Gloria Felicia

Idea Generator, Raffles International Christian School

This conversation is closed.

IQ: The Best Method to Measure One's Intelligence?

IQ, the Intelligence quotient, was already up for debate years ago.
Found by Sir James R. Flynn, it was once used as a service which tested soldier's mentality by the military system.

People said that the IQ test only measured such limited range of a human's capability of intelligence. Some had said that IQ is alike as the DNA Test, it is in overall to see how strong one's basic foundation to learn things around them, to grasp information swiftly and to intensify such a critical way of thinking—all these come from one's consanguinity in their perspectives.

Dictionary defines IQ: a number representing a person's reasoning ability (measured using problem-solving tests) as compared to the statistical norm or average for their age, taken as 100.

One's IQ score can vary—either decrease or increase—as one grows.
So, it comes to innuendo that it is not realiably the best method. It changes, how can it be? by factors of social surrounding, education system or aging process?

Success is today realized to be reached by determination, not by one's level of IQ. It also involves the play of EQ (Emotional Quotient) and for some cases, SQ (Spiritual Quotient).

However, many successful figures have high IQ: Alicia Keys, Shakira, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Madonna, Carol Vorderman of 154, Quentin Tarantino of 160, James Woods of 184—Coincidental?

Do you think that the IQ measures only reasoning ability or perhaps, another type of abilities?
Do you think that IQ is the best method to determine one's intelligence or are there any other ways, to consider all in all? (taking into account: EQ, SQ, Academic Performance etc.)

Relatable links:
Basic Info:
Highest IQ in the world:

Best method to measure one's intelligence? Share it with us, even if you do suggest intelligence shouldn't be measured qualitatively

  • thumb
    Nov 5 2011: For me, it's simple: There is "intelligent;" and there is "smart."

    If you are happy, you are smart. You may or may not be intelligent.

    Some of the most intelligent people I know are the least smart (most unhappy.) And some people I know who would "fail an IQ test" are the smartest (most happy!)

    The rest is just a bunch of stuff that guys like Daniel Goleman, Howard Gardner and Robert J. Sternberg can play around with to earn their degrees and grant money.
  • thumb

    Jah Sun

    • +1
    Nov 5 2011: IQ is not a proper measure of intelligence... IMO.

    It is simply a measure of how well you did on a peculiar collection of tests that are rather culturally biased, and can only be as good as the people who designed them. Thus, people with especially low or high IQ's can not even be rated by any of the tests... after all, what IQ do you give someone who gets all the answers correct?

    People can talk about "g" and how tests are designed to factor out socio-economic and cultural bias... but that is BS. IQ only measures what the specific IQ test is designed to measure, and this is not true intelligence.

    The link you gave to the smartest man in the world is a case in point. The guy with the 200 IQ comes off as rather retarded actually. His EQ is probably abysmal. The guy is not really successful, and he is certainly not all that happy.

    My idea of a proper judge of your intelligence would be how happy you are with your life, and your general happiness. The basic idea being that if you are brilliant, you would be able to figure out how to navigate the maze of being human and make yourself ridiculously happy. You would be able to identify what it is that makes one joyous and one's life blissful, and be able to accomplish it.

    Never trust a genius who isn't ludicrously jubilant.

    Also beware of the racist, eugenicist past of the Intelligence Quotient. A lot of the funding for this stuff comes from places like the Pioneer Fund, and such leading voices in the field as Jensen, Flynn, Rushton et. al. have been linked to racist organizations and conferences repeatedly.
  • thumb
    Nov 3 2011: well in my (very very humble) opinion. it should consist of all elements that do not require physical prowess (no weight lifting). then simply place them in scenarios and see how they react and learn from information as well as retaining information in social, cognitive and visual contexts. then see how well the achieve the objective and how they achieve the objective. then, on assessment of various aspects (speed, accuracy, creative thinking, reactions and so on). then maybe a repeat of the test after an period of time to assess rate of improvement with different tasks, providing a self contextual bracket of which to gauge your intelligence rather than on a universal scale. there is always the risk of assessing a fish on its ability to climb trees...
  • Nov 1 2011: I feel a person's common sense level should be entered into the mix, for it does play an important part in a person's life.
    There are many people who never went to high school nor college that have wonderful intelligence levels.
    The testing for I.Q. levels seems out dated, due in part to having people learn throughout their lives. Does it make a person better then the next person just because they have a high I.Q.? No! It's what you do with your knowledge & common sense that stands you out from the crowd.
    • thumb
      Nov 2 2011: Yes, this is the point of view I am looking for. :-) Thanks for your reply Gale. However, since this is a debate, don't you think people who possess higher level of IQ have higher chance to succeed compared to those who have standard ones? (in this case: they both work toward standing out of the crowd)