Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
It depends on what you mean by “true”. IQ is definitely not a reliable indicator of the level of intelligence, if this same intelligence fits into the norm or above it. A person with normal and high intelligence is likely to pass this test well, if not from the first, then from the second or third time. If you have serious memory and thinking disorders, you probably won't be able to improve your results if you try it again. Thus, it is possible to distinguish people with extremely low intelligence by IQ with some accuracy, but for ordinary healthy subjects it does not carry any diagnostic value (roughly speaking, an IQ of 110 or 150 does not mean anything).
Well, it is impossible not to note the instability of the very concept of intelligence. This is a very complex set of human properties, which are very difficult to evaluate in a complex. Tests that test memory, attention, flexibility of thinking, etc. are much more interesting and effective.
As my university teacher used to say (cand. Doctor of Science, Deputy. Director for Scientific and methodological Work of the Polar Branch of the Pushkin Leningrad State University V. A. Medvedev), the IQ test shows very conditional results. For example, V. A. Medvedev himself passes it at the level of easy moronism.