Online IQ tests and such are pretty meaningless.

I've taken plenty of them over the years and even when you purposely get every question wrong, you still end up with a high IQ.

Online, EVERYONE has an IQ of 147.

In the real world, only 4% of the population over 130.

So take your online IQ and subtract 47 points. There's your IQ.

Cute - but mine was taken long ago by the Air Force.  Not that I disagree with you on your basic premise.

Thanks, Ok, I can't run or throw far EITHER. 

I think people become wary (and yes, occasionally insecure) when "intelligence" is mentioned because "intelligence" covers a lot of ground.

As I stated in your other thread, IQ test examine academic ability, not comprehension levels, or any other cognitive abilities. 

Intelligence, however, is not simply an academic experience or ability, it also consists of the abilities to rationalize, solve problems (ethical, situational, as well as academic problems), and/or the ability to think in the abstract, or "outside the box."

So while someone may score high in their academics, he or she may have no ability to think abstractly, or may not be able to rationalize, being only able to state only facts from their education, but not connecting the dots as to how such things apply to them, or our society. 

Then there are also different types of intelligence, such as "creative intelligence."  Sure, someone may be able to recite pi to the trillionth digit, they may not be able to create a new technique or category of art, or even tell the difference between the technique employed by Picasso, versus the technique employed by Hieronymus Bosch.

 So when intelligence is brought into the discussion, it can be in reference to a variety of things, differing from person to person, and create a situation in which there is resentment because only one area of "intelligence" is being compared, and perhaps that is the one area that person lacks, though they may excel in another area.

The one that I took had nothing to do with academic ability.  It was administered by the military to fairly young children.  And it had to do with the very things you say IQ tests have nothing to do with (cognitive abilities and comprehension levels not to mention spatial recognition.)  Not sure what IQ tests test today, but if it's only academic ability, that isn't really an IQ test in my book.

Which test were you administered, out of curiousity?

Not a clue.  I'm 46 now.  Apparently you have to have an IQ of 150 to remember details from 35+ years ago  All I recall is at the time they gave it to children to test the very things you were referring to - cognitive ability, comprehension.

I never did real well in school (well, I got mostly Bs without ever working at it) so it sure as hell didn't test academic ability

After doing some googling to try and spark my memory, it very well could have been a Stanford-Binet or derivation.  Not real sure though, but those tests look similar to what I'm referring to.

Back on the subject, I still can't say I understand the phenomena to which I was originally referring.

You can test this for yourself - tell a friend they suck at throwing a ball, then tell them they aren't that bright and see which of the two elicits the most outraged response.  9 of 10 it's the "bright" statement (unless they're REAL good at throwing a ball, but even then, they'll just think you a fool and blow it off.)

Question someone on a forum about the content of their argument, and you may enter into some lively debate on the subject.  Correct their grammar, and watch what happens now.

Perhaps you have heard of the theory of multiple intelligences?

It is a theory based on the idea that there are more types of intelligence than just cognitive abilites in regards to academics, or comprehension and application of facts.

Based on that theory, an IQ tests scientific value is very questionable.

That theory is from what I draw my point. 

Intelligence covers many areas, and so referring to it by just an IQ number does insinuate that people are stupid, because not all of those areas are covered in an IQ test.  In fact, various IQ tests cover different things.  There are IQ tests that have questions on popular culture. (I would fail, haha.)  By and large, IQ tests are subjective.

That may be where those that are offended are coming from.

That reaction might also be reminscent of our eugenic practices, or some subconcious fear that varying levels of intelligence will lead to some sort of fuedal system.  It's happened before, based on race (and somewhat with intelligence), and it could happen again.

Why judge someone on something that they can't help?

Indeed.  It seems Da Vinci was the genius on the most different levels.  Can't remember where I read that, so it could be wrong.  But yes, I am quite familiar with the concept of multiple different kinds of intelligences.

It has to do with confidence in decisions made.  I've made this point ad nauseum, and no one likes it.  Shrug, no surprise here.  Let's hypothesize that there is a brand of intelligence called "Medical Intelligence."  Geniuses of this category are better suited to diagnose your ailments than non-geniuses, no?  That's exactly the kind of thing I'm driving at.  So I suppose you, having two doctors to choose from, won't choose the more intelligent one to diagnose your ills because the less intelligent one "can't help it?"  

When the Fudpucker Molerats hire a new QB for their NFL franchise, they judge him on all of his objective statistics in high school and college careers.  If his stats are good, they pick him in the draft.  If his stats are not, they do not pick him.  They are judging an objective quantity.  Why would they judge his competitors with lesser stats on something they can't help?  Even you show the bias I am referring to with the statement quoted.  Why should people NOT be judged on their intelligence?  And mind you, I'm not talking about getting in the weeds with various types of intelligence.  I'm talking about good old common knowledge, common skill level intelligence.  Can he/she read or write well?  Oh they can't?  Oh well, they might be a creative genius, not a writing genius, so we shouldn't judge them - they can't help it.  Horsehockey.

Tsk, that isn't what I said.  You had my point in your first paragraph.  Compare the creative's to the creative's, the writers to the writers, etc.  That is basically what we do to a degree now anyway.  Would just be more "scientific".

It could lead to better doctors, teachers, etc.

Or it could lead to a community similar to the one that Lois Lowry present in The Giver.

Is it?

http://www.americanidol.com/

Haha, point taken.  Reality TV (not so real) aside, however, yes it does tend to be what we do.  (Though only on a personal level, not a societal one.)

If you think your doctor has less abilities than another one, you will ditch said doctor (assuming insurance isn't an issue), and go with the better one.

If you believe that one artist is better than another, you will go support him. 

If you believe one writer creates a better story, than another one, you will buy that authors book.

On a societal level, it quickly gets to the point that it can be easily abused.  Do we start dictating that everyone with great "creative intelligence" does something in that career field, instead of becoming a CEO?  All those that have scientific intelligence must enter the field of science? 

Say we somehow develop a way to measure each state of intelligence, as you have mentioned you would like; what is to be gained from it?

Better informed choices?  Only if our doctors or teachers are required to tell us their IQ (which gets into the gray area of "rights").