I loved one of the guy's response, which was, "If that's true, then I must be the most intelligent guy on earth."

I am sure this isn't true. Relationships are always difficult, and, remember, they do not indicate a cause. In other words, there may be an association, for some reason (those who make more money and are more successful can afford to drink more?), but that doesn't mean that relationship is causal. Indeed, there is research to show the opposite.

I was out last night with a local Mensa group (by definition all Mensa members must have an IQ of 150 or more) and all the men were drinking Harvey's Real Ale.

One of the women was drinking Fosters with lime (she obviousl doesn't like the taste of proper beer) and the other was drinking Coke.

From this small sample it would appear that most intelligent men drink Real Ale

150 on whose scale? It's more accurate to say Mensans are above the 98th percentile, IMHO

Geoff the ex-Mensan, now Densan

quote:

150 on whose scale? It's more accurate to say Mensans are above the 98th percentile, IMHO

Don't mention that. They're too dumb (or drunk) to realize that.

quote:

From this small sample it would appear that most intelligent men drink Real Ale

Or...that women prefer less alcoholic drinks than mean do.

And don't even get me started on what those ridiculous IQ scores, that mean absolutely nothing!

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff:
150 on whose scale? It's more accurate to say Mensans are above the 98th percentile, IMHO

Geoff the ex-Mensan, now Densan

Cattell, I believe.

But 98th percentile is also correct - it's simply another way of expressing it.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:

quote:

From this small sample it would appear that most intelligent men drink Real Ale

Or...that women prefer less alcoholic drinks than mean do.

And don't even get me started on what those ridiculous IQ scores, that mean absolutely nothing!

The fastest-growing consumer sector for Real Ale in the UK is younger women. I suspect it's partly due to the fact that they have been prejudiced in the past by the image that beer once had - that it a drink for men, consumed in pubs (also for men) in large quantities. Oh, and that it all tastes the same.

As many women have discovered, beer is actually a fine and interesting drink - better in many cases that wine.

Intelligence tests do measure something - and do mean something. What they measure and what they mean is a matter for debate. Interestingly intelligence is one aspect of personality that gets everyone really hot under the collar. Suggest that someone is taller or shorter; stronger or weaker; darker or lighter than someone else and it occasions no more than a nod of acceptance. Suggest that someone is more of less intelligent than another and an argument is almost bound to start.

Just as here.

Which is why most Mensans keep their membership very quiet; I know for a fact that there are some who post here but I would never mention their names.

It's likely that all who post here, myself excepted, qualify.

The IQ test was invented by a Frenchman, Alfred Benet; the Hell-fire and damnation religion that's strangling the USA was also the creation of a Frenchman, Jean Cauvin (Anglicised into John Calvin so you could take credit, RE), both with equal benefit to civilization.

There are many different intelligence tests - as there are many tests for other kinds of characteristics. I mentioned but one - and I don't even know what Cattell's nationality is - nor do I care.

And I very much doubt that all who post here would pass Cattell's or Benet's test.

As has been mentioned, those who can pass these kinds of tests - regardless of their validity - are around 2% of the population. I would suspect that the same could be said of tests for such things as, say, stamina, memory or weight-lifting. But only intelligence tests seem to attract this kind of opproprium.

Could that be because intelligence is, well, still being defined, & hence intelligence tests are viewed with more skepticism? Most of the other abilities you mention are defined precisely for the designated tests.

I remember being nonplussed in the late '70;s when I took some sort of intelligence test as an adult, having read that my above-average high-school-era results had probably improved with life experience. I can't remember the test type, but it was divided, as SAT tests still are, into math-type and reading-type. I was advised that my math intelligence had dipped well below average, while my verbal intelligence had become so high it had no numerical equivalent.

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry But my conclusion was that there was something lacking in the testing department...

quote:

Intelligence tests do measure something - and do mean something. What they measure and what they mean is a matter for debate.

Don't be so matter of fact about it. That "intelligence tests do measure something - and do mean something" is merely a matter of your opinion; not fact. There will be those who agree with you...and those who don't.

quote:

Interestingly intelligence is one aspect of personality that gets everyone really hot under the collar. Suggest that someone is taller or shorter; stronger or weaker; darker or lighter than someone else and it occasions no more than a nod of acceptance. Suggest that someone is more of less intelligent than another and an argument is almost bound to start.

Just as here.

Not here, at least by others. Only by you.

quote:

Which is why most Mensans keep their membership very quiet; I know for a fact that there are some who post here but I would never mention their names.

Many here are either in Mensa or could be, if they wanted. We all know that, Richard...not just you. BTW, my experience is that most people in Mensa don't keep it silent, just as you haven't. It's not a big deal either way.

Intelligence, when it can be measured accurately, is only one characteristic, you are right. Success is usually a combination of social and cognitive intelligence. Unfortunately, many (certainly not all) with the latter lack the former and spend their lives in frustration.

Bethree, a verbal intelligence above the charts, huh? I believe it, particularly with all the reading you do.

quote:

Don't be so matter of fact about it. That "intelligence tests do measure something - and do mean something" is merely a matter of your opinion; not fact. There will be those who agree with you...and those who don't.

If they didn't measure anything then everyone would score exactly the same. Because people do not score exactly the same then they are measuring something. Exactly what they are measuring is where the debate has always raged. It is an observable fact that some people are quicker on the uptake than others and intelligence tests are one way in which the differences between people's reasoning speeds can be assessed. I have never tried to suggest that the tests are perfect - but they are all we presently have. If they are not used then there is no remotely objective way in which people's intelligence can be measured.

Of course, there are plenty of people around who will say that there is no point in trying to measure intelligence - and there are plenty around who will say the opposite. I happen to believe it is a good idea to try tgo measure intelligence - after all we measure just about every other aspect of people's performance. Literacy, numeracy, strength, stamina - you name it and there is a test for it. So why should there not be a test to measure the speed at which a person's brain processes information - which is essentially what intelligence is?

quote:

Not here, at least by others. Only by you.

Do you not remember the heated debate a few years ago when we discussed the word "mokita" (meaning "Something that everyone knows but nobody talks about") which was used in an article I read about the connection between race and intelligence?

Although I myself drew no conclusions, there were some here who tried to suggest that I was aligning myself with the likes of Hans Eysenck who was one of the first researchers to make this suggestion. And I only used the racial basis of intelligence example because that was what the article itself used.

And, like it or not, it is a common reaction for people to get agitated when intelligence is discussed. Say to somemone, "Do you find it a problem, being so short?" and you'll get a straightforward anwer. But say to someone, "Do you find it a problem, being so stupid?" and you'd be likely to get a punch in the mouth.

quote:

Many here are either in Mensa or could be, if they wanted. We all know that, Richard...not just you. BTW, my experience is that most people in Mensa don't keep it silent, just as you haven't. It's not a big deal either way.

That has not been my experience. And I kept very quiet on this site about my Mensa membership for years and initially only told you in a PM. Even now I usually only share this information with fellow Mensans.

And I agree with you about "success" (although that itself is very hard to define). Being intelligent does not guarantee success in business any more than being tall guarantees success in basketball. Both are personal characteristics which might help but do not guarantee.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
If they didn't measure anything then everyone would score exactly the same. Because people do not score exactly the same then they are measuring something.

Not necessarily. They could just give random results.

quote:

From this small sample it would appear that most intelligent men drink Real Ale

I've found that the drunker the person, the more likely they are to ascribe to themselves abilities far beyond those available to mortal man. For example, the most inebriated person in a group is the one who is determined to demonstrate his skills by driving everyone else (including the designated driver) home. Perhaps much the same can be said for those who, after imbibing gallons of spirits, insist they are in the highest percentile of the population intellectually (the fact they cannot remember either their name or where their car keys are, notwithstanding). Naturally, the next day, while they cannot recall the previous evening's events with any certainty, they will assert that their drunken boasts are nonetheless fact.

quote:

Originally posted by goofy:

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
If they didn't measure anything then everyone would score exactly the same. Because people do not score exactly the same then they are measuring something.

Not necessarily. They could just give random results.

If they were to give random results (like a lottery) then that would imply that their completion was also random (again like a lottery). But they require consideration and, whereas some people might simply guess at the correct answer of the multiple-choice question that typifies most IQ tests, I suggest that most will not.

Unless you believe that everyone has the same level of intelligence then you must agree it should be possible to distinguish between the more and the less intelligent. IQ tests attempt to do this; whether you think they do a good job or not, the fact remains that they are presently the only method of assessment we have.

I believe that the arguments about the accuracy of IQ tests is more to do with the sensitivity of what is being measured than it is of the methodology of the measurement. People do not like to be told that they are less intelligent than others and will seeks to criticise the test rather the the results.

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:

quote:

From this small sample it would appear that most intelligent men drink Real Ale

I've found that the drunker the person, the more likely they are to ascribe to themselves abilities far beyond those available to mortal man. For example, the most inebriated person in a group is the one who is determined to demonstrate his skills by driving everyone else (including the designated driver) home. Perhaps much the same can be said for those who, after imbibing gallons of spirits, insist they are in the highest percentile of the population intellectually (the fact they cannot remember either their name or where their car keys are, notwithstanding). Naturally, the next day, while they cannot recall the previous evening's events with any certainty, they will assert that their drunken boasts are nonetheless fact.

It is a well-known fact that alcohol does tend to reduce inhibitions and the claims of superiority (of many characteristics) by drunks is very common.

It has nothing at all to do with intelligence or intelligence tests; IQ tests are taken by sober people and teetotalers as well as drunkards.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
It is an observable fact that some people are quicker on the uptake than others and intelligence tests are one way in which the differences between people's reasoning speeds can be assessed.

This exemplifies my skepticism of the testing. My eldest in early yrs was considered adhd/LD; by end-h.s., the consensus was his processing speed was 40 pts behind his (high) IQ score. He was a musician, & a kid who (for example) in 8th grade could easily explain quadratic equations to a layman, but could not work one. Of my 3 kids, he was the least likely to test well, yet the only one I considered my intelledtual equal.

quote:

If they didn't measure anything then everyone would score exactly the same.

Think validity, Richard. Accuracy or reliability are very different. A test can be reliable (eg, measure the same weight on a scale every time), and yet not valid (would weight be a measure of intelligence?) Same here.

I.Q. tests are not measurements, they are classifiers. That is, they can only rank subjects as having answered more or fewer questions correctly than another subject. Real measurements do not behave like I.Q. tests.

I shall use the example of length, measured in centimeters, but any physical measurement -- voltage, mass, charge, etc. -- will do. If length behaved like I.Q. then the centimeter would be defined such that the mean height of, say, Englishmen would be 100 centimeters, and the distribution of heights would be normally distributed -- a bell curve -- with a standard deviation of 15 cm. or N(100, 15). The centimeter would be defined such that 34.13% of the population would be between 100 cm and 115 cm, 13.59% would be between 115 cm and 130 cm, etc. Centimeters would not all necessarily be the same physical length. The length of the centimeter between 123cm and 124cm would be as long as necessary to capture the number of subjects in that bin that will fit the function N(100,15).

Of course, we would not be able to do any math with this system, because 150 cm - 140cm would not necessarily be the same physical length as 100 cm - 90 cm. Should improvements in nutrition and public health cause Englishmen to be, on the whole, taller than their predecessors, the meter would have to be recalculated so that their average height was still one meter and all the centimeters would have to be rejiggered such that the actual, empirical distribution would be shoe-horned into a normal distribution. Old meter-sticks, rulers and calipers would have to be replaced with new ones.

No measurement system -- voltage, charge, mass, etc. -- works like this.

If I.Q. were a measurement, then an I.Q. of 1, or 1,000,000, or 6.12543 would have some meaning, and they don't. If I.Q. were a measurement then it would make sense to say "three people each with an I.Q. of 150 are equivalent to one person with an I.Q. of 450", and it doesn't. If I.Q. were a real measurement it would be distributed however it damn well pleased, and almost certainly not normally.

The only thing that I.Q. scores allow you to say is that subject A scored higher than B who scored higher than C. That's it. Even the celebrated bell curve is superfluous cargo-cult science imposed upon the data. It depresses me that we are still arguing about this preposterous bit of Victorian pseudoscience in the 21st century.

I have never denied that IQ tests are flawed. All I have ever said is that they presently are the only measurement we have. Intelligence is a personal characteristic and differences in intelligence are readily observable - especially at the extremes. We frequently make such comments as, "He's not the sharpest tool in the box" or "Golly, he's quick on the uptake" - and these are all comments about a person's intelligence which we have estimated - just as we might estimate a person's height or weight. But there are better ways of assessing height and weight than simple estimates, and I believe that IQ tests are better than simple estimates as well.

They are imperfect, I agree, and I am sure those who work in this field would love to have suggestions as to how they could improve on this "...preposterous bit of Victorian pseudoscience..."

And I do not accept your comment "...if I.Q. were a measurement then it would make sense to say "three people each with an I.Q. of 150 are equivalent to one person with an I.Q. of 450..." That would make no more sense than saying that three people who measure 6 foot in height are equivalent to one person of 18 foot. Taking a total of measurements and saying that the mathematical answer has some significance is not sensible.

This isn't about flaws or imperfections. It's about discussing I.Q. as though it were a measurement when it clearly isn't.

My suggestion to those who work in this field is the same as my suggestion to those who work in the fields of homeopathy, phrenology and astrology: chuck it, it's rubbish, find another job.

quote:

That would make no more sense than saying that three people who measure 6 foot in height are equivalent to one person of 18 foot. Taking a total of measurements and saying that the mathematical answer has some significance is not sensible.

The combined height of three 6 ft tall people is equal to the height of one 18 ft tall person, regardless of the actual existence of 18 ft tall people. Nine 200 lb. people in an elevator is equivalent to one 1800 lb person in an elevator, regardless of whether 1800 lb people actually exist. What part of this don't you understand?

All of science and engineering depends upon taking a total of measurements and saying the mathematical answer has some significance. On what basis do you assert that this is not the case?

quote:

The combined height of three 6 ft tall people is equal to the height of one 18 ft tall person, regardless of the actual existence of 18 ft tall people.

That is not what you wrote. You wrote "... that three people who measure 6 foot in height are equivalent to one person of 18 foot..."

Their combined height totals 18 foot; the people don't equate to 18 foot.

And it is again a common observation that the brain power of several people working together is greater than one person's.

People's intelligence varies. Because it varies it should be possible to measure the variation. Despite their possible faults, IQ tests are presently the only system we have to measure variations in levels of intelligence. I have never claimed they are perfect. If you believe they are rubbish then kindly suggest another way of assessing people's intelligence.

As I wrote, it is because it is intelligence that is being discussed that emotions run high and why emotive accusations such as "...preposterous bit of Victorian pseudoscience..." are being bandied about.

Had I written, "...I was out last night with a local basketball team (by definition all basketball players must be at least 6. 6" high) and all the players were drinking Harvey's Real Ale.

One of the wives was drinking Fosters with lime (she obviously doesn't like the taste of proper beer) and the other was drinking Coke.

From this small sample it would appear that most tall men drink Real Ale..."

Then nobody would have commented.

Neveu, are you saying that a "measure" can only be used with an interval scale? I certainly agree with your conclusion about IQ scores, but I do think that one can use the word "measure" with IQs.