I'm not sure if anyone has ever argued that IQ is indicative of the fundamental qualities of a person's character; I certainly was not..
I should have ascribed a more specific definition ot the fundamental quality in question. That is innate intelligence which in turn represents a person's natural aptitude for solving abstract problems. For the sake of establishing a crude example, the higher the person's natural intelligence the more potential he has to become an exceptional mathematician, scientist, philosopher or attain competence with any activity that highly emphasizes abstract reasoning.
As astounding as it sounds, eminent scholars have indeed argued that a person's IQ test results are indicative of their level of intelligence as defined above. In the beginning of the 20th century, Robert Goddard administered IQ tests to the literally fresh off the boat immigrants and reported their scores to the government. People whose results were below a certain standard were sent back to their home nation. Stephen Jay Gould documented these events in the first half of the mismeasure of man.
Throughout the middle of the 20th century, people who scored in a certain ranged on an IQ test were labelled as morons, sterilized accordingly and denied marriage license. One may say that the absurd argument that the result of an IQ test is indicative of a person's fundamental quality or their level of intelligence is a thing of the past. Not so, one of the main implications of the Bell Curve (1996) was that G is largely innate and can be measured by an IQ test which is not manipulable. Although this opinion does not represent the consensus of experts on intelligence or even that of professional psychologists in general, it is common enough to merit our attention.
I do not necessarily disagree with this. Someone made a claim that IQ was not really indicative of anything, and I simply put forth the idea that it is possibly indicative of something. At the very least, it's indicative of a good test taker, perhaps...
My intention was not to refute your claim but merely to show that at least in some respect, there is merit to the thesis that a person's IQ test results are as indicative about their character as knowledge of their blood type. This does not mean that I agree with them, but only that it is possible for one to understand how their view could have seemed true. In other words, a person who notices how uninformative an individual's IQ test results are with respect to their fundamental qualities may be frustratedly tempted to exaggerate the point by claiming that it is as uninformative as blood type in that respect.
I don't believe I made any such claim, I simply referenced a wikipedia article about possible positive correlations with IQ. ...
I don't think you did either.
Arguing about what would or could be is irrelevant when talking about what is; if you seek to change the environment, that is a different matter....
Yes, it is. Though, it is not my intention to change the environment.
In order to predict anything, one must have an understanding of the environment in which the thing to be predicted exists(In this case I consider the laws of the universe and our social laws as kinds of environments). In the case of the United States, evidence seems to suggest that IQ does in fact correlate with certain other circumstances, thus lending the knowledge of someone's IQ some predictive value, regardless of the reasons why.....
It is true that in the United States a person's IQ is correlated with their professional success. That matter is only a little interesting, the more important question is whether or not the system is just. I've argued that it isn't as as person's assessment result does not show how competent he or she is to perform tasks that require a high intelligence.
Are school tests always more intellectually demanding, in terms of density?.....
No, not always and my argument does not require them to be.
Perhaps four years spent taking IQ test after IQ test, each one different and new, would be much more intense.?.....
Likely true. However, one can guarantee that most people who have attained a BA or an MA have encountered at least several tasks that are more intellectualy demanding than an IQ test. If they managed to succeed on those occassions, there is no reason why they shouldn't also be able to prevail on the IQ test.
Besides, IQ is somewhat fluid, and practice could increase someone's IQ. So what if Bob spends his life performing exercises to increase his score on some IQ test..? Wouldn't he be better off for it?.?.....
He would be better off as his puzzle-solving skills would improve dramatically. However, that is irrelevant to my point which was that a person's IQ test results are not indicative of his intelligence.
What is relevant is as follows. Bob may have improved his puzzle-solving skills enough to get a much higher IQ score than the one he received on his initial attempt, yet its doubtful that he has cultivated that skill enough to raise his general intelligence. He'd much sooner become a merely good test-taker than a good puzzle solver in general. Bob, who represents an average test-taker would simply figure out how to solve the kind of puzzles that are common on IQ tests and would stop as soon as he'd receive the satisfactory score. However, its quite unlikely that he would have a far higher aptitude for solving or learning to solve social puzzles, mathematical problems or those of the sciences or the liberal arts. In other words, yes Bob would be better off as a result of the time he spent solving IQ puzzles, yet its doubtful that he'd be far more intelligent as a result.
In any event, level of education is also indicative of success, so comparing the two is futile if one wishes to discount the predictive nature of IQ.
I think you misunderstood my argument. My point was that one can attain a very high level of education without being intelligent and having a high IQ test result correlates strongly with having a high level of education. If people who of average intelligence can attain the former, they probably can also attain the latter.
Could it be that the root of all three is intelligence, in some form at least? .
Yes, in many cases it is. Certainly a highly intelligent person will have an easier time doing well on an IQ and GRE tests as well as obtaining prestigious academic credentials.
Wouldn't being able to successfully learn by route be a form of intelligence? .
In some respect it can be regarded as intelligence, however, that is not how I have defined the term. That kind of an ability isn't relevant to my reasoning chain.
I'm beginning to think you were just using what I said as a springboard.
Your suspicion is correct, however, I did that to the end of exploring a very important idea that was tangentially relevant to your message.
I goggled a few of the text questions, I think they where really stupid and irrelevant-at the same time!, and I had no idea. Like who won a football game 16 times in a row?? Jesus Christ. And since I could not see any rule against goggle before starting I decided to use it on a few of the questions I was totally blank. Is this bad? Anyone else do this? It is the score that counts, right?
