Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!clong From: clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) Newsgroups: sci.psychology Subject: Re: Psychometrics (was Re: High I.Q., etc.) Message-ID: Date: 31 Mar 88 15:20:04 GMT References: <1346@microsoft.UUCP> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 22 In article , I wrote: > I tend to do well on such tests; this makes me feel good (why > shouldn't it?), but I don't take the results very seriously, e.g. > I don't feel myself "superior" to a person who didn't score as high. I should clarify this somewhat. I feel that someone who does well on such tests is intelligent (high score ==> intelligence), however low score !==> lack thereof. But I am still undecided on how much intelligence is represented by a high score on these exams. A person who gets a 1600 on his/her SATs is obviously intelligent, but to what extent? Is it even reasonable to attempt to measure intelligence on a scale, e.g. Bob smarter than Sandra, Sandra smarter than Roger ==> Bob smarter than Roger? I doubt this. -- Chris Long Rutgers University RPO 1878 CN 5063 New Brunswick, NJ 08903 (201)-932-1160 clong@topaz.rutgers.edu