<p>Yes IQ is inherited to some degree, but IQ is not intelligence, its one aspect of intelligence. Andy Warhol had an 86 IQ but was still amongst the greatest geniuses of art of the last century. IQ does not measure your ability to come up with Ideas, if anything it measures your ability to comprehend them. Personally I think the first is more valuable. JFK is estimated to have had the lowest IQ of the last centuries presidents, but next to FDR he was probably the best. I could come up with more, but I doubt you’ll actually debate what I am saying.</p>
<p>JFK might have been one of the more charismatic presidents of the past century, but not necessarily one of the best. Let’s not get too much into that though.</p>
<p>The OP is using a different definition of intelligence. That’s why this debate exists.</p>
<p>Perhaps I worded things poorly. Intelligence is not simply the black and white issues measured by the SAT and ACT, but rather a much bigger thing that can not be measured by a single test, among these creativity, willingness to challenge that which is known ect.</p>
<p>also might I add that the psychology has been second guessing the merits of a single IQ for decades, and that today the commonly accepted theory is Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. </p>
<p>and as for the JFK thing, Sorry if my little liberalism offended you. I could defend what I said, but for the interest of civil and relevant debate, and the fact that I am not trying to challenge anyone political views with this, I’ll stay out of it.</p>
<p>
That’s a personality trait, not intelligence. I understand the inclusion of creativity under the category of intelligence, but that second statement is most certainly not a facet of intelligence.</p>
<p>As an aside, I think JFK was a good president, I just don’t think he did enough things to be the second best (because at the very least, he didn’t have the time).</p>
<p>While I don’t think someone with a 1600 is smarter than someone with a 1400 I have noticed an interesting trend.</p>
<p>While defining intelligence is difficult, knowing who is intelligent is easy.</p>
<p>And I did notice that the majority of people I thought were intelligent did well on standardized test</p>
<p>I would say that it is, because I think it is stupidity to blindly accept everything you’re told, and therefore the inverse in intelligence.</p>
<p>and I think the SAT measures one aspect of intelligence, it just does not nearly begin to cover the entire spectrum of what intelligence is, and because of that its somewhat useless. I think its very possible for someone with a 1700 to be more intelligent than someone with a 2200, because the 1700 may be able to apply his knowledge whereas the 2200 may not be.</p>
<p>
[/quote]
I would say that it is, because I think it is stupidity to blindly accept everything you’re told, and therefore the inverse in intelligence.
[/quote]
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It should be “inverse to.”</p></li>
<li><p>“I think…”
You can think that all you want, but it doesn’t make it so. Just because someone is curious and doesn’t accept everything as true doesn’t mean that they are smart. That’s really more of a personality trait. </p></li>
<li><p>The definition of intelligence is as follows:
“Intelligence is an umbrella term describing a property of the mind including related abilities, such as the capacities for abstract thought, understanding, communication, reasoning, learning, learning from the experience, planning, and problem solving.”
What you are saying falls under none of those categories.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>You’re free to think as you please, but let me inform you that you are by definition wrong.</p>
<p>I do agree that the SAT doesn’t measure all forms of intelligence (it can’t and shouldn’t), but skill in one form of intelligence is usually very indicative of ability in another form of intelligence.</p>
<p>It is a capacity for abstract thought and understanding. its the capacity to think for yourself, and come up with abstract thoughts that transcend what is known. </p>
<p>SAT Measures Problem solving and a little bit of reasoning, and intelligence is much more than that.</p>
<p>
Fine. I can agree with that. That first part is not what you originally said at all.</p>
<p>You’re trying to redefine the term “intelligence” in a way that makes you happy. “Abstract thought” in this context does not mean creativity. It refers to the technical concept of distancing ideas from tangible objects. There’s a great deal of psychological research available on the topic of intelligence, and none of your famous quotes are relevant.</p>
<p>The “multiple intelligences” theory has been subjected to a great deal of criticism due to its intrinsic ambiguity and inability to be verified through empirical experimentation.</p>
<p>I agree that Andy Warhol was a brilliant (as in “of surpassing excellence”) artist. That does not mean that he was intelligent. You insist on regarding intelligence as a measure of goodness, value, or potential. It isn’t. I’m going to refer you back to part of my original post:
</p>
<p>Its IQ vs. Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. I support the latter.</p>
<p>
Are you going to defend that, or am I supposed to throw up my hands and give in because you’ve boldly taken a stance?</p>
<p>The OP has successfully proven that standardised testing fares poorly when used as the sole evaluator of intelligence. This logic suggests that the educational systems of most of the advanced Asian nations (which determine students’ capabilities based on their ability to spit back information, often word-for-word from a textbook) are poorly devised.</p>
<p>If OP is to have us believe that standardised tests should not be used to evaluate intelligence AT ALL, he has failed to properly back up his claim.</p>
<p>I’ve said on other threads that standardised tests can point out where a person roughly lies on an intelligence spectrum, but that it does a poor job distinguishing within the top 1 percent or so. One can fairly safely assume that based solely on their SAT scores, a person with a 2200 is brighter than a person with a 1600, and it’s even fairly safe to assume that a person with a 2400 is brighter than a person with a 2200. However, one must a) consider the context in which these scores arose (how many times did the person take the test, are they enrolled in any SAT prep classes in school, etc), and b) consider how consistent that intelligence is with other components of the application. Are the grades good? Do the recs show a person with brilliance or slavish diligence? Are the essays innovative and clever or dry and formulaic? </p>
<p>In addition, colleges cannot be held responsible for the advantages people may choose to take in regards to standardised testing (i.e. prep courses and taking the tests many times). All colleges want is the score. How are they to blame for the perfect-storm combination of a capitalist society which has entrepreneurial members pounce on the opportunity to make money (test prep services) and a student population which has convinced itself of the desperate need to get the highest score humanly possible because they NEED to go to the Ivy League or some other top institution? We as applicants are to blame for the pressures of the SAT, the ACT, and other standardised tests.</p>
<p>
Where exactly did this occur?</p>
<p>I agree with noimagination.</p>
<p>There can be no sole evaluator of intelligence because intelligence is too vast to be measured by a single number. the vast majority of the psychology world supports it, why don’t you?</p>
<p>Now that you mention it, you’re right, OP doesn’t really prove that. Personally, I agree with the assertion (a condition which by no means makes it valid), and challenge anyone to reasonably assert that an SAT or ACT score alone is a valid measurement of intelligence, brilliance, academic capability, and intellectual potential.</p>
<p>Sclinsay, you complain that this debate here is pointless simply because people aren’t arguing it on your terms. You assert that wisdom from famous people is good enough reason to believe you, and you make the blanket claim that “the vast majority of the psychology world supports” your viewpoint. You’re gonna have to do better than that :-)</p>
<p>there is the tendency for some people with Down Syndrom IQ’s that tend to range from 30-80 to be extremely gifted in the field of music. Explain that if IQ is a complete measure of intelligence?</p>
<p>Explain Idiot-Savant Syndrome?</p>
<p>Explain people like Warhol? </p>
<p>Explain why your ability to problem solve is the only piece of intelligence?</p>
<p>
I hate to use Wikipedia, but this article appears to be fairly well-cited and provides a good summary of the opposition: [Theory</a> of multiple intelligences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Theory of multiple intelligences - Wikipedia”>Theory of multiple intelligences - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>I will take a moment to collect further sources for your reading pleasure.</p>
<p>Yes there are opposing views, but there are opposing views to any theory, and I think I have given you empirical evidence to answer to.</p>