IQ test or construct "intelligence" overrated?
Dear community,
I actually wanted to include this question in one of my answers, but I thought it might spark a good discussion. First of all: references to studies, online articles, books, and especially interesting ideas are extremely welcome!
Now, a little background information on the question: You often hear from sites like quora.com, from people (e.g., Jordan B. Peterson), and from internet articles that IQ tests are the best predictors for criteria like school grades, job success, etc. However, you have to consider the correlations of 0.3 to 0.6 . Ergo, IQ explains 9% (3 × 3) to 36% (6 × 6) of the variance in these criteria .
I assume IQ is a good predictor, due to the extensive research and, consequently, the many studies that confirm this relationship between the quotient and the criteria , unlike perhaps other constructs (e.g., the Big 5). However, the low level of variance explained remains evident. Other factors—alone or in combination—may be more important than IQ .
Hence the questions:
So, is IQ or intelligence (assuming IQ is a good representation of it) overrated ? Is this the case at the level of evidence or at the level of variance explanation, or both? Are there other aspects that should be considered?
PS: I apologize for any spelling or grammatical errors in this text. And if anyone comes along and says they're not intelligent because of this, I expect a meta-study or a very good, large study that confirms a correlation of r>0.2. I would be very interested in seeing it!
(1 votes)
Loading...
When you deal with emotional intelligence, you have another direction on the subject of intelligence.
The problem is that it is a matter of opinion, the question: ‘What is intelligence?’
Hi, excuse me for coming so late. I have a question: how do you stand on the subject of emotional intelligence? Is it valid or not?
To your last sentence. I think the term intelligence has already been well substantiated. For example, in the book Intelligence of Detlef Rost one can find a few studies that deal with the definition of intelligence in the generality and science that show convergence. Intelligence is common as Ability to conclude, learning, problem solving, etc. recognized. In 1994 52 of leading intelligence researchers a common comprehensive definition: “Intelligence is a very general mental capacity that – among other things – includes the ability to conclusive thinking, plan, problem solving, abstract thinking, understanding complex ideas, learning quickly and learning from experiences. It is not pure book knowledge, no narrow academic specialty, no test experience. Rather, intelligence reflects a broader and deeper ability to understand our environment, “to understand,” “to recognize in things” or “to get out”, what to do” (Gottfredson et al., 1994).
I recommend the book ‘E Q Emotional Intelligence’ by Daniel Goleman. His statement is, what does a high IQ use if the emotional intelligence is missing?
What one should also consider for the IQ is the curiosity. I have the impression that curiosity / want to enrich yourself with knowledge is an essential indication of intelligence.
I only go to books I’ve read, like that
But, as I said, I am very open to studies sent to me.
And a little addition to my last paragraph. My point of my question also plays in. Maybe one should be intelligence or IQ not as important – reference to the low variance clarification of the constructs at this point – and recognize that the personality or other things (feature – now hypothetically without proper design definition and examination) may also be important.
The question is whether Daniel Golemans’ emotional intelligence is really statistically justified. Is there something? Is there something listed in the book – maybe studies rather independent of Goleman? I have to admit, there hasn’t been much for me. Moreover, there seems to be great criticism of the measurement of EI. Much of the variance is supposed to be shared with IQ and the Big-5…. can EI not be better explained by already given constructs?
And why is it an intelligence? This term seems to have been introduced rather because the word “intelligence” is relatively relevant in our society and we see clear differences in problem solving, learning, final followers, etc., i.e. the scientifically actual intelligence. Can’t just be called “emotionality” or “emotional ability”. It is generally said to be a strange mix of the terms.