Performing well on Jeopardy is dependent upon a fund of general knowledge. One can have an abundant fund of general knowledge but not necessarily have a high IQ. It is only one aspect of "intelligence" that is measured on IQ measures, especially on the Wechsler scales.
Additionally, some IQ measures (i.e. Wechsler scales) yield both Verbal and Non Verbal scores. The Verbal score better predicts academic success in our school systems, while the Performance score is more closely aligned with visual, hands-on abilities. Incidentally, the subtest on the Wechsler scales that correlates most highly with the Full Scale IQ is a measure of vocabulary.
It is thought that most IQ measures can be best described as predictors of school success, not measures of innate intelligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl
It didn't used to be. I would like to preface this discussion with the disclaimer that I do NOT think people who score high on IQ tests are superior in life. Or more valuable. In fact watching Jeopardy will make you see that very bright people do not always have the jobs you might expect and some continue to go to school for years.
I believe that knowing an I.Q. score can help a person make choices and also guide his/her educators. I also believe that I.Q. scores do not move much, no matter HOW much education a person gets. It is innate intelligence that is measured. I remember the Wechsler, The Stanford Binet, the Whoopsie (for little kids) and others. My question is to why I.Q. tests are a touchy subject nowadays.
What say you?
|