NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/org/mensa/9030

Text File | 1993-01-01 | 5.2 KB | 106 lines

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!torn!newshost.uwo.ca!gaul.csd.uwo.ca!roberts
From: [e-mail] (Eric Roberts)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 23:30:18 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: obelix.gaul.csd.uwo.ca
Lines: 93

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kjeld Hvatum) writes:
>
>>From: Eric Roberts <[e-mail]>
>>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kjeld
>> Hvatum) writes:
>>>Bottom line:  Be careful when interpreting low scores - there are too
>>>many reasons for them.  High scores, on the other hand, guarantee at
>>>least some kind of competence, and are a strong indication of potential.
>>>Unfortunately, motivation doesn't always accompany high scores.
>>
>>I disagree with you here. I don't believe that high or low SAT scores
>>indicate much at all. One of the reasons for this is that the only
>>thing needed to do well on this test, is to have a large vocabulary.
>
>And vocabulary is one of the best single indicators of intelligence,
>according to a number of studies.  Some IQ tests are 100% vocabulary
>tests, including some of the tests Terman used in his famous
>longitudinal IQ study.  One frequently cited reason is that a person's
Maybe they are a good measure of IQ, nonentheless, how that number
relates to ability of any kind remains to be seen.

>vocabulary is an indirect measure of the ability to learn new meanings
>in context.

I don't agree. Just because a person knows the word VIRULENT does
not make him more intelligent. The vocabulary of the English language
is too large for any single person to know a significant portion
of it. Someone may not know the words on the exam and still have
a vocabulary 50x larger than another person that does. In addition
to this, little intelligence in neccesary to memorize words.


>
>Antonyms and word analogies make up only 53% of the verbal SAT; the rest
>is made up of sentence completions and reading comprehension.  Here are
>the 15 stems from the antonym section of an old SAT: FRET, DISHEARTEN,
>LUXURIANT, HINDRANCE, INANIMATE, ANONYMOUS, ATYPICAL, CONCEIT, RANT,
>WOODEN, ACQUIESCE, ADROIT, MUNIFICENT, UNDERSTATE, VIRULENT.  It's a
>common myth, especially among poorly prepared high school students, that
>SAT vocabulary words are mostly obscure relics from dusty, unabridged
>dictionaries.  That's absolutely not true, as the above list clearly
>shows.  A student scoring around 350 on the verbal SAT would probably

I agree.

>have chosen the correct antonyms for only about 4 of the above 15 words
>(approximately the national high school average).  Put that person in an
>advanced college course with students who had no trouble with 14 out of
>the 15 words (about 750 verbal SAT level) and I think it's likely he'd
>have a bit of trouble.  I suppose you'd say, Eric, that it wouldn't make
>much difference?  And keep in mind that this vast score difference would
>also necessarily indicate a huge disparity in ability on the sentence
>completion and reading comprehension sections.
>
You are absolutely right, I do not believe it would make much difference.
The fact that a person is capable to finding a few antonyms, does not
, in the least degree, indicate that the person is capable of logical
reasoning of any kind. It may just indicate that he is a walkind
dictionary (or usually not even that much).
In addition to this, even if the score on this test does indicate
performace in school, that fact proves nothing. Who said that intelligence
is needed to do well in school? It seems to me, from my personal experience,
that stupidity and blind obidience is much more helpfull. To learn
something in school, requires little ability, to apply it to a new
situation later requires a lot of it.

>If you meant to say that differences between scores like 650 and 580
>don't mean much, I'd agree with you.  But no difference between 340 and
>710?  Sorry, I disagree.
>
>>In addition to this, the questions on SAT have often several correct
>>answers.
>
>Often?  Absolutely not.  I included an example of an ambiguous
>item from the verbal SAT a while ago to show that you sometimes
>can't get an 800, no matter how "smart" you are.  But such items
>are relatively rare.  They certainly aren't common enough to
>cause the kind of unreliability you seem to be suggesting.
>
>>In my opinion, LSAT is a little better at measuring
>>reasoning ability (NOT intelligence) at the time the test is taken.
>
>You've got me interested - I'll have to take a look at it.

LSAT is very different from SAT. It consists of sections on logical
reasoning, analytical resoning and on reading comprehension. The
knowledge of vocabulary of the kind that is used on SAT, is neither
needed, nor helpfull in any way. Look at it and I am sure that
you will agree, that it comes much closer to measuring reasoning
ability.