Same goes for the ACT or SAT. Tests are such an awful way to measure how much a person has learned or is capable of learning and are based on outdated nineteenth-century modes of education.

I don't see the point in IQ tests. The main reason is that your IQ really only tells how good you're at taking IQ tests.

 

I've never taken a real IQ test myself. I guess my score would be in the high 130s or low 140s, as I'm excellent at noticing patterns. But like everyone else, there are things I'm not so good at - I have a hard time actually remembering anything. Like when I learn a new language I have no problem learning the grammar, but I often have to check a word ten times and I still can't remember it.

 

I've thought about taking an IQ test sometime, but I really have no reason to. I consider myself a more artistic person anyway, and there's no test which measures your artistic skills.

 

Someone said before that solving the test fast is better than solving it slowly. How about this example: a school class takes a really hard test with, let's say, 10 problems. The average score is 50% - five out of ten right, and the average time spent on the test is 60 minutes. Now there's someone who does the test in just 20 minutes and gets an average score - half of the problems correct. Then there's exactly one person who gets every single problem correct and even tells how he solved them, but it takes him 3 hours to do the test. Which one is more intelligent? In my opinion both are intelligent, but in a different way, and they are suited for very different jobs.

 

And even in the case that someone completes the test both perfectly and fast, there is always the possibility that he just has a great memory but doesn't actually understand anything - or maybe he got lucky with his guesses. There's much more to tests than just speed and accuracy.

I don't see the point in IQ tests. The main reason is that your IQ really only tells how good you're at taking IQ tests.

 

I've never taken a real IQ test myself. I guess my score would be in the high 130s or low 140s, as I'm excellent at noticing patterns. But like everyone else, there are things I'm not so good at - I have a hard time actually remembering anything. Like when I learn a new language I have no problem learning the grammar, but I often have to check a word ten times and I still can't remember it.

 

I've thought about taking an IQ test sometime, but I really have no reason to. I consider myself a more artistic person anyway, and there's no test which measures your artistic skills.

 

Someone said before that solving the test fast is better than solving it slowly. How about this example: a school class takes a really hard test with, let's say, 10 problems. The average score is 50% - five out of ten right, and the average time spent on the test is 60 minutes. Now there's someone who does the test in just 20 minutes and gets an average score - half of the problems correct. Then there's exactly one person who gets every single problem correct and even tells how he solved them, but it takes him 3 hours to do the test. Which one is more intelligent? In my opinion both are intelligent, but in a different way, and they are suited for very different jobs.

 

And even in the case that someone completes the test both perfectly and fast, there is always the possibility that he just has a great memory but doesn't actually understand anything - or maybe he got lucky with his guesses. There's much more to tests than just speed and accuracy.

 

Nobody said that speed and percent correct were perfectly replaceable, but if one person gets a 75% trying their best in say, 1 hour, while another person tries their best and gets 75% in 20 minutes, why shouldn't it be considered that because they were able to think at the same level at a quicker pace that they are more intelligent?

I don't see the point in IQ tests. The main reason is that your IQ really only tells how good you're at taking IQ tests.

 

I've never taken a real IQ test myself. I guess my score would be in the high 130s or low 140s, as I'm excellent at noticing patterns. But like everyone else, there are things I'm not so good at - I have a hard time actually remembering anything. Like when I learn a new language I have no problem learning the grammar, but I often have to check a word ten times and I still can't remember it.

 

I've thought about taking an IQ test sometime, but I really have no reason to. I consider myself a more artistic person anyway, and there's no test which measures your artistic skills.

 

Someone said before that solving the test fast is better than solving it slowly. How about this example: a school class takes a really hard test with, let's say, 10 problems. The average score is 50% - five out of ten right, and the average time spent on the test is 60 minutes. Now there's someone who does the test in just 20 minutes and gets an average score - half of the problems correct. Then there's exactly one person who gets every single problem correct and even tells how he solved them, but it takes him 3 hours to do the test. Which one is more intelligent? In my opinion both are intelligent, but in a different way, and they are suited for very different jobs.

 

And even in the case that someone completes the test both perfectly and fast, there is always the possibility that he just has a great memory but doesn't actually understand anything - or maybe he got lucky with his guesses. There's much more to tests than just speed and accuracy.

Well yes. My entire point was about the students getting the SAME score, where the only changed variable is speed, making the faster one the best from all viewpoints.

 

You complicate it by adding other variables and it leads to an impossible question, or one that demands more information at the very least. Scoring 50% in a mathematics test is pretty awful, taking over 50% of the world is pretty impressive.

 

The fact that a student could coincidentally remember exactly what the test needs and nothing else is my exact issue with IQ tests, they need to be more varied and longer to give more accurate results uncorrupted by luck.