Are you stupid?? Take the Test.....

[OSU_Buckguy]

While the original test in this thread wasn't very rigorous (or draconian if you prefer...), that test isn't actually that great. I suppose if you're an English teacher it's great... but all it really tests is the level of rote memorization you have.

actually, numerous studies find a high correlation between vocabulary size and general intelligence. even twins studies strengthen the argument that vocabulary and general intelligence are highly correlated. though it is the case that vocabulary is primarily learned by rote, it is also the case that most persons who have sizable vocabularies are actively self-motivated to learn uncommon words. furthermore, this test--if it were used to test actual general intelligence--would not be administered to those who prepared for it.

oh, i don't prefer "draconian."

 

[23Skidoo]

actually, numerous studies find a high correlation between vocabulary size and general intelligence. even twins studies strengthen the argument that vocabulary and general intelligence are highly correlated. though it is the case that vocabulary is primarily learned by rote, it is also the case that most persons who have sizable vocabularies are actively self-motivated to learn uncommon words. furthermore, this test--if it were used to test actual general intelligence--would not be administered to those who prepared for it.

oh, i don't prefer "draconian."

You could probably find a correlation between higher order reasoning skills and general intelligence too. And the "story" there could be that people who enjoy problem solving and taking the time to learn those skills are generally highly motivated.
I'm not discrediting the test itself -- just as a standalone, I don't think it's an end all. And as an example, I'll cite my English-major friend who scored a 178 and spends his freetime reading Joyce and writing prose -- but is concurrently struggling through a pre-algebra course. Not to be mean, but he probably couldn't tell you which of 4/5 or 5/9 is greater to save his life. We make a great team.

 

[WoodyWorshiper]

I scored 12% stoopid which I guess isn't too bad, I mean, I'm not ready to scream "GO-BLUE" yet.

 

[OSU_Buckguy]

And the "story" there could be that people who enjoy problem solving and taking the time to learn those skills are generally highly motivated.

i wasn't referring to general motivation.

I don't think it's an end all.

where did i claim that it is?

And as an example, I'll cite my English-major friend who scored a 178 and spends his freetime reading Joyce and writing prose -- but is concurrently struggling through a pre-algebra course.

your example is anecdotal. remember, i'm discussing correlation... not causation.

 

[23Skidoo]

i wasn't referring to general motivation.
where did i claim that it is?
your example is anecdotal. remember, i'm discussing correlation... not causation.

Just thought I should make sure my stance is clear.

Yes, my example was just that -- an example. But, to me, it's obvious that reasoning skills and vocabulary have little correlation. It takes more than one or the other to have "intelligence", and there should obviously be a direct correlation between "knowledge" and intelligence. Just as there should obviously be a direct correlation between "reasoning skills" and intelligence. But IMO an exhaustive IQ test should consist of more than just 1 side of that coin.

 

[jimotis4heisman]

You could probably find a correlation between higher order reasoning skills and general intelligence too. And the "story" there could be that people who enjoy problem solving and taking the time to learn those skills are generally highly motivated.
I'm not discrediting the test itself -- just as a standalone, I don't think it's an end all. And as an example, I'll cite my English-major friend who scored a 178 and spends his freetime reading Joyce and writing prose -- but is concurrently struggling through a pre-algebra course. Not to be mean, but he probably couldn't tell you which of 4/5 or 5/9 is greater to save his life. We make a great team.

“The main ingredient of stardom is the rest of the team.”
John Wooden


everyone here knows my mancrush for coach. but in that situation it is about team, synergies and roles...

 

[Steve19]

Your Score Summary
Overall, you scored as follows:

96% scored higher (more stupid),
2% scored the same, and
2% scored lower (less stupid).
You are 2% stupid​

I also answered 8 planets.​

 

[OSU_Buckguy]

But, to me, it's obvious that reasoning skills and vocabulary have little correlation.

those who devote a lot of time and effort disagree. i mean, it's not as though a research organization affiliated with the university of chicago found that "vocabulary correlates more highly than any other subtest" on the commonly used wechsler adult intelligence scale.

 

[BUCKYLE]

Overall, you scored as follows:

96% scored higher (more iambrutus),
2% scored the same, and
2% scored lower (less iambrutus).
You are 2% iambrutus. This means...

You are our next Einstein. Wow! Keep up the great thinking.​

 

[23Skidoo]

those who devote a lot of time and effort disagree. i mean, it's not as though a research organization affiliated with the university of chicago found that "vocabulary correlates more highly than any other subtest" on the commonly used wechsler adult intelligence scale.

Disagree huh? Makes me wonder if you actually read that report at all. All they studied, and found, was that there is a genetic connection with vocabulary skills (that they then largely speculated/pawned off on the wealthy environment of the parents). They also found same genetic connection with general IQ scores. So, all they really found (in relation to this argument here and now) is that vocab and intelligence have a direct correlation. I believe I already posted that... and I don't think most people need a study to figure that out.
Your second study makes no ground either, and actually has little to nothing to do with vocabulary. Perhaps you fail to realize the point I'm making. That is, that there is more than 1 simple factor that has a direct correlation to intelligence. One of these other factors I've chosen to highlight is reasoning skills. When you come up with a study that does something like the following, you'll have a point.
ie: 3 tests. An IQ test. A purely vocab test (like you linked earlier). And a test with only problem solving. Then they use the data to show that the vocab test has a much higher proportional association to the IQ test than the rational test.

 

[BUCKYLE]

actually, numerous studies find a high correlation between vocabulary size and general intelligence.

There are also studies that find a high correlation between vocabulary size and ass whoopin's.

 

[OSU_Buckguy]

So, all they really found (in relation to this argument here and now) is that vocab and intelligence have a direct correlation. I believe I already posted that... and I don't think most people need a study to figure that out.

what do you think i've been claiming the whole time? perhaps the correlation between vocabulary and intelligence? there's a reason why you find a vocabulary portion of the scholastic aptitude test, as well as the wais and wisc.

Your second study makes no ground either, and actually has little to nothing to do with vocabulary.

you had to read the article to see what i was getting at:

Although no attempt has been made (to our knowledge) to standardize the GSS version against another test of mental ability, there is good evidence that brief vocabulary tests such as this perform quite well as measures of general intelligence. Miner (1957, pp. 28-29) found a median correlation of .83 between scores on several dozen similar short-vocabulary tests and scores on standard IQ tests. Vocabulary correlates more highly (r = .75) than any other subtest with total score on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) (Wechsler, 1958, p. 98).

That is, that there is more than 1 simple factor that has a direct correlation to intelligence. One of these other factors I've chosen to highlight is reasoning skills.

of course there is more than one factor that has a direct correlation to intelligence. did i ever state that vocabulary size solely determines intelligence? you're taking one thing i stated and running wildly with it.

if you have anything more to add, do it in a private message.

 

[23Skidoo]

what do you think i've been claiming the whole time? perhaps the correlation between vocabulary and intelligence? there's a reason why you find a vocabulary portion of the scholastic aptitude test, as well as the wais and wisc.

Of course, that is an important component to any test -- but it's just one part.

I'm not discrediting the test itself -- just as a standalone, I don't think it's an end all.

Just thought I should make sure my stance is clear.

.... and there should obviously be a direct correlation between "knowledge" and intelligence. .... But IMO an exhaustive IQ test should consist of more than just 1 side of that coin.

 

[23Skidoo]

you had to read the article to see what i was getting at:

"Although no attempt has been made (to our knowledge) to standardize the GSS version against another test of mental ability, there is good evidence that brief vocabulary tests such as this perform quite well as measures of general intelligence. Miner (1957, pp. 28-29) found a median correlation of .83 between scores on several dozen similar short-vocabulary tests and scores on standard IQ tests. Vocabulary correlates more highly (r = .75) than any other subtest with total score on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) (Wechsler, 1958, p. 98)."

Whoopeee. Speculation vs. Speculation. I conceded from the beginning it's a decent indicator of general intelligence... so there's nothing there either. It's also circumspect that you expect me to pull that one paragraph out of a study that is centered around whether population IQs drop over time. Talk about cherry-picking your evidence.

you're taking one thing i stated and running wildly with it.

Quite the contrary. In fact, you may even say the opposite.

 

[OSU_Buckguy]

i see your attempts to change what you've claimed, but i'm not buying them. let's remember your initial statement:

... but all it really tests is the level of rote memorization you have.

what you don't understand is that this statement is what i've been combating the whole time. you changed your claims along the way to cover yourself.