how exactly is someone with a higher IQ different from someone with a lower IQ?
Start with the Wikipedia entry on ‘Mental Retardation’ and move toward the high IQ range. Many links to literature on differences between lower and higher IQ. Small degrees of IQ difference are hard to see, but large differences aren’t.
Not from any particular literature: the range of errors that can be made by a high IQ person is greater than the range of errors that can be made by a low IQ person. A super-genius who can speak twelve languages and has degrees in physics and music can crash and burn in ways obvious to a casual observer. But an exceptionally low IQ person will never fail-up to learning twelve languages and having degrees in physics and music.
That’s again too abstract. I’m looking for a description that would help me make an IQ test. Currently, I’m relatively bad at judging people’s intelligence—even though my gut feeling already gives me a relatively good heuristic for that.
J.P. Guilford’s Structure of Intellect (1967) model used three dimensions which when combined yielded a total of 120 types of intelligence. It was popular in the 1970s and early 1980s but faded due to both practical problems and theoretical criticisms.
I don’t know if this model is working at all, but I’m looking for something like what this sounds—a detailed low-level explanation that will ideally help me see the presence or absence of IQ in every individual thought/idea.
I don’t know if this model is working at all, but I’m looking for something like what this sounds—a detailed low-level explanation that will ideally help me see the presence or absence of IQ in every individual thought/idea.
Why do you expect this to be possible? Even the most heavily g-loaded tasks like matrix tests still have substantial non-g variance to them. Let’s remember what IQ is: a statistical tendency found by factor analysis of performance on multiple unrelated tasks. Expecting to find ‘the presence or absence of IQ’ makes it sound like you’re reifying IQ as a specific plausible neurological capability akin to long-term memory or working memory.
That doesn’t change anything—then I want to know what constitutes pattern recognition, working memory (I know that some of it comes from executive functions—so it’s not as simple as it looks like), spatial. Then I want to look at how each of them looks like in someone’s reasoning. Plus maybe some of the not so highly g-loaded tasks.
I don’t know if this model is working at all, but I’m looking for something like what this sounds—a detailed low-level explanation that will ideally help me see the presence or absence of IQ in every individual thought/idea.
That sounds like looking at a single coin and knowing it’s good for buying grain but not cloth if it is combined with many other single coins. Many coins can purchase many things, but that information isn’t encoded in a single coin.
I’m not sure I got what you’re saying. That low-level psychological mechanisms always participate in more than a single process? I don’t see what’s wrong with that. Or that there are several low-level mechanisms for that process, I still don’t see anything wrong with that. Also, by “low-level”, I mean “as low-level as I can get while still efficiently understanding and applying everything”, so probably no neurology.
Here’s an exact quote from a specific book. I’d like you to tell me something meaningful about the book it’s from. The quote is: “r.”
What I’m saying is one letter can’t tell you anything about a specific book, one coin can’t tell you about the purchasing power of many coins, and one thought / idea can’t tell you anything about an individual’s IQ. We seem to agree, reading that you write there’s a low level under which understanding and application don’t happen.
Start with the Wikipedia entry on ‘Mental Retardation’ and move toward the high IQ range. Many links to literature on differences between lower and higher IQ. Small degrees of IQ difference are hard to see, but large differences aren’t.
Not from any particular literature: the range of errors that can be made by a high IQ person is greater than the range of errors that can be made by a low IQ person. A super-genius who can speak twelve languages and has degrees in physics and music can crash and burn in ways obvious to a casual observer. But an exceptionally low IQ person will never fail-up to learning twelve languages and having degrees in physics and music.
That’s again too abstract. I’m looking for a description that would help me make an IQ test. Currently, I’m relatively bad at judging people’s intelligence—even though my gut feeling already gives me a relatively good heuristic for that.
I don’t know if this model is working at all, but I’m looking for something like what this sounds—a detailed low-level explanation that will ideally help me see the presence or absence of IQ in every individual thought/idea.
Why do you expect this to be possible? Even the most heavily g-loaded tasks like matrix tests still have substantial non-g variance to them. Let’s remember what IQ is: a statistical tendency found by factor analysis of performance on multiple unrelated tasks. Expecting to find ‘the presence or absence of IQ’ makes it sound like you’re reifying IQ as a specific plausible neurological capability akin to long-term memory or working memory.
That doesn’t change anything—then I want to know what constitutes pattern recognition, working memory (I know that some of it comes from executive functions—so it’s not as simple as it looks like), spatial. Then I want to look at how each of them looks like in someone’s reasoning. Plus maybe some of the not so highly g-loaded tasks.
That sounds like looking at a single coin and knowing it’s good for buying grain but not cloth if it is combined with many other single coins. Many coins can purchase many things, but that information isn’t encoded in a single coin.
I’m not sure I got what you’re saying. That low-level psychological mechanisms always participate in more than a single process? I don’t see what’s wrong with that. Or that there are several low-level mechanisms for that process, I still don’t see anything wrong with that. Also, by “low-level”, I mean “as low-level as I can get while still efficiently understanding and applying everything”, so probably no neurology.
Here’s an exact quote from a specific book. I’d like you to tell me something meaningful about the book it’s from. The quote is: “r.”
What I’m saying is one letter can’t tell you anything about a specific book, one coin can’t tell you about the purchasing power of many coins, and one thought / idea can’t tell you anything about an individual’s IQ. We seem to agree, reading that you write there’s a low level under which understanding and application don’t happen.