Re: writing tests are for wussies...
IQ tests vary in terms of the types of 'intelligence' they cover. Most have several sections involving words, and usually at least one each involving math and spatial relationships. Most organizations giving IQ tests know better than to consider an IQ test a definitive measure of one's overall intelligence - at best, it measures how well a person did on THIS test at THIS time and date under THESE conditions. The same person can get scores varying 20 points or more on the same test, depending on a lot of testing and personal conditions. Finally, the numeric score on one test isn't necessarily the same level as the numeric score on another test (an IQ score of 133 on one test may be equivalent to an IQ score of 143 on another) so most tests also report a percentile score.To add to these comments:
A common criticism of IQ tests is that their definition of intelligence is circular - that is, for test purposes, intelligence is simply the ability to do well on IQ tests. In other words, there is no generally accepted definition of intelligence. There's only a number of traits that various people have suggested should be part of the definition. However, what traits belong in the definition, and how much weight should be placed on ech trait is a matter of considerable debate. In the last half century, some theorists have more or less given up on a general definition, and simply suggested that there are different types of intellligence (and, yes, in some estimations, the ability to make fine distinctions while tasting beer would be considered a type of intelligence). In this view, the ideas that IQ tests measure intelligence at all, that they measure intelligence comprehensibly, or measure the most important types of intelligence, are all leaps of faith, that have more to do with the convenience of tests for education and business than with science. I suspect there's some truth in these criticisms, at least to the extent that IQ tests are biased in favor ot the types of intelligence needed for success in school and university. Also, the emphasis on the time taken to complete the tests seems questionable, given the number of conceptual breakthroughs that were the result of slow, careful work over years.
Another point that needs to be stressed is that results improve markedly with practice. Experience with doing a particular type of test can boost results 20 to 40 points, which means that, whatever the tests are measuring, they aren't simply measuring any innate qualities.
--
Bruce Byfield 604.421.7177 bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com
"Say to the court, it glows
And shines like rotten wood;
Say to the church, it shows
What's good, and doth no good:
If Church and Court reply,
Then give them both the lie."
- Sir Walter Raleigh, "The Lie"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Free copy of ARTS PDF Tools when you register for the PDF
Conference by May 15. Leading-Edge Practices for Enterprise
& Government, June 3-5, Bethesda,MD. www.PDFConference.com
Check out RoboDemo for tutorials! It makes creating full-motion software
demonstrations and other onscreen support materials easy and intuitive.
Need RoboHelp? Save $100 on RoboHelp Office in May with our mail-in rebate.
Go to http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
References:
Re(2): writing tests are for wussies...: From: Jan Henning
Re: writing tests are for wussies...: From: etymes -at- lts -dot- com
Previous by Author:
Re: FWD: Open Office experience out there?
Next by Author:
Re: writing tests are for wussies...
Previous by Thread:
Re: writing tests are for wussies...
Next by Thread:
Good Formatting Practice
Search our Technical Writing Archives & Magazine
Visit TechWhirl's Other Sites
Sponsored Ads