Do you think tests are suitable for measuring intelligence?

I got this idea from the conclusion to my spam thread I just posted.

So now it's not a conclusion anymore. Who feels the same way?

I think tests shouldn't measure intelligence because I think it measures incorrectly.

 

Do you mean tests, like school tests?

 

i totally agree with you, and besides peopel can't say you're uninteligent because of a stupid silly test, i think you know a great deal more than any test says, stuff that you've learned for youself that isn't on any test.

don't feel down cuz of your scores on it ok?​

 

Specifically, final exams and county wide exams.

 

There are two types of intelligence: Street sense and Book smart. Exams are used to test your knowledge on your Book smarts. That's what employers look for, but your right in a way. I don't think people are dumb just based on their test scores.

 

I'm glad you agree. I think so, too. Funny thing though; for me, street sense, not so much and same goes for book smart.

 

My sister and I had a conversation about this today. The smartest kind of people are the ones with the combination of the two. Tests don't do much if it's a test. You have to keep in mind the other factors that influence a person's smarts, ADD or anxiety is an example.

 

A piece of paper with a bunch of words on it can't truly measure a person's intelligence because the person can be a genius and just not try on the test, or the person could be an idiot, but seem smart by cheating on the test.

Another method would be suitable because testing isn't really helpful.

 

wow, someone just did a presentation on this during class today. Well, anyways....I think that testing is a way to measure intelligence (just not very well) and also measures how well a person studies on a subject.

 

That's true. I agree.

 

Sometimes.
There are certian circumstances, Such as the ones adressed by Ratio.

 

No never get discouraged about a test. Ever. I for one am a terrible test taker, but if you were to have almost an subject I could spit for it hours on it, but my test scores are really bad, that is the reason I didn't get into my school of choice. They test general intelligence, but you can not judge your smartness upon it.

 

Tests are not a real representative of someones intelligence, from what i've learn't, most tests are from the middle classes or westernised, meaning that they don't apply to everyone so can cause disadvantages

Plus ive seen some of these tests and im like huh, they speak in a totally different language,

 

einstein and many other famous scientists were called stupid by their teachers when they were in school

here they are trying to get rid of academic selection, which i think is the only thing keeping our education system afloat. i agree that basing everything on a test is wrong. its very easy to have a bad day and have years of work come to nothing (my worst fear) but what would you replace it with? its the same with government, ours sucks (well all governments around the world suck) but theres nothing better out there. IMO tests are really the only thing out there, but i think that a combination of testing and like teachers comments (ie classwork) would be better (please correct me if there actually is something).

 

I think that tests etc can be inaccurate because you could be the most intelligent person in the world and still have a bad day, that bad day could cause you to fail but it wouldnt represent your intelligence. Similarly people who are not very smart can fluke a test.

I can't think of another way to determine people's intelligence but I do think there are flaws in this one. I hate the seperation though "You are stupid you will have this life" and "You are intelligent so you will follow this path" life doesn't work like that!

 

I agree and sometimes people are smart but when they get a Test it makes them panic and they get all the questions wrong, it just tells you to do some excersice to calm you down before a Test.

 

The kinds of systems used to measure intelligence are still in their infancy. They're only able to produce data in certain cognitive fields, and in most cases produce some what of an accurate picture of the person they're measuring. In my opinion though intelligent tests still require some tweaking, if not an entirely different way to measure.

 

Yes. That's true. There's a lot of things that no test could ask you - like your natural talents and things like that.

 

Well natural talents are just that. It's difficult to say how someone might be capable of doing a task just because they've been gifted with the ability to sing.

 

I think that certain test work, but some others don't. Know what I mean?