Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NeonSamurai
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skybird
Exactly. And of the "official" IQ tests scientist would conduct, or psychologists, it is not much different. As long as there are so many different understandings of what intelligence is, and IQ tests get constructed with this diversity of understanding, and different weighing of theoretical sub-constructs, IQ scores make little sense.
|
Actualy depending on the test there can be radical differences from that online one, even the standford binet IQ test which is the one that online test is based on, is still very different (much longer, multiple sections, sections are timed, other types of questions etc). Otherwise I agree with you 
|
The huge differences you refer to can be seen with academic IQ tests as well. I did three such "official" tests at university, all three were different ones, becausue we gained points that we need to collect by participating in experiments in order to be allowed for exams. The tests' results varied by over 20 points, with number-heavy questions seeing me scoring the weakest, and three-dimensional things and abstract thinking questions scoring top. Considering that the usual IQ test results that you see in practice vary between let's say 95 and 120 (that online thing scores so many 130s, 140s and 150s that it is hilarious), a variance that high as 20 points is extremely much. However, i am no single case with that spread.
we all have different strengths and weaknesses. A single test alone does not say anything on these, and a single IQ value is as useful as answering the question for a safe code number sequence with a reply like "all numbers summed up: 457". The same problem you have with personality inventories. Since these base on even tighter theoretical constuctions, I wuld say the problem with these is even greater. but I admit I am not up to date concerning personality inventories developed over the past 10-15 years. That matter also never interested me much - too hypothetic and theoretic.