder defines it as ability to learn and reason. When I've done proper IQ tests, there's been a lot of things included that don't have a direct relationship with ability to learn and reason, including cognitive parts as well as questions of a linguistic nature.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
I am personally against linking IQ to the Intelligence score. In my opinion IQ is something the player should decide. I view the Int score as how much knowledge and skill a person has, not how they process and use that knowledge.
I work with the developmentally disabled as a caretaker, and though I am not a psych major, I can say that I have met several individuals with mental disabilities that had a great deal of knowledge and skill but little ability to properly process them to apply in proper situations. They also have a hard time making connections and often need people to either repeat themselves or explain it in simple details. Or course, most of the time, the expansive knowledge is often specialized (like video games or maps) and information outside of that specialty is difficult for them to grasp.
In other real life situations, I have met people with high IQ who are ignorant of advanced science, politics, or almost any advanced topic. They have common sense, they can process new information really well, and they are quick to make connections. Their life and choices just never game them an opportunity for an education beyond high school. On a similar note I have met people with high IQ who don't care about advancing their lives and so don't try to learn new things.
In a game situation, one of the players I play with has a PC who has a low Int score not from low IQ but from ignorance. The character is a blind oracle, and she was not able to learn how to read growing up. Also, her parents treated her more like a doll then a child and never bothered to give her a proper education. Because of that, her Int score is low (started at 9) but she plays her with a much higher IQ.
Besides, if we link IQ to Int, then we need to link Emotional Quotient (EQ) to Wis and Creative Quotient (CQ) to Cha. It would be only fair, as all three (IQ, EQ, and CQ) are all part of how a person interacts with the world.
I think it could work if you viewed mental retardation and such like permanent "conditions", not unlike sickened and fatigued, or the insanity rules covered in the gamemastery guide.
The schism between int 2 and int 3 IS very large. Much larger than 9 and 10, heck, even 9 and 20 the way the mechanics back it up.
2 is animalistic, no language, live by instinct, needing animal training to drill in obedience to VERY simple commands.
3 means you have language. You understand sentences, you can make yourself verbally understood, AND understand verbal commands without any need to have said commands drilled in.
20 int is merely 25% more likely than 10 int to be able to apply knowledge, to grasp concepts and to succeed in any dictated by intelligence. That is not nearly as impressive as going from cannot, no matter the circumstances to can, with relative ease.
So yes, completely alone, this reasoning falls short (as does all measures of intelligence), but it can be made to serve as a far better guideline (imo) than Intx10=IQ.
I think I may house rule something from Shadowrun into my PF games going forward.
INT extends from 1 to whatever, with humans landing between 1 and 20 (technically, 3 and 20, but if you use point buy, could go lower, so I'm ok with that). The INT scores are equal to IQ scores x 10.
Animals get Instinct scores instead. It's treated like INT for purposes of skill points, etc. But the animal has to actually awaken somehow to gain an INT score. Afterwards, it has INT (sentience) instead of INS (Instinct).
That allows me to let people put templates on animals, or animal companions, without making them sentient.
And that kinda makes sense. Note that passing a knowledge skill =/= knowing about a creature. I know OF scorpions, but I could not tell you what their diet consists of, if they have superior/inferior senses, or what manner of telltale signs that indicate their presence.
And sure, someone with Int8 and no education in the field is going to be clueless about the finer points of that given topic.
Also, people CANNOT take 10 on knowledge checks unless they have ranks, no matter if their int is 7 or 20.
They wouldnt be able to tell you that the lamp oil is made from the blubber or other similar useful information someone with average intelligence who lives in that same village would be expected to know.
Yes you can take 10, unless you are under threat or equally distracted. However you cant answer any question with a DC higher then 10 however.
What you can't do is take 20 as taking 20 assumes you can try 20 times. Knowledge checkes are generally a one time deal. The result of a failure means you don't know it.
And that kinda makes sense. Note that passing a knowledge skill =/= knowing about a creature. I know OF scorpions, but I could not tell you what their diet consists of, if they have superior/inferior senses, or what manner of telltale signs that indicate their presence.
And sure, someone with Int8 and no education in the field is going to be clueless about the finer points of that given topic.
Also, people CANNOT take 10 on knowledge checks unless they have ranks, no matter if their int is 7 or 20.
They wouldnt be able to tell you that the lamp oil is made from the blubber or other similar useful information someone with average intelligence who lives in that same village would be expected to know.
Yes you can take 10, unless you are under threat or equally distracted. However you cant answer any question with a DC higher then 10 however.
What you can't do is take 20 as taking 20 assumes you can try 20 times. Knowledge checkes are generally a one time deal. The result of a failure means you don't know it.
I had not noticed that they have discarded the rule that you need ranks in a skill to take 10. The more you know, huh?
But even so, unintelligent people will fail (even today) to know about things that are fairly common knowledge, adults failing at simple math, people not knowing local geography or basic international geography, and I could link to a plethora of examples of people even in schools, that fail to know pretty common things that you would expect educated people to just KNOW. Michael Moore (I think) based an entire episode of his show back in the day to this.
I am Norwegian, and I have met people who do not know why we celebrate 17th of May, because we just SAY "17th of May", instead of Constitution Day. Heck, some even fail to grasp that we say a date and not just an expression.
.
..
...
....
.....
We're (..and by 'we' I mean 'they') are still using the same methodology for testing IQ today as we(they) did 100 years ago.
With some minor tweaks.
IQ testing is outdated and flawed.
Imagine a science that hadn't changed it's testing methodologies over 100 years!
Note: We've 'developed' new linguistically tools for 'defining' new 'types' of IQ but the methodologies for testing/determining the 'scores' have not changed in a long, long, long time.
The madness....
...
OT: I object! I have my reasons! Oh oh!
|
|
We're (..and by 'we' I mean 'they') are still using the same methodology for testing IQ today as we(they) did 100 years ago.With some minor tweaks.
IQ testing is outdated and flawed.
Not really, no. It works. In fact, due to the extensive amount of data we have regarding it it works very, very well.
What it doesn't do is measure intelligence. On a purely objective basis, IQ tests measure one's ability to cope with novelty (ie: how well people do in new situations) and, probably as a result of that, they also are a very good predictor of academic success.
That's it. Now, those both likely correlate fairly strongly with actual intellect...but we have no way to prove that, since we have no actual test for intellect.
To put it another way: IQ tests are very good tests, psychometrically speaking, the problem lies in the popular conception that they measure something other than what they actually measure, not in the tests themselves.
Imagine a science that hadn't changed it's testing methodologies over 100 years!Note: We've 'developed' new linguistically tools for 'defining' new 'types' of IQ but the methodologies for testing/determining the 'scores' have not changed in a long, long, long time.
The madness....
Actually, they've been modified significantly over time. The basics are the same, but complaining about that is like complaining we still use arabic numerals in math.
Okay, it's not quite that bad but you get the idea. There's no need to reinvent the wheel here.
Scientific methodologies build on previous data, and the IQ test works well enough that it makes a lot more sense to refine the existing methodology than to throw the baby out with the bathwater by starting over from scratch. Hence the 'reinventing the wheel' comment above.
Now, the test is certainly less than perfect (it's still got some significant cultural biases, for example), but it's still actually one of the more accurate and useful tests we possess at the moment (and yes, that does say sad things about the state of psychometrics today).
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Last night I did the math for a 20 point buy bell curve. I assumed four things:
1) that everyone in the population spent exactly 20 points - the full PB,
2)that all possible point buys are equally likely to occur,
3)) that the allocation of stats is randomly applied for the point buy (i.e. for a legal point each possible score is equally likely to be applied to each stat),
(4) I ignored racial bonuses.
I found that
1) There are tons of legal point buy combos (more than I expected frankly).
2) Approximately 8.03% of scores were a 7. Thus a 7 Int (using a 20 point buy) is the lowest 8% or so of people.
3) Approximately 16.4% of scores were a 7 or an 8.
Converting these to IQ renders a 7 Int up to 79 IQ and an 8 up to 85 IQ.
Under these conditions a 7 represents everything from profoundly retarded to borderline intellectual functioning. An 8 is borderline intellectual functioning.
4) This really doesn't solve the problem of what does dumping int mean. A 7 covers so much of the spectrum that the difference between the "least intelligent 7" and the "most intelligent 7" is massive.
It does solve the problem better for an 8.
"People who boast about their IQ are losers"
— Stephen W. Hawking
Yeah, but at least they're smart losers. ;)
Edit: I think that statement could be generalized: "People who boast are losers."
Not really, no. It works. In fact, due to the extensive amount of data we have regarding it it works very, very well.
What is working?
''On a purely objective basis, IQ tests measure one's ability to cope with novelty (ie: how well people do in new situations) and, probably as a result of that, they also are a very good predictor of academic success.''
Factored against what?
Coping with novelty? What does this phrase mean to you?
How do you wish it to be read because on it's own it's rather vague.
::
You're right - IQ tests are great for testing how well people perform at taking IQ tests.
The basic intent of the tests has remained the same for over 100 years. How and where the tests are applied to in life has been modified.
It's a terrible, backwards system! :)
..but yes, you're right - the problem with IQ tests is that many people think they measure 'intelligence', as if intelligence was an quantifiable truth, comprised of elements agreed upon by all.
However, with a name like 'Intelligence Quotient' you can see why many might mistake an IQ test for an early attempt at quantifying intelligence.
|
|
What is working?
The test is successfully measuring a particular aspect of human capability. Not the one many people think it is, but still.
Factored against what?
Coping with novelty? What does this phrase mean to you?
How do you wish it to be read because on it's own it's rather vague.
Uh...dealing well and successfully with new or novel situations. I already used a job as an example earlier. You get a new job as, say, a clerical worker (something non-physical) and IQ will predict very well how you'll do at, say, your first two months (High IQ people will tend to do well, low IQ people, poorly). It says almost nothing about how you'll do after that with high and low IQ people equally likely to do well and poorly (if, perhaps, for different reasons...but we can't measure that very well).
It also predicts academic success better than any other measure we have: i.e. high IQ people are very likely to get good grades and very likely to successfully complete college as compared to their low IQ peers (barring intervening factors, like, say, depression).
You're right - IQ tests are great for testing how well people perform at taking IQ tests.
The basic intent of the tests has remained the same for over 100 years. How and where the tests are applied to in life has been modified.
It's a terrible, backwards system! :)
Sorta. Actual psychometricians and other fully qualified professionals don't even try to use them as an actual measure of intelligence and haven't in a while. Hell, even schools don't really use them for that (they use them to predict how well students will do and how much help they'll need, which they're fairly good for).
..but yes, you're right - the problem with IQ tests is that many people think they measure 'intelligence', as if intelligence was an quantifiable truth, comprised of elements agreed upon by all.
However, with a name like 'Intelligence Quotient' you can see why many might mistake an IQ test for an early attempt at quantifying intelligence.
Well, it was originally. Which it failed at, but that doesn't mean it's not a useful test for other things. A lot of scientific innovations were accidents, or originally intended for another use.
.
..
...
....
.....
Good stuff
Aye, I agree - tis better than nothing! :)
Our (our lot, not the system as a whole) were forced through a school selection process which was built, for the main, on IQ tests - 95%+ percentile or no free schooling.
Then later it was all about justifying the results.
Lots of madness.
So much madness!
Many folk were at the annoying end of 'but x amount of folk with y did z, so shall ye. If not, what's wrong with you all?'
O_O