SAT IS one of the most Perfect predicters of IQ: THE MATH DOES NOT LIE

Test Preparation
41

<p>You know, supery00n, calling people “unlogical” and insulting them isn’t exactly my idea of an intelligent debate.</p>

<p>My arguments stay as above.</p>

<p>I inferred so because you stated that that there is a “correlation” between intelligence and success. Given your “extensive” knowledge of psychology, undoubtedly you should know what the word implies.</p>

<p>In addition, you have not yet provided a single definition of what “intelligence” is.
Secondly, I garnered knowledge of what you believed because I assumed (naturally!) that you meant what you said in your post (which apparently you didn’t mean).</p>

<p>My argument stands.</p>

42

<p>**IQ tests are used as predictors of educational achievement. People with low IQ scores are sometimes placed in special-needs education.</p>

<p>IQ scores are also used by social scientists; in particular, they study the distribution of IQ scores in populations and the relationships between IQ score and other variables. IQ correlates with job performance and income, also with the social status of the parents.[1] Recent work has demonstrated links between IQ and both morbidity and mortality.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]**</p>

<p>Apparently, there is a correlation between intelligence and “positive outcomes in life as defined by society in general” (won’t use success because you don’t like that word)</p>

<p>the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from
experience
Are you going to say that this definition is wrong? What’s more likely? The dictionary being wrong, or you being wrong? My question is: Do I need to define what has already been defined? Or do you really think that intelligence can’t be defined (you haven’t answered my questions either regarding whether intelligence can be defined).</p>

<p>You better be a non-native English speaker. I can’t believe you just said “unlogical.” I already doubt your intelligence. If you refuse to reply to my arguments, then I’ll totally dismiss it and ignore you. The other posters will clearly show that you don’t know what you’re talking about, so if you want to defend yourself, do it soon.</p>

43

<p>Intelligence likely has a number of dimensions or attributes. Different people will be relatively stronger or weaker on some dimensions. People with Asperger’s Syndrome frequently have very high IQ scores but can’t read social cues well. Yet, many people would consider the ability to read social cues as an aspect of intelligence. In my previous post, I used my father as an example as he was truly brilliant in math/physics but couldn’t visualize how one could assemble the parts of a kit. Spatial visualization and the ability to connect it to real objects would seem to me to be an aspect of intelligence.</p>

<p>The measurement tools that we have (the WISC and WAIC tests, for example) are indeed crude, but I’d argue that they only capture some of the attributes of intelligence and provide relatively arbitrary weights among the attributes they do capture. I don’t think it is obvious that “intelligence” as a single dimension is a meaningful concept. </p>

<p>You can also see from my previous post that I think really high IQ gives one the capacity to succeed in certain areas like math, physics, jurisprudence. I don’t know what fraction of people with really high IQs are highly successful. I think it may be lower than you’d expect. I don’t think, incidentally, that the highest IQ folks have been, on average, the most successful financially.</p>

44

<p>Supery00 - Ah, apparently you haven’t stopped using the word “correlation”.
correlation is defined as being “A reciprocal relation between two or more things”. Reciprocal = “Concerning each of two or more persons or things; especially given or done in return”.</p>

<p>Hence my artist argument still works perfectly. Since you’re using the word “correlation”, you’re basically agreeing that there is a “reciprocal” relationship between the two: the higher the IQ, the more the success; the lower the IQ, the less the success (or “positive outcomes as defined by society in general”, according to you).</p>

<p>And you stated that intelligence = “The ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience”. </p>

<p>Ok, that works. But the dictionary doesn’t define whether or not that person is <em>successful</em>. Simply because you can comprehend doesn’t mean you are intelligent (this goes back to the “ancestor intelligence” question: this definition of intelligence fits perfectly well).</p>

<p>And you stated that "IQ tests are used as predictors of educational achievement. People with low IQ scores are sometimes placed in special-needs education.</p>

<p>IQ scores are also used by social scientists; in particular, they study the distribution of IQ scores in populations and the relationships between IQ score and other variables. IQ correlates with job performance and income, also with the social status of the parents.[1] Recent work has demonstrated links between IQ and both morbidity and mortality.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]."</p>

<p>And…? Just because “IQ correlated with job performance and income” doesn’t mean that people are more associated with “positive outcomes in life as defined by society in general” if they have a high IQ - that’s your definition. Here, you have made your own conclusion that a high-class life is “positive”. The definition fails to work, because that definition is yours, and not “society’s”.</p>

<p>Sheesh, and enough with the insulting. Debates don’t equal random attacks on the person, but on the argument. It’s simply rude.</p>

<p>And to shawbridge…</p>

<p>you stated that “I don’t think, incidentally, that the highest IQ folks have been, on average, the most successful financially.”</p>

<p>Actually, I can see your logic, but that’s not necessarily true. Is IQ inborn? If it is, then poorer “high IQ kids” will not have the opportunity to become financially successful, being raised in poverty and lacking the opportunities for growth. If IQ is not inborn, then poorer kids don’t have the chance to develop this IQ (and hence supposedly “financially successful”).</p>

<p>Hence this doesn’t work, either way.</p>

45

<p>people with high IQ drink coffee, ergo its the caffiene that makes for high IQs</p>

46

<p>Ha ha.. I loved that. ^^ Go coffee!</p>

<p>The same with “success” and “financial success”, supposedly.</p>

47

<p>blubberxyz, I don’t quite follow your logic. The point I was making was that people with extremely high IQs have the capacity for great success but there are a reasonably high proportion who don’t succeed. If the argument is that IQ causes higher incomes, it may do so, but I am pretty sure that it does not do so in the upper tails of the IQ distribution. This has nothing to do with whether the aspects of intelligence that are measured by an IQ test are fixed or can change. It seems pretty likely to me that there is a genetic component and that intelligence can be developed. The last few years have opened people’s eyes to the surprising plasticity of the brain, which would support the notion that intelligence can be developed. But, assuming that intelligence can be developed, beginning life in an intellectually sparse environment instead of an intellectually rich environment will take its toll. Thus, a kid with a good endowment starting in a sparse environment will have a lot to overcome. That does not mean she cannot do it, just that she will have to work harder to pick up the learnable portion of intelligence.</p>

<p>As for coffee, I remember reading that a number of the revolutions around the world arose shortly after coffee was introduced into these countries. Lloyds of London, the insurer, began in a coffee house. [Replacing alcohol like mead or wine with coffee made the world a much more stimulating place].</p>

48

<p>Holy S-h-i-t some people have way to much time on their hands. I mean posting like a 600 word thread is reasonable but a response…thats a little suspect.</p>

49

<p>Aha ha! That’s cuz some of us like to debate. -pokes fellow posters-</p>

<p>Actually… I think the coffee argument was a joke.</p>

50

<p>Hey, sorry for the overly excited debate…let’s just call it quits. :slight_smile:
I’m probably wrong I was up kinda late.</p>

51

<p>Guess that caffiene kicked in!!! Well, if you do study tea and coffee and the way they affected the world…interesting stuff</p>

52

<p>blueberryxz wrote:</p>

<ol>
<li>Richer prep course kids score high on the SAT - so I guess that means that all kids who lumber off to Saturday SAT classes are more intelligent that those who don’t have the time or money to prepare?</li>
</ol>

<p>Rich kids are smarter than poor kids.</p>

<ol>
<li>What <em>is</em> disputable: that problems in the math section of the SAT occur regularly (ex same question structure). hence one merely needs to be familiar with the problems to score high.</li>
</ol>

<p>Being familiar with problems = being Sherlock Holmes. Read “The Hound of the Baskervilles.”</p>

<ol>
<li>If what you said was indeed 100% correct, why isn’t the SAT the sole judge of college admissions?</li>
</ol>

<p>Those who run admission offices are stupid. They scored low on the SAT and thus have low IQ’s (science fact).</p>

<ol>
<li>So I guess all strong writers and readers are inferior to those who excel in math?</li>
</ol>

<p>You got it. </p>

<ol>
<li>Psychology has nothing to do with this – people specialize in different areas; simply because one is better at language than at math doesn’t imply their stupidity in life or define success.</li>
</ol>

<p>You must have gotten a low SAT score, indicator of your IQ, since none of your comments makes sense. Shame on you!</p>

53

<p>Another thing, people like Miles Davis are plain stupid. I’m sure he would not have scored much on the SAT, indicator of life, spirit, and intelligence, thus he must have been an ass.</p>

<p>Remember, I have an IQ of 152. (SAT based)</p>

54

<p>This thread has blown up</p>

55

<p>It only works if you take the SAT for the first time cold turkeY!!! You don’t take the IQ test more then once because your score goes up due to familiarity (sp?). You also have to take into consideration the age which you first took it (attention span/motivation). I scores almost about a 1300 in sixth grade, but when you take age into consideration it does seem accurate.</p>

<p>Edit: At an above post, movie stars and actors make more then doctors, :D.</p>

56

<p>Actually, the OP’s reasoning is wrong for purely statistical reasons.</p>

<p>The SAT is scaled. Meaning they take the raw scores of everybody, find the median and say THIS RAW SCORE IS GOING TO CONVERT TO A 500. Then they find the standard deviation in raw scores, and say, ok, so 1 standard deviation out from 500 = X points, etc. THAT’S why there’s a connection statistically between IQ and SAT. Because SAT is designed so that the average is 500, 1st quartile to be score Y, 68% point to be another score, etc. It seems that IQ is done the same way: if you score average, you get 100; if you score +1 std deviation, you get another score, etc.</p>

<p>Everything is fitted to the normal curve. So, that’s where you get this “connection” you found…</p>

57

<p>690+700 = 1390
1390/10 = 139</p>

<p>Nah… I’m not THAT smart…
Besides, SAT scores can flunctuate greatly depending on how much you prepare and study.
And I know plenty of brilliant people who just aren’t willing to spend the time on the SATs.</p>

58

<p>“Besides, SAT scores can flunctuate greatly depending on how much you prepare and study.”</p>

<p>You’d be surprised how untrue that statement is.</p>

59

<p>I don’t think so.</p>

<p>My IQ is 139. My SAT scores suck. I’m simply a naturally poor tester when it comes to standardized testing.</p>

60

<p>so average IQ is like 100…? and my IQ is 149… I think it makes more sense if you divide ur M+C score by 11 or something.</p>

<p>Even though I do not think SAT Score indicate people’s IQ, I believe there are ‘some’ correlation betweem them.</p>