We need better psychometric instruments

Author: Claus D. Volko

The intelligence tests that are currently in use do not suffice to detect extreme talent. We need new instruments to detect intelligence levels that correspond to an IQ of 160, 170, 180, 190 or even higher.

I recently visited the website of Syncritic Institute, an institute for academics with an IQ of 175 or higher. The founder states that science has been stagnating since the 1970s because the IQ of scientists has diminished and his institute has the ambition to change this.

I do not know any intelligence test that reliably measures IQ scores of 175 or higher. I recall my own history of intelligence testing: The first official test I took was the Mensa admission test, on which I scored only IQ 134. I immediately thought that this was an underestimate of my intellectual abilities, and, indeed, on the next test I took (a test on the Internet) I already scored IQ 156, more than a standard deviation higher. It turned out that my test scores were in the IQ 150 - 160 range on most serious tests, and some even above 160, the highest being IQ 172 on ENNDT.

So the Mensa admission test is not useful for detecting extreme talent. It may be used to find out if you are above 130 but not if you belong to the 140s, 150s, 160s etc.

The primary problem of high range testing is that intelligence tests are normed only based on small samples. Usually scores above 145 are extrapolations since they did not appear among the probands based on which the test was normed.

Should we use grades achieved at school and uni instead of intelligence tests? I doubt that grades are a better assessment of intelligence. Many exams at school and uni are about rote memorization, which is not what intelligence tests measure. If we take a look at biographies of eminent scientists we can also see that many of them were not excellent students.

I think we need more reliable tests normed on large samples with millions of probands. Until we have such tests, it is impossible to reasonably estimate the intellect of extremely talented academics.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Proof of the Riemann Hypothesis

A Proof of the Riemann Hypothesis By Iakovos Koukas (April 2024) Abstract: The Riemann Hypothesis, proposed by Bernhard Riemann in 1859, remains one of the most profound unsolved conjectures in mathematics. This paper presents a comprehensive proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, through eight steps that use mathematical tools from complex analysis, number theory, and mathematical logic. Beginning with the foundational definition of the Riemann zeta function, I extend its domain analytically, investigate its behavior within the critical strip, and use various mathematical techniques to establish the distribution of its non-trivial zeros. Through analytical reasoning and careful application of mathematical principles, I demonstrate that all non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function lie on the critical line, thereby proving the Riemann Hypothesis. Introduction: The Riemann Hypothesis is a conjecture concerning the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function, a central object in ...
Read more

A Proof of the CTMU - Sketch

The CTMU is a theoretic model proposed by Christopher Langan. More information on it can be found at: https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/ The core statement of the CTMU is: The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe is a language that describes itself. Another statement is: The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe is equivalent to Reality. From this follows: The universe is a language that describes itself. A language is a set of words that are generated using a set of rules called a formal grammar. A language can describe other languages - for example, English can describe French - and it can also describe itself - English can describe English. There is nothing that exists outside of the universe - everything that exists does so inside the universe. For this reason whatever describes the universe, as well as the language using which it does it, exists inside the universe. Therefore it it is legitimate to state that the universe describes itself. Since the language using which the...
Read more

The Synthesis of Metaphysics and Jungian Personality Theory

Image
A debate on Facebook dealing with the idea that one could continue living after his/her death if one uploaded the contents of one‘s brain onto a computer has stimulated me to thinking about the relationship between mind and matter. The conclusions I have come up with are far-reaching: they explain what probably is the true self of a person, why there probably is a life after death, and all of a sudden, Carl Gustav Jung‘s theory of psychological functions makes sense as I have managed to build a model of the human organism from which most of Jung‘s theory follows per logical deduction. The first time I read about the idea of uploading one‘s brain onto a computer was about 20 years ago. I immediately rejected the notion that a dead person would continue living if just the contents of his/her brain would be uploaded onto a computer. Even disregarding that a human being also has a body, I simply do not believe that I would consciously experience the thinking process of such an artificial b...
Read more