Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "I Took an IQ Test to Find Out What it Actually Measures" video.

IQ is somewhat problematic because the highest performers on the tests are often not the highest performers in the real world. Those are often the people that have slightly lower IQs. It's also typically a very narrow test of intelligence that tends to increase self-esteem and decrease the willingness of the individual to take on the sorts of risks that would lead to higher achievement in order to preserve the position of authority.
8
IQ tests likely can't be relied on when taken by the ND population as they aren't normed for us. One of the biggest issues with intelligence testing is that you can't use one test to compare different groups, each test has to be normed to the population that's being tested and as a result, you can't expect to compare the scores of European Americans with either Europeans or Africans and expect to get a meaningful result.
2
@ThatDamnedGamer1 That's the theory, but there's absolutely no evidence to back it up and in every possible setting students violate their own alleged learning style regularly. The only real benefit to including considerations for learning styles is that it promotes the students' exposure to the same ideas and concept from many different perspectives. There's also some benefit in cases where somebody has a learning disorder or sensory integration issue getting it in a form that actually can be understood.
2
@RocketSauce666 Twice exceptional often refers to having a high IQ in addition to some form of learning disorder or other neurological disability. But, it's not that tightly defined, somebody can exhibit giftedness in other ways rather than just by IQ. Being a highly gifted artist or writer would also qualify even if the individual has a normal IQ, or possibly even low one.
1
@GKTorn. That sort of thing is why I never tried to join. There's a pretty decent chance that I'd be able to join, the practice test they have is pretty easy. But, I've spent many years hanging out on college campuses and if I'm going to be in a group based on intelligence, I'd prefer it to be based on something practical rather than an arbitrary score on one of the approved tests.
1
Having lived in China teaching English to those students, I cannot emphasize just how horrible it is. The government knows that it's a horrible situation, and there has been progress made to de-emphasize that test. At this point, there is a plan B for those that fail it, but the whole point of the test is to quickly weed out the students that they don't have available space for at their colleges. If anything, it makes the problem of upward mobility even worse, as those with the power can afford to fail the test and then go overseas to get their degree. Then, when they come back, they have a rather fancy foreign degree. Despite the BS you hear in the US, the fact is that the Chinese government is well aware of how bad their educational system is and is putting a large amount of resources into making it less traditional and somewhat more western. Having students attending all those subjects and then only be tested on a couple of them is a massive waste of time, and students just go through the minimum motions they can get away with in order to not be punished.
1
Intelligence testing has to be relative because there isn't a zero point to measure from. It's not like temperature, where we can base the scale at an absolute zero intelligence or have scores getting higher and higher because we set the bar at a specific concept of what 100 should be. So, psychometricians opted to base it around the mean and standard deviation when making the decisions so that it would effectively always be somewhat applicable, as being a super-intelligent person by the standards of a hundred years ago isn't super helpful if you can't navigate the streets of a modern city or operate a computer.
1