The problem with IQ tests is that while they are effective at assessing our deliberative skills, which involve reason and the use of working memory, they are unable to assess our inclination to use them when the situation demands. … “Some people who are intellectually able do not bother to engage very much in analytical thinking and are inclined to rely on their intuitions.” …
Since someone taking a test is (probably) motivated to score well, I don't see how calling something an "RQ" test is supposed to overcome the problem of people just not trying in everyday life.
What's the difference between an RQ test, and an IQ test done right?
I'd like to construct a test that measured consistency and the ability to generalize. It would consist of pairs of questions - shuffled, so that the pairing wouldn't be obvious. Each question in a pair would involving applying the same insight. You would lose more points for answering one question in a pair correctly and the other incorrectly, than for answering both incorrectly. This design would also control well for cultural bias in the test.
Feministx: had a look at your blog, rather interesting - I see gender issues are as charged as ever, the dedication... my word. I was going to reply there, but there was some hoop/hurdle thing that I can't be ***** with.
"The IQ test doesn't measure curiosity, attachment to ideas, general world view, attitude towards information learned."
Can we suppose that it indirectly measures, or gauges, these things, or assumes willingness to conform? No brainer?
Eric said...and rely on limited sources of information, often specialized and thus limited (missing out on the benefits of a wide-ranging big picture).
I meant mates as in "people seeking relationships". But you refer to the Civil Rights Acts which have hindered businesses using IQ tests in recruitment. The Wikipedia article on Intelligence and public policy notes that companies can still use IQ tests if they use racial hiring quotas to ensure that there won't be a disparate impact. It would still be useful to use an IQ test (or RQ test) to sort applicants within their racial group.
except that it is illegal for insurance companies to actually give rational rates, since they would be racist, sexist, *insert anti-egalitarian concept here* etc.
How much do potential mates, employers, etc. actually care about your willingness to use your intelligence to discern truth?
I agree with the cynicism, but many (maybe not most, but many) people do pay attention to their potential mates' money-handling ability. If, as the Pittsburgh study suggests, high-RQ people avoid mistakes like getting into unmanageable debt, then some people might be interested in RQ for its ability to predict that kind of problem.
It looks like someone already has an RQ test which predicts some kinds of life success: "A study of 360 Pittsburgh residents … found that, regardless of differences in intelligence, those who displayed better rational-thinking skills suffered significantly fewer negative events in their lives, such as being in serious credit card debt, having an unplanned pregnancy or being suspended from school."
I would love more information than that, but the paper isn't free.
Wealth over gradient seems to me to be the RQ test. Life seems to me to resemble a type of global game of poker where many of us are trying to redistribute each other's wealth to ourselves.
-Point out when high-status people use RQ-When successful, "tell people how you did it"; i.e. associate personal success with RQ-Be embarrassed when being irrational--associate low-RQ behavior with low status
A high RQ (if known by others) could be a decided *disadvantage* in society. For example, a person with known high RQ would be unlikely to be elected president.
as a first approximation for RQ, you could take IQ and penalize someone twenty-five points for belonging to Mensa. that would take into account the data from the study Robin pointed to and, intuitively, is directionally correct.
Since someone taking a test is (probably) motivated to score well, I don't see how calling something an "RQ" test is supposed to overcome the problem of people just not trying in everyday life.
What's the difference between an RQ test, and an IQ test done right?
I'd like to construct a test that measured consistency and the ability to generalize. It would consist of pairs of questions - shuffled, so that the pairing wouldn't be obvious. Each question in a pair would involving applying the same insight. You would lose more points for answering one question in a pair correctly and the other incorrectly, than for answering both incorrectly. This design would also control well for cultural bias in the test.
High IQ with low RQ = Isaac Newton :)
Discovers theory of gravity, still believes in a sky daddy :)
Which may not be anywhere near as much as their salary would suggest.
Feministx: had a look at your blog, rather interesting - I see gender issues are as charged as ever, the dedication... my word. I was going to reply there, but there was some hoop/hurdle thing that I can't be ***** with.
"The IQ test doesn't measure curiosity, attachment to ideas, general world view, attitude towards information learned."
Can we suppose that it indirectly measures, or gauges, these things, or assumes willingness to conform? No brainer?
Eric said...and rely on limited sources of information, often specialized and thus limited (missing out on the benefits of a wide-ranging big picture).
the benefits, and the torment.
I meant mates as in "people seeking relationships". But you refer to the Civil Rights Acts which have hindered businesses using IQ tests in recruitment. The Wikipedia article on Intelligence and public policy notes that companies can still use IQ tests if they use racial hiring quotas to ensure that there won't be a disparate impact. It would still be useful to use an IQ test (or RQ test) to sort applicants within their racial group.
> Several million dollars spent trying to develop an RQ test seems money well spent to me.
If anyone wants to organize this, I'll contribute $100.
except that it is illegal for insurance companies to actually give rational rates, since they would be racist, sexist, *insert anti-egalitarian concept here* etc.
the drake equation is rational only if you're innumerate WRT to how probabilities work.
Thanks!
Typing the title into google gives it in the first hit :)http://sds.hss.cmu.edu/medi...
How much do potential mates, employers, etc. actually care about your willingness to use your intelligence to discern truth?
I agree with the cynicism, but many (maybe not most, but many) people do pay attention to their potential mates' money-handling ability. If, as the Pittsburgh study suggests, high-RQ people avoid mistakes like getting into unmanageable debt, then some people might be interested in RQ for its ability to predict that kind of problem.
It looks like someone already has an RQ test which predicts some kinds of life success: "A study of 360 Pittsburgh residents … found that, regardless of differences in intelligence, those who displayed better rational-thinking skills suffered significantly fewer negative events in their lives, such as being in serious credit card debt, having an unplanned pregnancy or being suspended from school."
I would love more information than that, but the paper isn't free.
Wealth over gradient seems to me to be the RQ test. Life seems to me to resemble a type of global game of poker where many of us are trying to redistribute each other's wealth to ourselves.
Possible ways to raise the status of RQ:
-Point out when high-status people use RQ-When successful, "tell people how you did it"; i.e. associate personal success with RQ-Be embarrassed when being irrational--associate low-RQ behavior with low status
Anybody else?
A high RQ (if known by others) could be a decided *disadvantage* in society. For example, a person with known high RQ would be unlikely to be elected president.
as a first approximation for RQ, you could take IQ and penalize someone twenty-five points for belonging to Mensa. that would take into account the data from the study Robin pointed to and, intuitively, is directionally correct.