Who knows about IQ's?

Dean · Post by **Dean** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:41 pm

So there's a question I want to ask for this thing I'm writing. Does anyone know or have an inkling where to look to know what an average child (of say 8, I don't care the age) would score on an IQ test normed for adults.

I would like to know the difference in cognitive ability between an average child and an average parent would be and that seems like a decent way to make the point.

If anyone has any ideas I would really appreciate it!

Winnah · Post by **Winnah** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:25 pm

So far as I am aware, the point of IQ tests was to identify and seperate mental disability from mental illness.

But that was not what you asked.

Peer scores for children are typically expressed as a ratio. That ratio gives an indication of their mental age, at least in comparison to their peers.

Real IQ scores for people aged 16 and up rely on comparing standardised tests to prior statistics for the majority of people.

People above or below normal ranges require a more specialised tests to be administered if they want an exact number, typically to gain entrance to nerdy swinger groups like Mensa.

again, not what you asked.

To answer your question:

child IQ score/100*age/16*100 = adult IQ score

...is the equation I have seen floating around as the equation for converting a childs peer score into an adult equivelant score.

I pulled that off the internet, so it probably means shit.

Finder · Post by **Finder** » Sat May 25, 2013 11:14 pm

Does this help?

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Sun May 26, 2013 1:33 pm

Adult IQ tests assume you've learned from a common curriculum and had common life experiences with all the other people taking that test. Kids tests are limited to what kids their age may have been exposed to.

For the most part, kids are smarter than adults, in that they learn new skill sets faster. They are also much less smart in that their accumulated knowledge is greatly less, and that there's many more things you can't teach them yet because they don't have the right grounding. Like, massively so. They're also much more credulous when younger, so easy to trick with false information, as compared to adults who are prone to sticking to wrong-headed ideas despite true information.

But an adult IQ test could totally be set up to only ask about things locals don't learn until they're a senior in high school or whatever, and younger kids may score vastly lower on it, like zero.

Anyhoo, the main problem kids have is they know almost nothing compared to the rest of us, who still know almost nothing compared to all there is to know. It's all relative.

Surgo · Post by **Surgo** » Sun May 26, 2013 4:24 pm

tussock, do you have any idea what you're even talking about?

Doom · Post by **Doom** » Mon May 27, 2013 4:11 am

Intelligence, with no precise definition, is impossible to credibly compare across significant cultural or age differences. While an 8 year old can't be expected to take care of himself, there are adults "with the mind of an 8 year old" or so they say, who nonetheless more or less take care of themselves iwth only some aid. Simply by living long enough, they've gained life skills (eg, doing laundry) that an 8 year old simply won't learn in time to still be 8 years old.

In short, you can use just about anything you want that's halfway credible to you, and it'll be about as good as anything else.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Mon May 27, 2013 9:26 am

Surgo wrote:tussock, do you have any idea what you're even talking about?

If you would like to correct me, please feel free. You'll note that would require having the balls to post something different, rather than just be a passive-aggressive bitch.

Surgo · Post by **Surgo** » Mon May 27, 2013 4:43 pm

You might want to have a source for just about anything you say. Because everything you say looks like so much pop-sci bullshit.

I don't know enough to correct you or not. That's why I'm wondering if you yourself even have any clue about what you're saying. AKA, my bullshit detector is bright fucking red. And I'm interested in the topic like the OP is, so I have an interest in getting actual information.

So yeah, I'm calling you out. You can ignore me if you want, in which case let it be known that you're full of shit, or you can put up to make me shut up and crawl back to my hole.

tussock wrote:passive-aggressive

You use that word, but I don't think you have any idea what it means.

Korgan0 · Post by **Korgan0** » Mon May 27, 2013 7:20 pm

Given how full of shit tussock usually is, I'm surprised your bullshit detector isn't blaring 24/7.

edit: my 1337th post is also my snarkiest ever METAL AS FUCK

Surgo · Post by **Surgo** » Mon May 27, 2013 7:38 pm

It is, but this is the first time a combination of bullshit overload + having some minor interest in the topic caused me to call him out on it.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Tue May 28, 2013 1:27 am

I wonder if this is going to be another case of internet dick wagging or if people will actually go through the effort to dredge up relevant academic papers.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Tue May 28, 2013 10:17 am

What the fuck do people want here? I am not an academic in the field, I have done minor personal study of how IQ tests work out of personal curiosity due to highly unusual* results. If you want research papers, The Gaming Den is not the place to find them, but most of them say the things are massively culturally biased AFAICT.

You want links, go google them up your damn self.

Are children smart? It really depends what you mean by that, because they are ignorant and credulous which are traits taken as signs of a slow wit in adults. There's a whole teaching degree all the way up to PHD available you might want to take to learn more about that subject (I have a Sister, Niece, and Aunt who teach, but I haven't been a teacher-replacement since high school), but children learn new things quicker than adults and that is also a definition of smart.

so much pop-sci bullshit

Objection, a lot of pop-sci is really good these days, especially once you get into the more academic comments about it. Raises the issue and gets a lot of the right people to comment all at once and link to each other. Good stuff.

*I can get anywhere between 80 (retard) and 180+ (super-genius) on them. That is not supposed to happen, at all. Interpretation (and production) of florid language is my weak spot, much everything else is your typical nerdy score ~130, and some types of tests I just win. But that was over a decade ago when I took an interest for a while, and my language skills have improved a little.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Tue May 28, 2013 3:43 pm

I attempted to look up papers through my University library, couldn't find anything. I also tried looking for analyses of cognitive differences between adults and children and found nothing. But my googling DID find a non-official IQ tests for 8-10yo and I only got 10/12 questions correct... What do I even do with myself.

erik · Post by **erik** » Wed May 29, 2013 12:12 am

tussock wrote:Adult IQ tests assume you've learned from a common curriculum and had common life experiences with all the other people taking that test. Kids tests are limited to what kids their age may have been exposed to.

For the most part, kids are smarter than adults, in that they learn new skill sets faster. They are also much less smart in that their accumulated knowledge is greatly less, and that there's many more things you can't teach them yet because they don't have the right grounding. Like, massively so. They're also much more credulous when younger, so easy to trick with false information, as compared to adults who are prone to sticking to wrong-headed ideas despite true information.

But an adult IQ test could totally be set up to only ask about things locals don't learn until they're a senior in high school or whatever, and younger kids may score vastly lower on it, like zero.

Anyhoo, the main problem kids have is they know almost nothing compared to the rest of us, who still know almost nothing compared to all there is to know. It's all relative.

This is about what I would have said. People slinging the tussock-hateberries can fling it at me too. At least in this particular instance.

Essentially all that Tussock said is common knowledge. Kids learn quickly and kids fool easily. If a kid hasn't been shown trigonometry or learned specific vocabulary then they're fucked at answering such questions on a test. Does that really need citation?

IQ tests have been shown to be culturally dependent (as in one test does not fit all). That's something that I know is citeable because I had to read papers on it, but that was over a decade ago and I can't be fucked to bother.

IQ tests measure your ability to take IQ tests. They're mostly useful for finding people who are severely deficient. Using them to gauge how smart a kid is as compared to an adult is just pissing into the wind.

This was an interesting find I saw recently. Basically measuring something actually objective and quantifiable about how the brain processes data.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Wed May 29, 2013 1:01 am

The reason people are flinging shit at you guys is because you're acting like we've only just now discovered the brilliance of making these tests non-verbal.

erik · Post by **erik** » Wed May 29, 2013 2:18 am

Whipstitch wrote:The reason people are flinging shit at you guys is because you're acting like we've only just now discovered the brilliance of making these tests non-verbal.

See, this is the shit that irritates. Clean up that pompous shit you just smeared all over my browser.

I'd be startled if there were IQ tests out there, verbal or non, that actually did what most lay people wanted them to do, meaningfully show how smartness people is. Say, comparing a child with an adult.

The non-verbal test I mentioned tests pretty basic stuff. Like incredibly basic stuff.

In the link I provided that basic stuff is how fast people can filter out information. The people who thought it was a worthy development and new were not just me, it was the fuckers who called attention to a new study that was published in a peer-reviewed article less then a damned week ago. Apparently it's something worthy of note. So don't get uppity at me for noting it. It makes you sound like you want a fight for no good goddamned reason.

*sigh*

Now s'cuse me while I go back to my internetless hell for another several days. =-(