If you say you are going to ignore it, then why are you mentioning it?
Clearly, I meant that I'm going to ignore the content of it and will not respond to its claims; not that I will ignore its existence.
Don't play stupid.
I'm sorry, but anybody who thinks IQs tests "are the closest measure we have of intelligence" is (a) not very bright, (b) very ignorant, or (c) extremely insecure. Pick your option!
Why is that? What better method do we have that is both practical and applicable?
Fact is, you can train yourself to pass IQ tests, and get better results as a consequence. Do that mean your "intelligence" will have increased in the process? Not at all.
Actually, if you research Arthur Jensen's
g factor, you will learn that studies show that improvements on IQ tests are generally a result of specialized knowledge that allows for a higher score on that test (or series of very similar tests), and that test alone, and usually declines over time. This acquired ability does not translate to other psychometric tests.
Somebody who actually does improve their IQ permanently across the entire range of psychometric tests most likely had a high IQ to begin with and simply misunderstood the earlier testing. People like this don't generally require training and improve over a very short period of time.
Plus, the purpose of IQ tests is to quickly understand what the test expects of you. It doesn't not require accuracy, logic or depth, just the ability to quickly react to stereotyped, repetitive questions you should answer in a minimum of time.
I don't see where the intelligence lie in this act, and where it is "tested".
It requires you to understand the question and appropriate the necessary reasoning abilities (i.e. drawing inferences), utilize prior knowledge (i.e. crystallized intelligence), and coming to an overall conclusion (i.e. perception.)
Let's say you write a thesis or a book. What will be more useful: to be a jack of all trade, to remain superficial but quick (what the test wants), or rather to design an entirely revolutionary idea, even if it takes you a lot time in the process -the test doesn't measure the true pertinence, the real relevance of the answers-?
The tests do measure one level of the requisite cognitive functions, and the timing is used to measure the speed with which one can execute these functions and to set a limit that allows for individual comparison.
So in the end, IQ tests only measure... our ability to successively pass other IQ tests! But academically or scientifically, the usefulness of its so-called predictions is close to zero.
---
Side note: Have you ever read "The Mismeasure of Man" (Stephen Jay Gould, New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 1981)?
Nonsense. Stephen Jay Gould does not have the definitive word on the usefulness of IQ tests.
IQ has been successfully correlated with many facets of life, and only those who wish to remain willfully ignorant or scientifically dishonest deny this in the psychological community.
Read the works of Richard Lynn, Arthur Jensen, Charles Murray, Richard Herrnstein, and J. Philippe Rushton for a better and more honest understanding of IQ.
