|
Enneagram Type 5 Board Archive I.Q.Posted by Jason M. on October 07, 2000 at 17:07:25: I really cannot stand the superficiality of "I.Q." It seems flawed that some feel that they have the authority to reduce human cognitive abilities to a number that many use as a basis of comparison. The basis behind I.Q. tests is flawed; it puts emphasis on general intellectual skills rather than specifics. One could be a mathematical prodigy. Does this mean that they will have a high verbal I.Q. as well? What good does an "intelligence quotient" do for such a person? Even worse is the means by which they are designed: objective questioning. Objective questions are flawed in that they regard only the product of an answer, while ignoring the process. One could gain I.Q. points out of chance. Conversely, one could understand a question entirely, yet make a simple error and get no credit whatsoever. The content is sometimes questionable as well. Since when have we all been exposed to the same information? If one has extensive knowledge of the terminology of a few esoteric subjects, yet they lack an extensive conventional vocabulary, does this mean they are not verbally intelligent? The absolute worst aspect is the mention I.Q. occasionally gets from the media. Mensa is most often the aim of such attention, and is viewed as an intellectual hub. With all of its intellectual power, can anyone name the last great Mensan achievement? In reality, it is little more than a social club. I've heard that Sharon Stone is a Mensan and has an I.Q. over 150... indeed.
|
|