其他討論
消閒生活手機討論遊戲地帶影視娛樂校園生活數碼科技寵物樂園學術文化體育世界購物廣場時事投資貼圖影片上班一族美容纖體戀愛婚姻汽車討論成人資訊博彩娛樂資源交流站務管理
發帖
註冊 登入/註冊 微博



收藏 訂閱 打印

[心理學] 人類intelligence真係常熊分佈? 我真係好懷疑!!!!!!!!!!!



人類intelligence真係常熊分佈? 我真係好懷疑!!!!!!!!!!!

[隱藏]
首先,Are IQ tests effective at measuring intelligence?
因為  <簡單而言>
如果 IQ tests可以 effective at measuring intelligence。 而IQ TEST 做出黎的分佈是BELL-SHAPE, 咁人類intelligence就真係常熊分佈。

但IQ tests真係可以 effective at measuring intelligence
小的上網SEARCH 了幾點:







回覆 引用 TOP

Effectively, you've asked two questions. (1) Are IQ tests accurate and (2) can you really measure intelligence?

Are IQ Tests Accurate

Reposted from: Ryan Farmer's answer to How accurate are IQ tests?

Psychological tests, like intelligence tests, are evaluated on two broad dimensions: reliability & validity. Reliability is how consistent a test is, while validity is how accurate a test is.


Tests can't be valid (that is, they can't be said to measure what they intend to measure) until they are first reliable. The targets above give a good idea of how this works. Both reliability and validity are depicted as having a range between .00 and 1.00, where 1.00 is considered "perfect" accuracy. No test in existence, even those we take for granted like scales for weight, is perfect.

That said, intelligence tests have some of the highest reported reliability and validity estimates of all psychological assessments, with reliability and validity well above .90.  That basically means that IQ tests are extremely accurate at measuring the psychological construct of intelligence. But, what is IQ? What is the psychological construct "intelligence?"

Can You Really Measure Intelligence?

IQ tests measure general ability, which is an aggregation of a variety of factors including crystallized intelligence (an individual's use of language and facts), fluid intelligence (an individual's ability to problem solve when presented with novel information), processing speed (how quickly a person processes information), and working memory (how much information a person can manage simultaneously). This is very different from the public definition of intelligence, which is more broad.

So, I can't explicitly answer whether or not intelligence can be measured. What I can provide is information on how the psychological construct of general intelligence is defined (above), and information on how well we measure that (section 1).

Moreso, I can tell you that IQ is highly predictive of a number of important variables. Yes, academic variables are included here (as you suggested in your question), but also variables such as job performance, career satisfaction, mental and physical health, and salary -- to name a few. So, I propose a third question: Is the IQ metric useful? The answer is yes. However, its uses are limited, and it is in no way intended to be a stand alone measure or an indicator of how well one's life will go. It's just one measurement, after all.

Kranzler, J. & Floyd, R. (2013). Assessing intelligence in children and adolescents: A practical guide. Guilford Press.






回覆 引用 TOP

Robert Charles Lee, BSc (Hons) Psych & Stats, 1981, Univ. of London
Answered Nov 4, 2014
Originally Answered: Does the IQ test determine intelligence?
By definition, any type of IQ test determines intelligence. Each type of IQ test will have its own set of criteria for determining intelligence. The underlying basis of what the designer of the IQ test would consider to be "intelligence" will also differ from test to test.

The Wikipedia article Intelligence quotient provides a serviceable overview of how IQ relates to intelligence within the context of IQ tests.

+++++++++
簡單而言,
IQ TEST 是很準的。

[ 本帖最後由 sealion 於 2017-9-29 12:54 AM 編輯 ]




回覆 引用 TOP

Ian Sawyer, A 30 year member of Mensa with a 99.96 percentile IQ.
Updated Aug 31, 2015
Originally Answered: How accurate are IQ tests at measuring "intelligence"?
As others have said, "which IQ test did you take"?  To be able to have any realistic chance of getting an accurate measurement of IQ you do need to sit a qualified, supervised and professionally assessed test, such as Wechsler (WAIS), Stanford Binet, Cattell or Culture Fair.  On-line IQ tests are not reliable and cannot be used to give anything but the broadest indication of IQ.

As to accuracy, they measure what they measure.  Sorry if that sounds a bit cryptic, but any one person's IQ - which reflects the level of performance of your brain relating to the speed and accuracy in carrying out logical tasks involving identifying patterns and sequences - can vary depending on a number of external variables.  But in general most of the established tests are pretty accurate, however having any specific IQ, high or not, can't be taken as having 'intelligence' in it's widest sense.  

In my own 25+ years as a member of British Mensa, with a 99.96th percentile IQ, I've come across a great many 'square pages in round holes', people who have a very high IQ but who are hopeless at many everyday tasks, and who, despite that IQ, seem unable to use their logical thinking and processing abilities when it comes to solving commercial or other similar problems.  On the other hand I know several people with only an average IQ who, in the real world, can significantly out-perform many with a much higher IQ, in respect of their ability to being able to survive and prosper in the highly competitive world around us.

In summary, yes, IQ tests can be quite accurate in what they measure, but IQ alone is only a part of what makes a person who they are.  A high IQ can certainly help some people in some situations, but on it's own it can't be taken as a valid indicator of someone's overall 'real world' ability.

[ 本帖最後由 sealion 於 2017-9-29 12:58 AM 編輯 ]






回覆 引用 TOP

[隱藏]
樓上提到「高分低能」及「低分高能」現象。
但有上人會回應︰
Yes, well at least they measure something. Critics of IQ often bring up how there are different forms of intelligence that IQ does not capture. While this is accurate, the types of intelligence that IQ does test for have been highly correlated to educational and economic success. Another criticism is that IQ is only useful for western society. To that I would question why then do Asians score among the highest? I think that this line of reason in not completely off-base, I just think it is because western society is more meritocratic. A lot of middle eastern and African societies value force and violence over intelligence. So IQ does measure western success, but only because the west is better civilization



實用相關搜尋:

回覆 引用 TOP

那麼公認SMART的人又如何看?
IS GEORGE W. BUSH stupid? It's a question that occupied a good many minds of all political persuasions during his turbulent eight-year presidency. The strict answer is no. Bush's IQ score is estimated to be above 120, which suggests an intelligence in the top 10 per cent of the population. But this, surely, does not tell the whole story. Even those sympathetic to the former president have acknowledged that as a thinker and decision-maker he is not all there. Even his loyal speechwriter David Frum called him glib, incurious and "as a result ill-informed". The political pundit and former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough accused him of lacking intellectual depth, claiming that compared with other US presidents whose intellect had been questioned, Bush junior was "in a league by himself". Bush himself has described his thinking style as "not very analytical".  How can someone with a high IQ have these kinds of intellectual deficiencies? Put another way, how can a "smart" person act foolishly? Keith Stanovich, professor of human development and applied psychology at the University of Toronto, Canada, has grappled with this apparent incongruity for 15 years. He says it applies to more people than you might think. To Stanovich, however, there is nothing incongruous about it. IQ tests are very good at measuring certain mental faculties, he says, including logic, abstract reasoning, learning ability and working-memory capacity - how much information you can hold in mind.  But the tests fall down when it comes to measuring those abilities crucial to making good judgements in real-life situations. That's because they are unable to assess things such as a person's ability to critically weigh up information, or whether an individual can override the intuitive cognitive biases that can lead us astray.  This is the kind of rational thinking we are compelled to do every day, whether deciding which foods to eat, where to invest money, or how to deal with a difficult client at work. We need to be good at rational thinking to navigate our way around an increasingly complex world. And yet, says Stanovich, IQ tests - still the predominant measure of people's cognitive abilities - do not effectively tap into it. "IQ tests measure an important domain of cognitive functioning and they are moderately good at predicting academic and work success. But they are incomplete. They fall short of the full panoply of skills that would come under the rubric of 'good thinking'." IQ isn't everything  "A high IQ is like height in a basketball player," says David Perkins, who studies thinking and reasoning skills at Harvard Graduate School of Education in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "It is very important, all other things being equal. But all other things aren't equal. There's a lot more to being a good basketball player than being tall, and there's a lot more to being a good thinker than having a high IQ."  IQ tests and their proxies, which are designed to measure a factor known as general intelligence, are used by many businesses and colleges to help select the "best" candidates, and also play a role in schools and universities, in the form of SAT tests in the US and CATs in the UK. "IQ tests determine, to an important degree, the academic and professional careers of millions of people in the US," Stanovich says in his book, What Intelligence Tests Miss (Yale University Press, 2008). He challenges the "lavish attention" society bestows on such tests, which he claims measure only a limited part of cognitive functioning. "IQ tests are overvalued, and I think most psychologists would agree with that," says Jonathan Evans, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Plymouth, UK.  Indeed, IQ scores have long been criticised as poor indicators of an individual's all-round intelligence, as well as for their inability to predict how good a person will be in a particular profession. The palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould claimed in The Mismeasure of Man in 1981 that general intelligence was simply a mathematical artefact and that its use was unscientific and culturally and socially discriminatory. Howard Gardner at the Harvard Graduate School of Education has been arguing - controversially - for more than 25 years that cognitive capacity is best understood in terms of multiple intelligences, covering mathematical, verbal, visual-spatial, physiological, naturalistic, self-reflective, social and musical aptitudes.  Yet unlike many critics of IQ testing, Stanovich and other researchers into rational thinking are not trying to redefine intelligence, which they are happy to characterise as those mental abilities that can be measured by IQ tests. Rather, they are trying to focus attention on cognitive faculties that go beyond intelligence - what they describe as the essential tools of rational thinking. These, they claim, are just as important as intelligence to judgement and decision-making. "IQ is only part of what it means to be smart," says Evans.  As an illustration of how rational-thinking ability differs from intelligence, consider this puzzle: if it takes five machines 5 minutes to make five widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets? Most people instinctively jump to the wrong answer that "feels" right - 100 - even if they later amend it. When Shane Frederick at the Yale School of Management in New Haven, Connecticut, put this and two similarly counter-intuitive questions to about 3400 students at various colleges and universities in the US - Harvard and Princeton among them - only 17 per cent got all three right (see "Test your thinking"). A third of the students failed to give any correct answers (Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol 19, p 25).  We encounter problems like these in various guises every day. Without careful reasoning we often get them wrong, probably because our brains use two different systems to process information (see New Scientist, 30 August 2008, p 34). One is intuitive and spontaneous; the other is deliberative and reasoned. Intuitive processing can serve us well in some areas - choosing a potential partner, for example, or in situations where you've had a lot of experience. It can trip us up in others, though, such as when we overvalue our own egocentric perspective. Deliberative processing, on the other hand, is key to conscious problem-solving and can help us override our intuitive tendencies if they look like leading us astray.  The problem with IQ tests is that while they are effective at assessing our deliberative skills, which involve reason and the use of working memory, they are unable to assess our inclination to use them when the situation demands. This is a crucial distinction: as Daniel Kahneman at Princeton University puts it, intelligence is about brain power whereas rational thinking is about control. "Some people who are intellectually able do not bother to engage very much in analytical thinking and are inclined to rely on their intuitions," explains Evans. "Other people will check out their gut feeling and reason it through and make sure they have a justification for what they're doing." An IQ test cannot predict which of these paths someone will follow, hence the George W. Bush incongruity of people who are supposedly smart acting foolishly.  The idea that Bush is just one foolish smart person among many, and that intelligence is a poor predictor of "good thinking", comes from a series of recent experiments that compared the performances of people of a range of intellectual abilities on rational-thinking tasks. In a study published last year, Stanovich and Richard West of James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia, found there was no correlation between intelligence and a person's ability to avoid some common traps of intuitive-thinking (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 94, p 672).  On certain types of thinking tasks, such as those involving number ratios, probabilities, deductive reasoning and the use of hindsight, intelligent people do perform better, Stanovich and others have found. This is particularly true when any intuitive pitfalls are obvious, especially if a correct answer depends on logic or abstract reasoning - abilities that IQ tests measure well. But most researchers agree that, overall, the correlation between intelligence and successful decision-making is weak. The exception is when people are warned that they might be vulnerable to a thinking bias, in which case those with high IQs tend to do better. This, says Evans, is because while smart people don't always reason more than others, "when they do reason, they reason better".  For example, consider the following problem. Jack is looking at Anne, and Anne is looking at George; Jack is married, George is not. Is a married person looking at an unmarried person? If asked to choose between yes, no, or cannot be determined, the vast majority of people go for the third option - incorrectly. If told to reason through all the options, though, those of high IQ are more likely to arrive at the right answer (which is "yes": we don't know Anne's marital status, but either way a married person would be looking at an unmarried one). What this means, says Stanovich, is that "intelligent people perform better only when you tell them what to do".  Perkins explains this as follows: "IQ indicates a greater capacity for complex cognition for problems new to you. But what we apply that capability to is another question. Think of our minds as searchlights. IQ measures the brightness of the searchlight, but where we point it also matters. Some people don't point their searchlights at the other side of the case much, for many reasons - entrenched ideas, avoidance of what might be disturbing, simple haste. A higher wattage searchlight in itself is no protection against such follies." Indeed, it seems even the super-intelligent are not immune. A survey of members of Mensa (the High IQ Society) in Canada in the mid-1980s found that 44 per cent of them believed in astrology, 51 per cent believed in biorhythms and 56 per cent believed in aliens (Skeptical Inquirer, vol 13, p 216). Think of our minds as searchlights. IQ measures the brightness of the searchlight, but where we point it also matters  The idea that IQ is a poor measure of rationality is not without its critics, though. Christopher Ferguson, who studies the genetic and environmental factors behind human behaviour at Texas A&M International University in Laredo, says that since those with high IQ tend to live longer and earn more, we should assume that intelligent people are more rational. "They tend to have more knowledge with which to make better decisions," he says.  Yet Wändi Bruine de Bruin at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, has shown that intelligence cannot be the only factor that dictates whether someone is a good thinker and decision-maker. In a study of 360 Pittsburgh residents aged between 18 and 88, her team found that, regardless of differences in intelligence, those who displayed better rational-thinking skills suffered significantly fewer negative events in their lives, such as being in serious credit card debt, having an unplanned pregnancy or being suspended from school (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 92, p 938). Andrew Parker, now with the Rand Corporation in Pittsburgh, and Baruch Fischhoff at Carnegie Mellon found a similar association among adolescents. Those who scored higher on a test of decision-making competence drank less, took fewer drugs and engaged in less risky behaviour overall (Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, vol 18, p 1). This suggests that rational thinking may be more important than intelligence for positive life experiences, Fischhoff says.  A potent criticism of Stanovich's theory is the lack of a proven test of rational thinking skills that could be used alongside IQ tests. "It is not enough to say what intelligence is not measuring, you have to propose alternative ways of measuring rationality," says Kahneman. Stanovich maintains that while developing a universal "rationality-quotient (RQ) test" would require a multimillion-dollar research programme, there is no technical or conceptual reason why it could not be done. There are already several contenders, such as the measure of decision-making competence used by Bruine de Bruin and Fischhoff.  Would a valid RQ test be useful? "Hypothetically, yes, because it would cover skills that are more directly related to what people will be doing in their jobs," says Bruine de Bruin. Kahneman maintains that IQ tests, as measures of brain power, work well for academic selection. "But I would very seriously consider RQ tests as a way of selecting managers or leaders, particularly if I wanted a style of leadership that is thorough and not overly impulsive," he says.  There is a drawback, however: unlike with IQ, it would be relatively easy to train people to do well on RQ tests. "They measure the extent to which people are inclined to use what capacity they have," says Evans. "You could train people to ignore intuition and engage reasoning for the sake of the test, even if this was not their normal inclination."  The flip side of this is that everyone can improve their rational thinking and decision-making skills. Richard Nisbett at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and others discovered that just half an hour's training in statistical reasoning can improve a person's ability to use rational thinking in everyday situations. And we don't need formal training to improve: there are many tricks we can teach ourselves, says Perkins (see "How to avoid making foolish decisions").  We might also be better equipped to elect leaders that did the same. Bush's successor is intellectually engaged, shows cognitive flexibility, can question beliefs, is sensitive to inconsistency and engages in counterfactual thinking, says Stanovich. "They could not be more different in their rational thinking profiles." President Obama's IQ, incidentally, is well above average - but then so was Bush's.

http://som.yale.edu/news/news/why-high-iq-doesnt-mean-youre-smart

[ 本帖最後由 sealion 於 2017-9-29 01:12 AM 編輯 ]






回覆 引用 TOP

總結樓上所有︰就是IQ TEST 是準。但它只反應了非常少的「東西」。
=======================================
但小的仲未入正題?
人類intelligence真係常熊分佈? 我真係好懷疑!!!!!!!!!!!






回覆 引用 TOP

太長,聽日先睇

但我都對呢樣野充滿疑問好耐
根據我有限GE統計學知識
正態分布通常都出現在各個FACTOR 都係獨立 GE事件上
如果每個FACTOR都係 互相支持 (如 A值高會一定機會導至B值高,如 家境好 》父母質素高GE機會大一點,雖然不能排除父母純粹靠運導致家境好)
咁就唔會導致正態分布

好明顯,導致IQ高的因素,多數都係互相support, 互相reinforce ,點解 設定IQ 的專家要人為定義到係正態分布 《《《應用性問題
而IQ TEST 係用咩方法強行設計到 可以令到 在測試者為大數目GE情況下 得出正態分布?《《《數學問題




回覆 引用 TOP

引用:
原帖由 WilL0406 於 2017-9-29 02:08 AM 發表
太長,聽日先睇

但我都對呢樣野充滿疑問好耐
根據我有限GE統計學知識
正態分布通常都出現在各個FACTOR 都係獨立 GE事件上
如果每個FACTOR都係 互相支持 (如 A值高會一定機會導至B值高,如 家境好 》父母質素高 ...


記得貧道中學時期做過一份IQ測試。。。貧道智商只有八十七。。。結果被同學狂笑。。。但依家貧道見心理學家。。。。佢話貧道有高智商阿氏保加症



實用相關搜尋: 測試
港燦國獨立運動萬歲

港燦國獨立運動萬歲

港燦國獨立運動萬歲

回覆 引用 TOP

[隱藏]
就是IQ TEST 是「準」。但它只反映了非常少的「東西」。
如果同意了以上這句。小的可以簡單地展開討論。
===========================================
引用#6的比喻。
There's a lot more to being a good basketball player than being tall, and there's a lot more to being a good thinker than having a high IQ.

IQ 跟 身高都是 正熊分佈。
前者是十分合理︰因為它的設計就是想要有 正熊分佈!!! 這有點像以前CE拉CURVE一樣。
而且更重要是 如果 它只希集中內容注意 那些非常少的「東西」!!

我的 全帖重點是
IQ TEST 跟 身高 當然都是 正熊分佈。
可是 全地球藍球玩家、LOL玩家、卓球玩家..........他們的實力 都 << 不是 正熊分佈 >>

不信..........
只可以



實用相關搜尋: 設計

回覆 引用 TOP

現在小的進入SIDE TRICK 時段。

我並不認為 我們身邊 有什麼「智力」超群的 人!!!!
我們大部分人根本都是差不多。
理由1︰我們大部分人 從或然率上看 根本 就有 很「接近」的祖先。如果我倆都是廣東省人,我倆3百年內共同祖先的機會絕不在少。
理由2︰如果我倆都是廣東省人,我倆都接受類似的 SELECTION PRESSURE,過去3百年的selection pressure 可能並非像現代般強調「智力」。

首次,也是最重要,這裡的智力是指我們 《失天的》。
於是,小的見解是 我們大部分人 的智慧表現 根本非常depends on 後天!
小的也用一個例子比喻説明:電腦。
我們出廠時的硬件規格也不一樣,但其實大部分的規格相差不是很遠。這時 規格的差別 相當可能服從 正熊分佈。
但重點是後天的OS及其software!!

小的以前用的例子就是 象棋。小明看了棋書學開局,又學了幾個開局陷阱。他相當可能捉贏另一個十分聰明的象棋初學者。

我們有些人語言能力好D,有些人數理好D。但我們的後天教育影響可以非常大。可能,只是小明不喜歡數學,他不願學習自然差。小光為人粗心大意,可能只是因為其長大環境從不強調細心。

[ 本帖最後由 sealion 於 2017-9-30 03:01 AM 編輯 ]



實用相關搜尋: 教育 Software 學習 電腦
究竟我們人類 (或至少 uwant 的網友),是否沒有能力在 不標懺化或侮辱他人的情況下理性地討論?
-----
小的可是唯物科學懷疑實證論存在主義者。

回覆 引用 TOP

引用:
原帖由 sealion 於 2017-9-29 10:03 PM 發表
就是IQ TEST 是「準」。但它只反映了非常少的「東西」。
如果同意了以上這句。小的可以簡單地展開討論。
===========================================
引用#6的比喻。
There's a lot more to being a good bask ...
哇.....多字到呢⋯⋯深不見底,睇死人

海獅版主可以去參加下Mensa學會既IQ test ,相當有趣,入會後自然發現IQ再高再準,也沒有什麼大不了;能對社會作出貢獻的人,遠遠無須擁有IQ的認可。







回覆 引用 TOP

引用:
原帖由 白眉道人 於 2017-9-29 12:32 PM 發表


記得貧道中學時期做過一份IQ測試。。。貧道智商只有八十七。。。結果被同學狂笑。。。但依家貧道見心理學家。。。。佢話貧道有高智商阿氏保加症
連我都係mensa學會成員,就自然知道周街都係高智商天才,實在不值一提。




回覆 引用 TOP

回覆 12#  海德哈齊拉簡 的帖子
邊度有MENSA學會GE IQTEST玩?

回覆 引用 TOP

[隱藏]
我覺得 IQ 的確係有作用GE
但係呢個又係一個複雜GE系統
1) 如果你身處GE國家GE人GE IQ GE 中位數 係低GE,你IQ再高都冇用
2) 但如果你 身邊個個都高IQ 而你GE IQ不凸出 咁你就陷入劣勢

呢個令人諗到 生物學講GE multi-level selection, group selection 同 individual selection 分好多個level 同時進行

[ 本帖最後由 WilL0406 於 2017-9-30 12:40 AM 編輯 ]



熱門搜尋: 甩頭髮 hair 護髮 腋下脫毛 髮尾油 假髮 頭皮

回覆 引用 TOP



伸延閱讀
 20 12
 提示:支持鍵盤翻頁 ←左 右→ 發新話題發佈投票
請先登入
小貼士:
依家可以用“@”tag會員啦!
預覽帖子  恢復數據  清空內容