<p>As for the SAT having a high correlation to IQ, I think there must be a reason why MENSA no longer accepts SAT scores.</p>
<p>Why are people so upset about “memorization”? A certain amount is necessary to communicate with people, and be successful. Why is it so looked down upon? There isn’t anything wrong with the ACT or the SAT. If memorization is so unimportant, why do we go to school? Because school is all memorization. Some people can “memorize” better than others, and heres the important thing: apply it. For example, on the SAT this March, the vocabulary words weren’t too difficult, but were used in odd ways. You had to understand WHY an answer works in order to get them correct.</p>
<p>cjgone, </p>
<p>I am too busy right now to delineate all the logical fallacies of which you are guilty, so I’ll just pose a question: How do you explain the strong correlations between SAT scores and IQ scores when the latter is not influenced by memorization?</p>
<p>I’m with hahalolk. Memorization is a mental capability. Some can memorize 50 words in five minutes. Others may need a whole day. Surely this difference indicates SOMETHING…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The amassment of a robust lexicon is a unique form of memorization and is intimately related to IQ. Kim Peek, for instance, had a mostly astounding memory, being able to retain almost everything that he had read. Even if he read a dictionary, however, he would be unlikely to get any of the Sentence Completion questions on the SAT correct. Yet another explanation for the strong correlation between SAT scores and IQ scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Reality belies this conclusion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this were done, the predictive value of the SAT would be significantly lessened.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you sincerely come to this conclusion based on your perception of my reasoning, you have misinterpreted me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As anyone informed in linguistics will tell you, you are mistaken.</p>
<p>silverturtle - That is very true. However, you cannot apply nonexistent knowledge; you must know (or be able to guess/infer) the meaning of the word in the first place, and I don’t believe you can with just reasoning skills. It’s possible, for instance, to deduce meanings of words in a foreign language, but you’d have to know the context the words were used in, or recognize roots, etc. You might be able to learn dozens of roots just through daily life and a keen eye for details…but with good memorization skills, learning hundreds or thousands of roots is very possible.</p>
<p>In some ways, this is a chicken-or-the-egg situation. Without reasoning, memorization is useless, and for most non-savants, very difficult; nonsensical information is rarely easy to memorize. Without memorization, though, there is little knowledge to use in reasoning (eh…I guess instincts qualify as knowledge…although they’re probably not relevant to the SAT =P). I make this statement based on the definition of “memorize” as “to commit to memory,” which denotatively suggests almost all forms of acquiring knowledge (assuming this knowledge goes to your memory…) are a type of memorization.</p>
<p>Even if we use the layman’s definition of memorization (I’m thinking about rote memorization…correct me if I’m wrong), there are certain things that can’t be logically deduced, and then there are other things that are much more convenient when memorized. As an example, you can definitely reason through 6<em>8 every time you see it…but realistically speaking, it might be easier to memorize this from the start. Yes, you would (hopefully) eventually commit 6</em>8 to memory as you did more and more problems…but really, isn’t simply memorizing it is so much easier? Does memorized information have absolutely no value when it comes to intelligence?</p>
<p>Actually, after writing all of this, I’m not sure I understood what you wrote, silverturtle. If this post is completely irrelevant to your point…well, clarification would be appreciated. =)</p>
<p>^ Obviously, a highly intelligent person who has not been exposed to a particular language will not have a good lexicon in that language. But among those who are raised in an environment in which English is spoken, IQ-correlated differences in the ability to amass vocabulary account more for the lexical variation than do differences in the words to which one is exposed.</p>
<p>silverturtle - Seeing as:</p>
<p>1) You seem to believe IQ is a good measure of intelligence.
2) You wrote “IQ-correlated differences in the ability to amass vocabulary account more for lexical variation than do differences in the words to which one is exposed.”
3) I believe it has been (at least anecdotally) established that rapidly increasing vocabulary through memorization is more likely and more efficient (I defend this by saying: commonly encountered information is easily learned through reason, but esoteric knowledge is more difficult to logically deduce from daily experiences) than learning through mere exposure or reason…</p>
<p>Then, may I tentatively conclude (depending on your opinion regarding #3), you agree these “IQ-correlated differences” reflect, to some extent, memorization ability? Or rather, that memorization capability correlates with IQ? Or finally, that memorization capability correlates–perhaps even forms a component of–intelligence?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is difficult to respond to when the word intelligence carries so many different connotations. But by most definitions, I would say that IQ is one of the best measures of general intelligence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It certainly does, though testing memorization would be a needlessly indirect mechanism. Let us, moreover, not forget that there is not a perfect correlation between memorization capability and what one has memorized. Indeed, the motivation to memorize a list of vocabulary words probably has a lower correlation with IQ than does one’s naturally obtained lexicon. And so the SAT is not perfect; but under the circumstances, it does a fine job.</p>
<p>Thanks for answering all my questions, silverturtle. I’m not intentionally argumentative; it’s simply curiosity. I completely agree that memorized knowledge indicates IQ far less accurately than “natural” knowledge.</p>
<p>One more question: if you agree that memorization correlates to IQ, do you also believe memorization capability is a type of intelligence?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Memorization is a valuable cognitive activity. Whether I consider it a type of intelligence is arbitrary.</p>
<p>Yes memorization is a type of intelligence. It takes me 4 hours of re-reading my Euro chapter for me to get a 90 in my AP class for tests. It takes my friend 10 minutes of reading the entire chapter in homeroom to get a 98 - sometimes he doesn’t even finish reading the chapter b/c he’s too lazy and lands a 95. </p>
<p>That’s IQ in action by means of memorization… lol. </p>
<p>though, I far surpass him in math ^^</p>
<p>silverturtle - Hmmmm…okay. =) It is arbitrary, but it’s significant in understanding whether you believe SAT/ACT measures intelligence, but…I suppose your opinion on that would be arbitrary, too.</p>
<p>I suppose the reason I’ve been posting so much about memorization and intelligence is because of the widespread belief, at least within this thread, that memorization is not a form of intelligence, and that because parts of the SAT can be memorized, the SAT is not a valid measure of intelligence.</p>
<p>^ SAT scores strongly correlate with IQ scores; evidently, any mitigating effect of memorization’s role in the test is minor.</p>
<p>Is there a chart of verified IQ scores vs. SAT scores anywhere? Any proof of the correlation?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(From [Study:</a> SAT a good measure of IQ | ScienceBlog.com](<a href=“http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/2297]Study:”>http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/2297))</p>
<p>My AP Psychology textbook cited a study that put the correlation above .8.</p>
<p>what’s above .8 mean? I’m taking ap psych next year</p>
<p>IQ accounts for 80% of the variation in SAT scores.</p>
<p>Based on AP Statistics, if the correlation (r) is .8, that means the data’s coefficient of determination (r squared) is .64, suggesting that the line of best fit accounts for 64% of the variability in SAT scores.</p>
<p><a href=“From%20Study:%20SAT%20a%20good%20measure%20of%20IQ%20%7C%20ScienceBlog.com”>quote</a></p>
<p>My AP Psychology textbook cited a study that put the correlation above .8.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, its good then knowing that my sister was able to get into gifted programs via using her IQ test (99%) rather than her 1700 (78%) on the SAT seeing this amazing correlation between the two.</p>