IQ tests are flawed! But not due to bias...
Now don't get me wrong. IQ tests are a good measure of intelligence, and linked to many traits.
But there is a flaw with one part of some IQ tests (involving subjectivity). Because it involves subjectivity, they have no correct answer. There may be an answer that is commonly provided by most intelligent people, but what about extremely intelligent people who may see things differently?
Have you ever seen a question ask something like: "which of the following five animals is most like a dog?".
It then lists 4 animals that don't have a tail, and one with a tail. The correct answer is deemed to be the animal with a tail.
But is the common tail the only thing in common between the animal and the dog? It's doubtful. You can categorize an item in many ways: it's color, it's height, weight, average number of offspring, number of teeth, claws, average age of reproductive ability...there are many obscure ways to categorize something. And who's to say which commonality is the correct one? It's subjective, you can't say. Taking a poll might advance the process, but you can't do that while writing the test.
Perhaps the test writers do their best to minimize this problem and aim to select an animal with few obvious commonalities other than a lack of a tail.
But what if the test taker is a super genius that thinks on a completely different level and is able to determine several commonalities? (a super genius that is as rare as 1 in 10,000, not 1 in 100). How is he to choose the correct answer? What if the test taker can think of a commonality that the test writer missed?
This is a flaw of some IQ tests. Perhaps it's not a serious flaw. The subjective section may still result in providing a relatively accurate score for most test takers, but it may actually reduce the score of high level geniuses who provide a correct answer that is marked incorrect because it wasn't the commonality the test writer was looking for.
Now don't get me wrong. IQ tests are a good measure of intelligence, and linked to many traits.
But there is a flaw with one part of some IQ tests (involving subjectivity). Because it involves subjectivity, they have no correct answer. There may be an answer that is commonly provided by most intelligent people, but what about extremely intelligent people who may see things differently?
Have you ever seen a question ask something like: "which of the following five animals is most like a dog?".
It then lists 4 animals that don't have a tail, and one with a tail. The correct answer is deemed to be the animal with a tail.
But is the common tail the only thing in common between the animal and the dog? It's doubtful. You can categorize an item in many ways: it's color, it's height, weight, average number of offspring, number of teeth, claws, average age of reproductive ability...there are many obscure ways to categorize something. And who's to say which commonality is the correct one? It's subjective, you can't say. Taking a poll might advance the process, but you can't do that while writing the test.
Perhaps the test writers do their best to minimize this problem and aim to select an animal with few obvious commonalities other than a lack of a tail.
But what if the test taker is a super genius that thinks on a completely different level and is able to determine several commonalities? (a super genius that is as rare as 1 in 10,000, not 1 in 100). How is he to choose the correct answer? What if the test taker can think of a commonality that the test writer missed?
This is a flaw of some IQ tests. Perhaps it's not a serious flaw. The subjective section may still result in providing a relatively accurate score for most test takers, but it may actually reduce the score of high level geniuses who provide a correct answer that is marked incorrect because it wasn't the commonality the test writer was looking for.
HTML Comment Box is loading comments...