Charlie Springer wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 19:02:31 -0700, Albert van der Horst wrote
> (in article <jy7po7.ndq@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>
>>> Exactly 50% of any generation will have an IQ below 100 :-)
>>
>> And with each new generation IQ-tests have to be adapted to accomplish
>> this. (People get smarter all the time.)
>
> Do they get smarter?
Or faster. We don't know. IQ tests are always done under tight time
constraints. People *do* get better, sometimes its noticeable from year to
year. When I made the IQ test as part of the medical examination, I was
number 49 of that year to get full score (this was already close to the
end
of the year). The year before, a total of 7 people got full score, and the
year after, they stopped counting, because it were too many (the test
isn't
changed, and I don't know the population size of the counting). This test
was mostly visual pattern matching, and one argument why people get
better/faster for this kind of pattern matching is the exposure to TV and
computer games. This theory sounds reasonable, because the quick change in
test results within a few years correlates very good to the spread of TVs
and - more important - computers during that time.
> I suspect an American high school kid today would be completely lost in
an
> IQ test written for the same age in 1880. They would look very stupid
and
> ignorant. Heck, they probably don't even know why a horse would need
steel
> shoes or how to store ice till summer.
That's not the kind of questions IQ tests ask. The tests are usually more
about pattern matching (visual pattern, number pattern, and word pattern).
IQ tests try to avoid knowledge. You can train on IQ tests, though, and
other mental training can increase your score, too. IQ tests don't test
intelligence as such, but what they test is supposed to somehow correlate
with intelligence.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
|
