relationship between SAT scores and intelligence?

[Taraz]

I think that if you score very highly on an IQ test you probably have a high intelligence. Unfortunately If you have a very high intelligence you won't necessarily have a high IQ score. Does that make any sense?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that if you score very highly on an IQ test you probably have a high intelligence. Unfortunately If you have a very high intelligence you won't necessarily have a high IQ score. Does that make any sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

To me---no. But I guess I'll just have to accept that "intelligent" is now a billowing portmanteau of a word that envelopes bloody close to everyone. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[tame_deuces]

I haven't said a 150 scorer can't be very intelligent. I have said a 150 scorer doesn't have to be very intelligent.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]

I haven't said a 150 scorer can't be very intelligent. I have said a 150 scorer doesn't have to be very intelligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I'll try to follow you one last time (without much hope, heh.) What necessary quality for intelligence could a 150 scorer possibly lack?

It's really that simple...I cannot think of a way that someone could score 150 on an IQ test and still qualify as unintelligent to me. (I've only known 1-2? people in real life who could score that high, and they basically awed me.)

[Alex-db]

Everyone intuitively knows what "intelligence" means.

If classes of students of any age are asked to rank each other according to their natural view of "intelligence" it will correlate incredibly well with IQ tests.

Some people like to be nice to everyone, they want to be able to tell people who score badly on IQ tests that they can still be "intelligent" in their own special way.

So they attempt to change the meaning of "intelligence" and kick up a fuss about its definition whenever it is used in a way that is not all-encompassing.

If they have a good point, then all words are meaningless unless defined, and since you will attempt to define them using other words, everything is meaningless and everybody and every thing can be correctly described using every adjective that ever existed.

There is no non-meritocratic definition of intelligence that is of any use to us, and our standard natural definition (which matches IQ test) proves to have amazing predictive validity again and again and again.

We can tollerate telling some kid that couldn't be bothered passing a maths class that his "creative" doodles means he is intelligent in a different way, but lets not pretend that has a real meaning.

[tame_deuces]

People who score high on intelligence tests will have impressive capacity for solving verbal, numerical and geometrical puzzles by traditional logic standards. In this regard they will be impressive.

However from the perspective of cognitive neuroscience, who are the guys who are building AIs, this distinction of intelligence is useless. They can build machines that do these puzzles far better than people, but it is still agreed that these machines are not very intelligent in any useful form of the expression.

Simply put the measure LACKS the ability to measure a large set of values we need to measure a meaningful value for intelligence.

A skilled piano player has exceptionally fine motor control and a highly developed nervous system and sense of touch. His sense of hearing is immense, the sense of rhytm highly evolved, the centres of his brains that pick up sound patterns is also highly developed. His brain will be specialized for this in the same way a skilled mathematician is skilled in maths. But the whole package is in its right, from a pure 'nervous system capacity' standpoint far more impressive. But still his ability may fall entirely outside of the realm of what an IQ test measures and his intelligence may even be ranked as average.

This simply isn't meaningful. Someone sat down and decided what was 'useful intelligence' and made a test for it.

[Subfallen]

tame -

What do you think about Alex-db's post? He also suggests that the referent domains of "intelligence" are quite atomic and correlate heavily with IQ. So when you say...

[ QUOTE ]
Simply put the measure LACKS the ability to measure a large set of values we need to measure a meaningful value for intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

...you confuse us, because IQ seems quite comprehensive and meaningful to Alex and me. Again, I cannot think of any scenario where someone scores 150 and then appears unintelligent to me.

[ QUOTE ]
A skilled piano player has exceptionally fine motor control and a highly developed nervous system and sense of touch. His sense of hearing is immense, the sense of rhytm highly evolved, the centres of his brains that pick up sound patterns is also highly developed. His brain will be specialized for this in the same way a skilled mathematician is skilled in maths. But the whole package is in its right, from a pure 'nervous system capacity' standpoint far more impressive. But still his ability may fall entirely outside of the realm of what an IQ test measures and his intelligence may even be ranked as average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ironically, I have extensive experience with pianists, and the best are always very "intelligent" in the IQ-y sense that Alex and I mean.

But that's neither here nor there...again, I'm just saying that in normal usage, there is no aspect of "intelligence" that a high IQ score is not sufficient for demonstrating.

[tame_deuces]

Creativity, social skills, ability to handle stress, outside the box thinking, leadership ability, empathy, openness, senso-motoric ability, spatial awareness, courage/ability to control panic...too name a few.

[Subfallen]

Yeah, I don't consider any of those except creativity (of a sort) to be constitutive for intelligence. Just a question of usage, of course, no material consideration...all those things are highly desirable no matter what you call them.

[tame_deuces]

Yep, my viewpoint is essentially that since these things are part of a complete view of intelligence, and that IQ just measures a small facet of brain capacity.

I also happen to think that the value of IQ is vastly overstated in academic papers because it stems from the academic environment, which classically puts great emphasis on logical capacity.

My pet peevve is probably that IQ have grown far too equivalent with the word intelligence, sometimes to the extent that IQ and intelligence is seen as the same thing.