Lv 6
asked in Arts & HumanitiesPhilosophy · 9 months ago

are " I.Q. Tests" really an accurate way to judge someone's over all intelligence? or just like a way to determine someone's "quickness"?

what kinds of things do IQ tests measure? and how?

I found out some people like famous criminal Chris Watts (guy who murdered his family last year in August) had a IQ score of 140 and would there be considered "nearly a genius". but really? this guy seemed pretty "simple minded" to me. and if true that he scored 140,,,that means he is more intelligent than 98 percent of people? how someone who was so simple minded seeming (i mean he was a huge fan of american football for gods sake!) would be a "genius"?

Update:

this guy that had a iq of 140 loved american foot ball and Metallica heavy metal music. doesnt sound like a "genius" to me

Update 2:

so if someone was a "Genius" , but loved country music and was a self proclaimed "Christian"...you would not find something a bit wrong there?

Update 3:

 i think IQ tests measure maybe how easily "brain washable" you are or how quickly you can figure out how to get out of a rat maze . that is not a true measure of someone's intelligence.

14 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    9 months ago
    Favorite Answer

    The IQ test includes measurements of short-term memory, analytical thinking, mathematical ability and spatial recognition.

    IQ tests and college entrance exams are able to identify people more likely to succeed, although not with perfect correlation.   Many people with IQs around 130 achieve great success.  Not every one with an IQ over 140 achieves great success, but they are still more likely to than someone with a lower IQ.   

  • KJC
    Lv 7
    9 months ago

    I do not think IQ tests measure "quickness" at all. But they don't have to be the only measure of intelligence, either.

  • 9 months ago

    I imagine an IQ score is a useful but only a single data point is determining one's overall intelligence.

  • Anonymous
    9 months ago

    Wrong forum, again. IQ testing and assessment is squarely in the realm of PSYCHOLOGY, which has far more to say about it than philosophy. The test was devised and perfected by clinical psychologists, not philosophers. There's also a Standards & Testing forum in the Education category that is more relevant than philosophy. You're also utterly wrong in your idea that it measures how easily someone is "brain washable". That's a ridiculous statement. IQ tests are actually very accurate, but they don't tell the whole story, they are now used along with several other cognitive tests to assess intelligence. It appears that your own IQ obviously doesn't make it into the upper 2-digit territory. Fail. 

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 9 months ago

    You keep saying a man likes football and heavy metal.

    That has nothing to do with the test.

    The test measured IQ. Nothing more,nothing less.

  • 9 months ago

    IQ tests measure a person's ability to learn and to quickly grasp complicated concepts.  They do not test common sense or keep a person from being socially awkward, and IQ has nothing to do with a person's recreational or musical choices or with their mental stability.  

    And not everyone with a high IQ has the money, education or other resources to succeed in business.  On the other hand, some people with low IQ's succeed because they have good people skills and can focus and work hard to achieve their goals.

  • 9 months ago

    You have a point about how they measure being quick-witted. There are people who process information at a relatively slow speed but do it exceptionally well. So long as these people have enough time, they can accomplish great things. You don't have to be quick-witted to write a good book or write the music for a good opera.

    Unfortunately, it's a fact that in many professions thinking quickly is advantageous.

    One of the chemists who won the Nobel Prize for discovering DNA had an IQ that's average for a college student - about 120.  My guess is that he worked much harder than the average Nobel winner.

  • y
    Lv 7
    9 months ago

    They measure potential, how big a bucket one has to fill up. That does not mean they fill it up, they use it to learn anything practical/transferable.  It also is just one of many factors that come into play in ones ability to "succeed"

  • Anonymous
    9 months ago

    It just measures your ability to learn, it doesn't say anything about what you know.

  • Anonymous
    9 months ago

    At least he wasn't a soccer fan.  The most worthless game on the planet with grown men feigning injury every 5 minutes. 

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.