Hi Paul:
How many that 'wrote' the test does not necessarily validate the test, nor its implied measure of intelligence. You still have to address the underlying principles in terms of qualifying and quantifying intelligence. What is intelligence; and knowing that, how do you measure it (accurately and precisely, both as a relative and absolute measure). It's not a straightforward question, and one that has been pondered for several decades - if not centuries. The measure of relative IQ (as he defines it) may be valid, but it is measured relative to the demographics of the sample. You cannot with certainty take its results as a measure of your absolute intelligence. I do not question the 'intelligence' of the psychologist that wrote the test. Nor do I question the 'intelligence' of other psychologists in this century that too have tried to quantify intelligence by means of IQ tests - tests still not widely accepted, and whose validity is questioned by the psychological and scientific community.
And the test is subject to cultural and socioeconomical biases. And as an aside, I do not consider vocabulary a truly valid indicator of intelligence. Albeit just one measure used in the aforementioned IQ test, it still plays a significant role in deciding how intelligent, or unintelligent the test subject is. So-called intelligent people usually have well-developed vocabularies, but it is not always the case. And vocabulary is subject to regional and cultural dialects - "if you axe me." As long as you know enough words to communicate and express your thoughts, then enough said. Not the knowing of words the test designer decides you should know if you are intelligent.
IQ tests are usually based on 'correlations' between certain parameters observed in 'seemedly' intelligent persons. But basing causation or conclusions on correlations is, by definition, flawed. And the parameters are chosen by a few (including the test designer), usually based on underlying biases and prejudices.
If sample size is large enough (as it is reported here), and random (in this case, unknown but unlikely), then one could get 'some measure' of relative intelligence, providing you fit the demographics of the group or groups that the test is skewed. However, there would be uncertainty for the reasons outlined above.
And as an aside, what really counts is your ability to survive and live another day. To live to your maximum potential, and thrive. This cannot be measured by any IQ test. Parachute Einstein into the Serengetti, who stands a better chance of survival? Einstein with an IQ of 200+, or a tribal plainsman with a recorded IQ of zero? Lion 1, Einstein 0. At the end of the day, that's all that matters. And IQ tests will never quantify this in a meaningful way.
Cheers - Dan
----
Cheers,
Dan
Founder and CEO
LionsGate Creative GoodPassRobot Magelln