At a glance, not one that I can see. The mirror trick is at least to me quite intuitive and easy to understand.

yeah.... usually if there is a "row" rule though, there will be a similar "column" rule... maybe not always though.

Actually 35 might not be C.

35 E would fit a vertical pattern, but I may just be confusing myself by looking at it too hard. But basically the top left, mid left and bottom left would be the same as a 90 degree clockwise rotated top right, mid right and E. Vertical middle arrow through the diagonal arrow moves it to the right of the space.

Well according to this:

http://www.jperla.com/blog/2007/08/2...ce-an-iq-test/

C is correct

Yeah that's what I thought.

As I said, I was making fun of your wording.

Also, I am pretty sure that I never said that I have a naive understanding of the brain.*

I am assuming that you mean that that the error of measurement / retest variance is large.Find a study that shows the "lack of precision and high variance." Otherwise you are just making claims without merit. See below before you get all huffy. I do mention a few studies that back up my claim that you are incorrect.

The tests are significantly predictive. That means they are useful. Again, see below.

A few studies:

Murphy, K. (1989). Is the relationship between cognitive ability and job performance stable over time? Human Performance, Vol. 2, pp. 183-200.

IQ scores and performance are significantly correlated.

Ree, M. J., Earles, J. A., & Teachout, M. S. (1994). Predicting job performance: Not much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 518-524.

More of the same. Meta study showing that IQ is the best predictor of job performance.

Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E . (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124, pp. 262-274.

A LOT more of the same.

Paul, S. M. (1985). The Advanced Raven's Progressive Matrices: Normative Data for an American University Population and an Examination of the Relationship with Spearman's G. Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 54.

There is little retest variance in IQ tests (well, at least the best IQ test). I believe the WISC and WAIS have similar reliability research.

Valencia, R. R. (2006). Reliability of the Raven coloured progressive matrices for Anglo and for Mexican-American children, Evaluation and Assessment, Psychology in the Schools, Vol 21, Issue 1, pp 49-52.

Reliability specifically means low measurement error and low retest variance.

So, we have that they are predictive, and completely the opposite of what you have claimed as far as lack of reliability.

"I wouldn't go so far as to compare us as peers. [I appreciate the set up ]"

I hope this is a level and you, in fact, saw what I was doing there, though from the looks of things it may be safe to assume you didn't. In that case, lol.[/QUOTE]

You were doing the same thing as I was doing: Messing around and making claims without backing them up and pretending that you weren't going to read my next post. The difference is that I decided to actually post research results that prove your claims to be incorrect.

*The funny thing is that I my grad studies and research were in clinical psychometric testing and clinical neuropsychology. I am assuming that you know that intelligence testing is part psychometrics.

Well no, you were being sarcastic about people who make postulations so I was in turn being sarcastic about you being my intellectual peer.

That isn't a funny thing at all, I have no idea what you actually studied regardless of what you claim you did.

Like I said, I can't be spending more time on this because they sticky part of your argument is I already know sufficient evidence doesn't exist for me to be content with the validity of any IQ test. It's aim is to quantify something far too nebulous. I'm a little confused as to why you think studies that compare IQ to job performance suggests that IQ tests actually measure your intelligence. Perhaps they should re-name the tests you're providing me with as job-performance-predictive tests.

How does knowing, for example, what Mark Twain's real name is, measure intelligence?

oh, so you dont much care for the name. it confuses you. ok. what can we do about that?

i dont know how you can act all arrogant-like when brian just owned you hard.

This is the ulta-stereotypical problem with approaching any sort of web forum seriously; it inevitably seems to have a a community of people aimed towards "owning" one another where audience + anon. = jackass is practical universal. It's as if this is the only place you can escape your inferiority in real life by putting other people down over the innnnnernetz.

Unfortunately, yea, the name does bother me. It carries with it the connotation that your score is a measure of your intelligence when I've produced fairly solid arguments that it does not. Sure, it measures something but I'm not even closed to convinced its your intelligence. Further, studies that correlate job performance w/ IQ test results just solidify my stance. The vast majority of the population have careers that do not incorporate the entire volume of their intellect (which these tests supposedly are able to even come close to quantifying).

If someone were to call a goat a cat and then I said that was silly, would it be wrong for me to suggest the name doesn't fit the animal then, too?

At no point was I attempting to portray my dominance over someone else (eg your observation of my arrogance). You may be able to see arrogance in my statistical analysis retorts but he even admitted he was poking fun at my word choice and presumably knew what I meant all along; how was I to know it wasn't a waste of my time to talk about it (I'm not going to sit here and teach someone a new concept whilst they suggest my inferiority) when he apparently personifying a clueless person?

Intelligence is a construct. It's not something we can touch or point to, or even measure directly, so we need to measure things related to it instead. There are numerous ways to assess the validity of a test designed to measure constructs, of which criterion validity (predictive) is just one. Intelligence tests have of course been assessed in other ways; e.g. they can differentiate between children with learning difficulties and children with cognitive deficits.

All very true, I'm familiar with such tests. I'm just trying to get across that approaching the test and its' results as a serious measure of your holistic intellect is absurd.

hmm, ya it's look a not so bad one, but still i think it's better to do a test with some professional then on internet, my opinion ;D

Originally G tests weren't intended to measure intelligence. They were intended to measure school success, which they did rather well. Apparently academics then figured out that this meant G also measured intelligence, because it's not like academics could have any inherent bias whatsoever in that direction is it?

Yes intelligence tests are good when it comes to measuring academic success, that they have much to do with intelligence is not in any way proven - nor is intelligence well defined. That they are biased is actually intuitively provable by imagining giving one to a caveman living 40,000 years ago, and that even goes for Raven's matrices which so many psychometricians (or w/e they call themselves) are so proud of.

What they specifically found is that scores of all tests of cognitive ability are correlated. This is what we call general intelligence (g). In other words, there is something that makes people tend to score similarly across cognitive tests. We call this general intelligence (g). We could have called it something different, like mental ability or George*, but we didn't. The best descriptions of g state that it is a combination of short term memory, processing speed, long term memory retrieval, and (very) basic problem solving ability. It trumps the crystalized v fluid debate to some extent because as age increases fluidity (short term memory and processing speed) decreases while crystalization (long term memory retrieval [more memories to exploit] and problem solving [strategies known] increases.

The variance (between tests) that can't be accounted for by g are caused by environmental factors (what specific things you have been exposed to), specific skills (usually thought of as the "multiple intelligences") and personality (differences in tendencies to enjoy certain types of problem solving, ability to stay on task, cautiousness).

The variance between tests is actually not very large. If it were, there would be no g, since g is the largest correlate between ALL tests of cognitive ability.

As further evidence of g, there are Elementary Cognitive Tasks. Performance in these is strongly correlated to scores on the typically more difficult intelligence tests.

The reason why the WISC and WAIS happen to have multiple subtests is partly historical but they have not been revised to reduce the number of subtests because having multiple subtests allows for a more accurate recording of g (psychologists will drop outlying scores when calculating IQ) and to find specific learning deficits (outlying scores indicate them).

I happen to like the Raven's tests, because they have been used successfully across a huge number of cultures successfully, they are strongly correlated with g, and because they are not language dependent. I am not aware of any testing of cavemen though.

*I would have called it George. No one asked me since I was not born yet when they came up with the idea of calling it general intelligence.

This sentence is either wrong or it's very unclear. Tests didn't just "happen" to correlate. After G factor was accepted new tests and refinement of old tests has always been based on altering the material to fit existing tests and continued adjustment of tests so they will have higher internal correlation.

If I interpret your post you are taking the correlation between the tests as proof of their validity, but the statistical internal validity between the tests is a). Purposefully built in b.) not proof in any way that they measure intelligence.

All in all this just strenghtens my views that psychometric's handling of intelligence is centered more on making a statistical construct that fits the data than it is about actually figuring out what intelligence is and how it should be measured.

I got 137 on the High Society test and im clinically ******ed. Must be a hoax.

Maybe the people who play the paykahs have above average IQs?

I would be willing to bet they are :P

If you don't think that IQ tests are a decent measure of intelligence, then you have a dumb and probably useless definition of intelligence.

In order to claim that IQ tests fail to measure intelligence, one needs to know what intelligence is. But isn't that one of the main difficulties, defining intelligence?

I've never done an IQ test in my life, but I think I'm in the 100-115 range.

Probably unclear by itself. The rest of the post was an elaboration.

This is an incorrect interpretation of the history of cognitive testing. Different tests of cognitive ability were originally designed to measure different things. Raven's was designed to measure visual problem solving in isolation. Vocabulary tests were designed to measure word knowledge in isolation. Elementary cognitive task tests were designed to measure information processing speed in isolation. There are numerous other examples, but you get the idea.

What they found, is that no matter how hard they try to test a cognitive ability in isolation, they fail. G keeps crashing the party.

a). It isn't purposefully built in in the research I am talking about. In fact, the opposite is true, because, b). the research I cited is on ad hoc tests of g versus the other theories of cognitive abilities, not post hoc explanations of the data.

IQ tests are not a subject I've ever researched, so I'm struck by how much Raven's Progressive Matrices sounds like something you'd encounter in a D&D campaign.

I assume you were going for staggering ignorance here. I await your lucid definition of intelligence and how tests effectively quantify it.

I'm fairly certain Raven himself claimed the purpose of his matrices was to measure Spearman's G. Maybe I am mistaken however. Do you know any databases that contain his articles? I can't find them.

Yup. Is a neural net that does millions of sophisticated credit transactions per second intelligent? It has language, it can process data, it can learn.

Is an anthill intelligent? It possesses rudimentary memory and learning capability.

Is a brain that is perfect simulation of a human brain but cranked up on processing power more intelligent than the human brain it models? This one is trickier than it seems.