Average SMP IQ.

[Arp220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1 - To a small extent, yes, but I dislike 'timed' tests generally as I think far too much weight is given to how fast someone can solve a purely computational problem. Certain autistic savants could pretty much destroy anyone on this forum in timed numeracy tests, but I would not rate them as particularly intelligent because of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I happen to think that speed of problem solving is a big intelligence indicator. The people you mention would not score highly in a current IQ test overall so I don't really see your point.

[ QUOTE ]

2 - Open ended questions are harder to mark, certainly, but test thinking on a completely different level to 'specific goal' type questions. And they're not that much harder to mark, as they essentially test what overall 'level' of problem solving you can attain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot sy anything but repeat what I said last time. I think you need to post a couple of examples, where you state the Q, A and marking criteria explicitly.

[ QUOTE ]

3 - Because I'm not convinced that random knowledge is in any way a good arbiter, and giving free access to google levels that playing field. There was one question I saw on some test that struck me as insanely stupid: "what is the national sport of Afghanistan?" Ok, I happen to remember reading somewhere that its called Buzkashi, but how does that test how clever I am?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exhibit A.

Furyshade -

[ QUOTE ]

id argue this, on the basis that some of the most intelligent people i've ever met are computer illiterate. i had two teachers, one a philosophy PhD from harvard and one an astrophysics PhD from caltech, both were absolutely computer illiterate. they could check email and use google but that was just about it. i think for people born in the last 20 years it is easy mistakenly judge intelligence by certain technological abilities because stupid people in our age group tend to be bad with computers etc. but a lot of people who didn't grow up with computers can be very intelligent but technologically inept

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

1 - Speed: ok, its a debatable one. I would argue for more weight on 'what problems can you solve' rather than 'how fast can you solve a problem, assuming that you can solve it to begin with'

2 - A good example would be the first of the questions I gave as examples. It's very open ended, but there are distinct 'levels' to it. So, for example, you could mark it out of ten, with one point given for a 'first level' thinking answer with no explanation, two points for such an answer with explanation, and so on. So you might get one point for saying 'human skin cells', two points for 'human skin cells because...', three points for 'list of specific human activities' and so on (in the way I've phrased it, there is a ten point answer, which someone with no background could get to within a few hours using a library, or google).

3 - It doesn't have to be google. A nice big library would serve just as well for the less computer literate, especially as there would be no time limit.

Just out of interest - who was the caltech astrophysics phd? I might know him/her...