Online IQ tests? How reliable are they?

ToneControl

Drew_fx said:

 Curious. Me and the missus did one t'other night, and I got a score I was not expecting.

do another one

Phil_aka_Pip

ToneControl said:

The latest info I have still says that IQ tests are the most reliable "predictors of educational achievement, special needs, job performance and income.  "

Is that info provided by people who are trying to sell IQ tests?

Cacofonix

They are a good predictor of problem solving ability.  There are other indicators, such as emotional intelligence, which can predict long-term success rather than detailed problem solving.

The problem is that it is written by a particular type of mind, and therefore dismisses different kinds of mind.  So other forms of intelligence are ignored by it.

Reminds me of the interviewee who gets attacked by crows and says "Oh no, I need to use my non-marketable skills to deal with this situation" and lasers them all down with his eye-lasers, whilst still worrying about getting the job.

NB IQ also measures the ability to think in analogy.

Kerpunk

I did the tester mensa test and they said I'd probs pass the full thing.

Kinda tempted to do it seeing as I didn't go Uni it'd look good on the CV.

ToneControl

Phil_aka_Pip said:

ToneControl said:

The latest info I have still says that IQ tests are the most reliable "predictors of educational achievement, special needs, job performance and income.  "

Is that info provided by people who are trying to sell IQ tests?

no

If I ran a company that needed people with a certain amount of intelligence, I could do one or all of these

1. Get job applicants to sit a standardised IQ test
2. Look at their GCSEs / A levels / degrees, but they are not constant from one year to the next and one examiner to another
3. Give them the job based on how clever they seem, and give them a few months or years to prove you right/wrong

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, do we have something better than IQ tests?

Phil_aka_Pip

ToneControl said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

ToneControl said:

The latest info I have still says that IQ tests are the most reliable "predictors of educational achievement, special needs, job performance and income.  "

Is that info provided by people who are trying to sell IQ tests?

no

If I ran a company that needed people with a certain amount of intelligence, I could do one or all of these

1. Get job applicants to sit a standardised IQ test
2. Look at their GCSEs / A levels / degrees, but they are not constant from one year to the next and one examiner to another
3. Give them the job based on how clever they seem, and give them a few months or years to prove you right/wrong

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, do we have something better than IQ tests?

Personal observation, gut feel. Your company doesn't want people with a "certain amount of intelligence" it wants people who can do the job. The "certain amount of intelligence" can't be quantified or measured. You get the person to whom the job candidate will be reporting to decide who they'd most like to be doing the job (out of the available options) - and to tell you why. You may need a balancing opinion from someone else as well.

ToneControl

Phil_aka_Pip said:

 

Personal observation, gut feel. Your company doesn't want people with a "certain amount of intelligence" it wants people who can do the job. The "certain amount of intelligence" can't be quantified or measured. You get the person to whom the job candidate will be reporting to decide who they'd most like to be doing the job (out of the available options) - and to tell you why. You may need a balancing opinion from someone else as well.

I've interviewed well over a hundred people, and some are convincing bullshitters, some undersell themselves. Some places I've worked for or applied for have used assessment tests as part of recruitment. sometimes I've used them when recruiting , they are very useful. No one would ever offer a role without also interviewing the candidate 

Why refuse to accept the utility of these tests? They are the most scientifically valid and useful tests we have yet to devise. If you wanted apprentices, or choose people for specific training - they could be ideal.

Of course, as people get older, for some roles, tests for job-specific skills are more useful

Bellycaster

What was the question again?

:-??

Phil_aka_Pip

ToneControl said:

Why refuse to accept the utility of these tests? They are the most scientifically valid and useful tests we have yet to devise. If you wanted apprentices, or choose people for specific training - they could be ideal.

Because the "science" is bunk. It's psychology backed up with carefully chosen statistics. It's an attempt to measure the inherently unmeasurable. Even worse are the "psychometric tests" which became fashionable about 20 years ago. I have consistently refused to waste my time on such things. If they cant read my cv and conduct a proper interview then I don't want to work for them. Aptitude tests do at least try to assess how good a person is at solving the kind of problems that they would be likely to face as part of the job, and therefore have their uses. I remember doing aptitude tests when I was a teenager. They were, to a point, fun.

chrispy108

Phil_aka_Pip said:

ToneControl said:

Why refuse to accept the utility of these tests? They are the most scientifically valid and useful tests we have yet to devise. If you wanted apprentices, or choose people for specific training - they could be ideal.

Because the "science" is bunk. It's psychology backed up with carefully chosen statistics. It's an attempt to measure the inherently unmeasurable. Even worse are the "psychometric tests" which became fashionable about 20 years ago.

With years worth of feedback and tuning.

If the people who constantly rated high on the tests and were then employed turned out to be shit employees, companies would pretty quickly stop using the tests wouldn't they?

Drew_TNBD

holnrew;227389" said:

Drew_fx said:

Ew. Clean your ass properly you scutter!










I do! I wipe, then fold, wipe, then fold... Until I can fold no longer.

You're not making swords dude! You're wiping your ass! Stop with the folding!

Phil_aka_Pip

chrispy108 said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

ToneControl said:

Why refuse to accept the utility of these tests? They are the most scientifically valid and useful tests we have yet to devise. If you wanted apprentices, or choose people for specific training - they could be ideal.

Because the "science" is bunk. It's psychology backed up with carefully chosen statistics. It's an attempt to measure the inherently unmeasurable. Even worse are the "psychometric tests" which became fashionable about 20 years ago.

With years worth of feedback and tuning.

If the people who constantly rated high on the tests and were then employed turned out to be shit employees, companies would pretty quickly stop using the tests wouldn't they?

I think that's one of the reasons why psychometric tests are not so common these days. Or maybe I just stopped applying for jobs to the kind of companies that use them, which skews my judgement. The kind of companies that use them have often turned out to be the kind of employer I don't want to work for.

There are a lot of reasons why the corporate world insists on doing thing a certain way, and you'd like to think that logic applies but it often doesn't.

frankus

chrispy108 said:

If the people who constantly rated high on the tests and were then employed turned out to be shit employees, companies would pretty quickly stop using the tests wouldn't they?

In the US Banks were encouraged to parachute their "leading talents" into one team after another, the intrinsic intelligence of these young stars was supposed to make them great probelm solvers and they were incentivised to turn projects around with their superior intellect.

The problem was intellect was not enough (domain knowledge was greatly superior and it required age and experience).
It's been shown that bonuses on creative processes actually inhibit the creative process. Also a person who's self-identified as being intelligent is less likely to take risks (to their own reputation) - there are things to be known for, like being hard working and honest... being known for being intelligent is a bit crap, because that is only proved if you get results (which if you look at most genius, isn't the case - what is needed is a robustness of ego for the inevitable mistakes).

So in the instances where the rising star got his bonus, he'd identified a short term win that got him his bonus and out of that team... leaving behind a legacy for someone else to clean up.

You've heard this though.. Bear Stearns and various other US banks took unacceptable risks with monies and people asked why there were no protocols to ensure these things didn't happen... no departments to watch out for these things... there used to be but systemically the "rising stars" had disabled and hobbled department at a time to serve their own ends creating a void and irresponsibility.

Even when this has been identified, the same processes are used ... because noone's gone beyond the existing mind-set and identified a better solution ... and 99% of the time people will keep doing the wrong thing if they don't know what else to do.

ToneControl

chrispy108 said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

ToneControl said:

Why refuse to accept the utility of these tests? They are the most scientifically valid and useful tests we have yet to devise. If you wanted apprentices, or choose people for specific training - they could be ideal.

Because the "science" is bunk. It's psychology backed up with carefully chosen statistics. It's an attempt to measure the inherently unmeasurable. Even worse are the "psychometric tests" which became fashionable about 20 years ago.

With years worth of feedback and tuning.

If the people who constantly rated high on the tests and were then employed turned out to be shit employees, companies would pretty quickly stop using the tests wouldn't they?

and if an IQ test is only 90% accurate, it's probably best to not bother and go for what you learn in an interview?

OK if you don't mind taking the extra risk I suppose

Is an interview not also based on science and psychology, in an unstructured form?  How can intelligence be "unmeasureable"

monquixote

chrispy108 said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

ToneControl said:

Why refuse to accept the utility of these tests? They are the most scientifically valid and useful tests we have yet to devise. If you wanted apprentices, or choose people for specific training - they could be ideal.

Because the "science" is bunk. It's psychology backed up with carefully chosen statistics. It's an attempt to measure the inherently unmeasurable. Even worse are the "psychometric tests" which became fashionable about 20 years ago.

With years worth of feedback and tuning.

If the people who constantly rated high on the tests and were then employed turned out to be shit employees, companies would pretty quickly stop using the tests wouldn't they?

Funnily enough we used to use IQ tests for new applicants. The guy who scored the all time record score was an absolute disaster and didn't have a lick of common sense.

randomhandclaps

monquixote said:

Funnily enough we used to use IQ tests for new applicants. The guy who scored the all time record score was an absolute disaster and didn't have a lick of common sense.

Were there no clues at his interview?

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02072/TomRAINMAN_2072348i.jpg

ToneControl

randomhandclaps said:

monquixote said:

Funnily enough we used to use IQ tests for new applicants. The guy who scored the all time record score was an absolute disaster and didn't have a lick of common sense.

Were there no clues at his interview?

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02072/TomRAINMAN_2072348i.jpg

An insensitive and inaccurate cliché

The vast majority (i.e. over 98%) of people with very high IQs are not autistic

The vast majority of autistic people do not have "special gifts", this notion is a cruel misunderstanding, caused by people thinking "Rain man" was a documentary.

Parents of autistic kids spend their lives trying to explain to people confused by this misinformation "no Johnny cannot play concert piano or do degree level maths in his head, he just eats cow poo when he finds it and can't communicate"

ToneControl

monquixote said:

chrispy108 said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

ToneControl said:

Why refuse to accept the utility of these tests? They are the most scientifically valid and useful tests we have yet to devise. If you wanted apprentices, or choose people for specific training - they could be ideal.

Because the "science" is bunk. It's psychology backed up with carefully chosen statistics. It's an attempt to measure the inherently unmeasurable. Even worse are the "psychometric tests" which became fashionable about 20 years ago.

With years worth of feedback and tuning.

If the people who constantly rated high on the tests and were then employed turned out to be shit employees, companies would pretty quickly stop using the tests wouldn't they?

Funnily enough we used to use IQ tests for new applicants. The guy who scored the all time record score was an absolute disaster and didn't have a lick of common sense.

and the one with the lowest score was a star & became managing director?

Alnico

CabbageCat said:

frankus said:

Drew_fx said:

 Curious. Me and the missus did one t'other night, and I got a score I was not expecting.

Clever people tend to underestimate their intelligence.

I've no time for IQ, and MENSA just seems to be a knocking shop for smug pedants

Moderately clever people underestimate their intelligence. Very clever people know that they are very clever. Unfortunately, stupid people think that they are very clever too.

Sadly, stupid people think everyone else is stupid, even other stupid people. IQ is moderately helpful because it provides an objective way for very clever people to wave it at a stupid person and say, "Look! I'm not stupid. I have a high IQ. I also think that I am very clever and since only very clever people and stupid people think that they are very clever, and we have already shown that I am not stupid, I must be very clever. QED." The stupid person (who probably won't understand the argument) will then point out that not being good at IQ tests does not indicate stupidity therefore being good at IQ tests does not indicate cleverness (because they are stupid and don't understand logic).

 

That's bloody brilliant !

Alnico

CabbageCat said:

frankus said:

Drew_fx said:

 Curious. Me and the missus did one t'other night, and I got a score I was not expecting.

Clever people tend to underestimate their intelligence.

I've no time for IQ, and MENSA just seems to be a knocking shop for smug pedants

Moderately clever people underestimate their intelligence. Very clever people know that they are very clever. Unfortunately, stupid people think that they are very clever too.

Sadly, stupid people think everyone else is stupid, even other stupid people. IQ is moderately helpful because it provides an objective way for very clever people to wave it at a stupid person and say, "Look! I'm not stupid. I have a high IQ. I also think that I am very clever and since only very clever people and stupid people think that they are very clever, and we have already shown that I am not stupid, I must be very clever. QED." The stupid person (who probably won't understand the argument) will then point out that not being good at IQ tests does not indicate stupidity therefore being good at IQ tests does not indicate cleverness (because they are stupid and don't understand logic).

 

That's bloody brilliant !