Story re "IQ Testing LLC"
OK OK - it's such a Popular game!
I'm sure millions of words have been written on this topic (few of which I'm at all interested in even skimming). That there IS such a test - and that it is accorded huge Importance - IMO says more about "us" than about WTF any of these contrived, inevitably inadequate questions demonstrate (beyond acculturation, that is).
In '60s, a phys. grad student I knew (fresh PhD actually) was about to marry a (real!) Armenian (exile) 'Princess'.. a most interesting and Sharp woman. We hung out, from time to time. She was (at some academic stage I don't recall) working on the level of designing, vetting - critiquing various forms of the Stanford-Binet -- which natch must keep changing its questions (I said.. it's mainly about acculturation, did'n I?)
So she asked Les and moi if she could administer (a current version) to us two. (I knew my earlier Number from days of academe). Having the advantage of knowing us both.. I think this was about umm "calibrating her own confidence" in the entire enchilada, and this may or may not have been "against the rules" - WTF those were. D. agreed to discuss with us -after-the-fact- some arcane interpretations of the ~order, "why.. such and such questions are thought particularly revealing", weighted accordingly: ie a mini-course on state of the design art, just then). So, who could resist.. hearing about the priesthood from the priesthood?
Natch I don't recall anything juicy from her critique. Unsurprisingly, we both scored 'off-scale' (her term; comment following) and within a few 'points' of each other. I recall her qualitative assessment of the whole topic a little better.
She though it became iffy (to save a few hundred words only a little better than iffy) somewhere in the 130-140 range. Thought.. that it might mean -something- maybe up to 160s [fuzzy here] - but only via considerable personal investigation by the tester of the testee. I think this meant -- the tester trying to discern "mechanical test-guessing aptitudes, algoriths" VS something more indicative of genuine [insightfulness?].. No, I don't know how you would "teach someone such discrimination" either, if it even exists beyond a fanciful hope.
Yeah, vague words but much akin, in my experience, to -- the predicament of evaluating two very good audio systems VS instantaneous live performance -- and Talking! about what is heard; ditto wine tasting == that Class of problem.
She believed (and apparently so did the then authors of the tests, at least 'unofficially' ) that any number >150 was essentially meaningless re comparing any two persons, yet you could achieve something like '200'. Pshaw.
Whatever else you might call such numbers, I liken them to false-precision, as in 'too many significant figures' for the precision of measurement (of any physical quantity). (And this AIN'T Any Physical 'QUANTITY')
I note that neither Lester nor I have yet won even a second Nobel. Although he, having gone for weapons development via Ford Aeronutr... is likely pretty rich. (That makes him as smart as a PHB - what's that - 85?) We haven't kept in touch; different sensibilities, I guess.
I'll go along with "attitude inventory" as a realizable goal for 'testing' - for those who haven't yet discovered what it is - they Love to do, poor bastards. But as means for grouping the members of a civilization? BS - it's fucking epaulets, as Dick Feynman would say.
Now there was.. fucking-^SMART^; screw allthenumbers.
Ashton
so smart I make myself sick
we now return you to your testing game du jour
