Allan53 said:
Del-Toro said:
I wouldn't consider pattern recognition to be the basis upon which all intelligence is formed, therefore your test is flawed.
If so, what would you use? I haven't gotten to this area in my research yet (I love uni, but some of the work is kind of weird and time consuming).
Oh, and 144, 22 male.
The entire point is that "intelligence" is an ambiguous attribute. What does it mean? The ability to learn? What you already know (as is the case of most IQ tests)? Something else? IQ tests can be manipulated in a way that can get results from different groups at different times. Make an IQ test that is primarily geared toward accounting and I'll thrash most people on the planet. Make an IQ test revolving around circuit boards and I'll flop hard.
Language used, use of relatively archaic words, giving it to someone with the test in a non-native language, focus on math or grammar or spacial recognition. Each of these tests will generate different results. I've ranged in IQ tests from 115 to 192. Other factors include being tired, what you ate that day, when you ate it, if you're worried about something, the ambient temperature and so many other factors that will taint this ethereal "intelligence" attribute that the tests are trying to get.
The test here is a simple pattern recognition and even those can be biased toward thought processes.
Humans aren't carbon copy machines, we think differently and something one of us may be a total idiot at another can be an outright genius and the roles can be reversed when something else comes to play.
Intelligence in the real world isn't a quantifiable attribute like some D&D character sheet. We simply lack enough understanding of the human brain to come close to creating anything that can remotely measure intelligence, even assuming such an attribute even exists.
