Wrong. For example, Raven’s Progressive Matrices only have one category.
Ok. Fair point. But nearly all intelligence tests use a variety sub-tests. And I think the consensus among psychometricians is that more tests provide a better measure of intelligence.
My point isn’t that IQ is stupid. My goal is to explore its boundaries and limitations.
If you want to explore the concept of IQ seriously, you should find out what people who study that concept seriously are saying. Here are the sources you used in the article:
an article in Business Insider, declaring without evidence that Einstein had an IQ of 205-225;
the first google result for “Magnus Carlsen IQ”;
a made-for-adsense website called “IQ test experts” that provides a free “IQ test” to fish for e-mails.
Would you feel equally qualified to propose your new theory of e.g. quantum physics after doing a similar kind of research?
I suppose that’s a fair criticism. But you have cherry picked these examples. In my defense, I also reference SSC and a 448-page book by Stephen Jay Gould on IQ, which is entirely about the history of psychometrics.
It’s an area of interest, not necessarily an area of expertise. I wrote a post to get feedback and improve my understanding of the topic. I have a richer understanding of the issue than I had two days ago. And so I accomplished what I aspired to do.
Ok. Fair point. But nearly all intelligence tests use a variety sub-tests. And I think the consensus among psychometricians is that more tests provide a better measure of intelligence.
My point isn’t that IQ is stupid. My goal is to explore its boundaries and limitations.
If you want to explore the concept of IQ seriously, you should find out what people who study that concept seriously are saying. Here are the sources you used in the article:
an article in Business Insider, declaring without evidence that Einstein had an IQ of 205-225;
the first google result for “Magnus Carlsen IQ”;
a made-for-adsense website called “IQ test experts” that provides a free “IQ test” to fish for e-mails.
Would you feel equally qualified to propose your new theory of e.g. quantum physics after doing a similar kind of research?
I suppose that’s a fair criticism. But you have cherry picked these examples. In my defense, I also reference SSC and a 448-page book by Stephen Jay Gould on IQ, which is entirely about the history of psychometrics.
It’s an area of interest, not necessarily an area of expertise. I wrote a post to get feedback and improve my understanding of the topic. I have a richer understanding of the issue than I had two days ago. And so I accomplished what I aspired to do.
Uhm...