Does our society place too much emphasis on intelligence test scores?
355738
Depends on where you are getting a job at. Most all government jobs do, and some state jobs do.
775454
Alot of it yes. Intelligent people find ways to work things out but some people just like causing problems for others.
1057839
You might think I am crazy but our society is to blame for our education disaster. Today people are not allowed to say "your child is smarter than this child" so we have to lower standards so know kid can be singled out as smarter. The other day I heard a story about a school where teens who achieved honors could not wear there cords in graduation because it might offend the kids who did not achieve high grades. So we lower our standards and only test kids on memorization so they can cram stuff in and get good scores. If we taught kids how to think and analyse they would all be better off but we don't. Instead we indoctrinate them with useless stuff and leave out vital things like financial education, realistic sex education, and other vital skills. America needs to disregard the easily offended for the best of everyone else. Let's drop political correctness so we don't get dumber. On that note, I don't believe in ADD or ADHD I think it is just bored kids stuck in a school that is not challenging them. \nwww.todaysperspective.com
256699
There are a lot of different types of "smart". Just because someone doesn't portray the stereotypical intelligence, doesn't mean that they can't teach most wise people a thing or two. There are a lot of "smart" people that are not wise though...
840480
For the most part research is geared toward men and most IQ tests can be a little gender biased. For that matter- so is our school system...Boys are socialized to be smarter and better in things like math and science and girls are socialized to be nice and pretty.\n\nThere is no truth to this and people need to learn how to read research results with a critical eye. Like for years the research showed that African Americans had lower IQ's than caucasians. This is certainly not true and these results only happened because the IQ tests are created based on caucasion experiences.
571232
Do you think that the truly intelligent people are the ones that are not satisfied with the level of learning they have achieved, and are constantly trying to find ways to learn more?  And don't spend their time talking about how much smarter they are than everyone else?  : )
999280
your "intelligence quotient" is supposed to measure your ability to reason and your potential knowledge and thiking. or something like that. all it reallytests is how well you take that one particular test.
627316
NO,\n\nI agree that standardized test should an important part of a student's life but not the main. Colleges also consider you normal grades, class rank, gpa, extracirricular activities, leadership, etc.
1187536
IQ scores are over rated.  Now a days, only psychiatrist uses them as a means to measure your score to label you with whatever disease.
82905
In a perfect world, it would be nice to not have to rely on things such a standardized tests to measure the quality of education, but in a country with such a huge public school system, that is not really probable. I don't think standardized tests in themselves are a bad thing. I agree that there should be standards and checkpoints. It becomes a problem when teachers are forced to teach to these tests. The true goal of education is lost in trying to raise test-scores. This is even more true when the attainment of school-funding rides on these tests. No Child Left Behind is a disasterous plan. Even if its trickery works and some test scores are raised, are students actually learning more?\nTo completely abolish the use of standardized tests would mean a complete renovation of our public school system, and unfortunately, that is not going to happen.
447630
oftenly we use IQ to measure people's intellegence.\nwhy are some people smarter than others??\n\n1. Genetics \nThe role of genes and environment (nature vs. nurture) in determining IQ is reviewed in Plomin et al. (2001, 2003). The degree to which genetic variation contributes to observed variation in a trait is measured by a statistic called heritability. Heritability scores range from 0 to 1, and can be interpreted as the percentage of variation (e.g. in IQ) that is due to variation in genes. Twins studies and adoption studies are commonly used to determine the heritability of a trait. Until recently heritability was mostly studied in children. These studies yield an estimate of heritability of 0.5; that is, half of the variation in IQ among the children studied was due to variation in their genes. The remaining half was thus due to environmental variation and measurement error. A heritability of 0.5 implies that IQ is "substantially" heritable. Studies with adults show that they have a higher heritability of IQ than children do and that heritability could be as high as 0.8, though it is probably not this high. The American Psychological Association's 1995 task force on "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" concluded that within the White population the heritability of IQ is “around .75” \n\nConsiderable research has focused on biological correlates of g; see General intelligence factor and the section on brain size below. For example, general intelligence and MRI brain volume measurements are correlated, and the effect is primarily determined by genetic factors.\n\n\n2. Environment\nEnvironmental factors play a large role in determining IQ in extreme situtations. Proper childhood nutrition appears critical for cognitive development; malnutrition can lower IQ. Other research indicates environmental factors such as prenatal exposure to toxins, duration of breastfeeding, and micronutrient deficiency can affect IQ. In the developed world, there are some family effects on the IQ of children, accounting for up to a quarter of the variance. However, by adulthood, this correlation disappears, so that the cognitive ability of adults living in the prevailing conditions of the developed world is highly heritable.\n\nNearly all personality traits show that, contrary to expectations, environmental effects actually cause adoptive siblings raised in the same family to be as different as children raised in different families (Harris, 1998; Plomin & Daniels, 1987). Put another way, shared environmental variation for personality is zero, and all environmental effects are nonshared. Intelligence is actually an exception to this rule, at least among children. The IQs of adoptive siblings, who share no genetic relation but do share a common family environment, are correlated at .32. Despite attempts to isolate them, the factors that cause adoptive siblings to be similar have not been identified, though it could be related to parents choosing the type of children they will adopt. However, as explained below, shared family effects on IQ disappear after adolescence.\n\nActive genotype-environment correlation, also called the "nature of nurture", is observed for IQ. This phenomenon is measured similarly to heritability; but instead of measuring variation in IQ due to genes, variation in environment due to genes is determined. One study found that 40% of variation in measures of home environment are accounted for by genetic variation. This suggests that the way human beings craft their environment is due in part to genetic influences.
683176
It is actually both. I also believe it is how well you grasp and see things.  It is basically how you think and learn.  The only part of the test that would prolly be taught(what you know) is the math stuff. You can find more detail here.\n\nAn intelligence quotient or IQ is a number derived from a set of standardized tests developed to measure a person's cognitive abilities ("intelligence") in relation to their age group. An IQ test does not measure intelligence the way a ruler measures height (absolutely), but rather the way a race measures speed (relatively); IQ is described as a "quotient" because, originally, it represented the ratio between a person's "mental age" and actual chronological age.\n\nFor people living in the prevailing conditions of the developed world, IQ is highly heritable, and by adulthood the influence of family environment on IQ is undetectable. IQ test scores are correlated with measures of brain structure and function, as well as performance on simple tasks that anyone can complete within a few seconds.\n\nIQ is correlated with academic success, job performance, socioeconomic advancement, and "social pathologies". It is taken by psychologists to be an excellent proxy for intelligence, and possibly the best measurable definition of intellectual ability, but generally not taken to represent intelligence perfectly. Recent work has demonstrated links between IQ and health, longevity, and functional literacy.
174244
I've been tested and told.\n\nBut IQ is no measure of one's chances for success in life. It's about believing in what you do no matter what they say. There is comfort in knowing, but also too much realism. Sometimes in life you must be ignorant to your 'actual' capabilities to progress. This applies to the full IQ spectrum!
610375
Many things can be disputed about it. Firstly, IQ tests themselves are not accurate measures of intelligence. They only test certain skills and these skills are not exclusively innate. They can be taught. \nSecondly, it depends on social background, if a test asks about something the people taking the test have no knowledge about then they are unlikely to get the question wrong.\nThirdly, there are the social group of the people taking the test and bias. If he tested a group of white university students and compared the results with black prisoners or something then the results are going to be comprimised.\nMost importantly, the scientists who do these tests always have their own views and can easily mulnipulate the tests to get the results they want. There was a lecturer recently who said the black pupils in his class get lower marks than the white pupils. Proves nothing, he marks all their papers doesn't he?
677062
those Internet IQ tests are skewed\nso don't go thinking that you are a genius
789486
IQ is a funny thing...back when the idea for testing for an "Intelligence Quotient" came out, I think it was in the 1920s or 1930s, the scores did in fact go all the way down to one, because the idea was that the scores were designed to be divided by your age to give the testers an idea of how smart you were compared to other people *your same age*.\n\nOf course since then the standard has changed two or three times and now, the "Average" IQ is automatically 100 or "normal", with numbers lower than 50 or above 150 being inferred mathematically (by way of statistics) more than derived from the tests themselves.\n\nIn particular, once you get to IQs below the 50-60 range, it just plain gets too hard to test, because even at that range you are talking about, usually, adults with the intellect of small children.  And while people get dumber than that, that level of dumb gets progressively harder to test.\n\nIf I recall the old standards correctly, for instance, someone with an IQ of 20, for example, would basically be like a 20 year old adult with the intelligence of a *two year old child*.  Getting that tested is a pain to do....and with some poor souls who have sufffered severe brain damage and operate on the level of an infant or worse, there just isn't any point to testing them, then it becomes cruel to do so.  Not to mention, you end up confusing "function" with intelligence, which causes problems all its own.\n\nSo yeah, one of the above posters is correct, IQs below 50 are rarely tested for anymore, they are more inferred by watching behavior and function, and doing it statistically.\n\nHope this helps.  :)\n\n(oh, one other problem with the old system....as standards changed, people who tested under the new system found their IQs going *down*, partly because of peers testing smarter yes, but also because the old system did in fact test kids as smarter than what they were...it was a case of testing versus a changing standard of both age-peer *and* adult function)
271738
iq score is subjective at best\nu can get a test at many places\nbut the number does not mean much\nhow much value does knowing square:circle:triangle is to left:right:back and cow:pig:horse is to ???\nin everyday life\ni am willing to bet the highest iq people cannot grow a garden, fix a flat tire, or repair plumbing without help