Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe From: hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Intelligence Message-ID: <494@ttidcc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Jun-85 14:28:43 EDT Article-I.D.: ttidcc.494 Posted: Wed Jun 19 14:28:43 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 02:40:01 EDT References: <456@ttidcc.UUCP> <457@ttidcc.UUCP> <1586@hao.UUCP> <238@rti-sel.UUCP> <2545@randvax.UUCP> <1074@peora.UUCP> Reply-To: hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) Organization: The Cat Factory Lines: 41 Summary: In article <1074@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: >But you know... one thing has always bothered me about these intelligence >tests. Sometimes, in the questions that say "find the next in the series," >you can find another way of validly determining the next in the series, >besides the one the writer of the question intended. This is especially >true of the graphical examples (which show various geometric shapes shaded >in different ways, etc.). Since these are "harder to find" (the writer of >the question maybe never realized they were there), couldn't getting the >"wrong" answer indicate higher "intelligence" than getting the right answer? The type of test this sort of question appears on is usually the type administered individually by a psychometrician (the Weschlers are typical of the breed). If you come up with an "unorthodox" answer in this situation, a good psychometrician will give you an opportunity to explain your answer and note your response as part of their writeup. (In courses on psych testing they'll tell you you need to administer at least 100 Weschlers before you're likely to be good enough to give one to a real patient). When this type of question does appear on a group paper-and-pencil test, they usually go to great lengths to remove ambiguities (granted, they aren't always 100% successful). Remember, these tests aren't just made up and published. They go through an enormous amount of trials, revisions, and norming before they're released to the professional testing community. Note that none of the above applies to the junk tests you see in Reader's Digest or Omni. Real psychological instruments of this type are not available to the general public, for obvious reasons. >[I know this has little to do with "singles"... sorry.] This discussion seems to come up periodically. Maybe it's time for a net.psychology or a net.intelligence? -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe