is IQ a measure of Intelligence?

An IQ score is not the number but the range of intellectual capacity. There are different tests, so if there is a question about some bias, they can give a different kind. I would imagine that they come in different languages, as well. There is some bias toward life experience, I believe but probably not enough to throw the range off completely. It isn't just about what you know but about how your process and use information. There are IQ tests that don't require reading that can be used for non-readers. I saw an increase in IQ score of an adult male after mental health therapy for childhood abuse. I thought that was VERY interesting. Is it possible that the mind is frozen by the trauma and can be un-frozen?

well true! IQ measurement inventories are not perfect quantifications of one's intelligence because of many factors. The language barriers, difference of exposure from person to person etc etc But as the time passes, more research introduces better IQ testing inventories which are more closer to perfect validity in order to quantify the intelligence The language barriers have been minimized by introducing the graphical material in testing like the images, draws , illustration etc and the exposure variation no doubt still hinders the measurability of intelligence, but think about an inventory testing the people existing in a specific class the same location with similar appearant attributes, the people assumed to have diffrent exposures can be tested with different weightings and using different set of tools so to a great extent this barrier can also be removed... Studenthood??.. well being a student does not mean that your intelligence is being measured.. its just being polished their. The IQ testing is far differnt from the examination systems of formal schooling

Yes and no. At some point it is person ability to think with abstract problems and questions. You can perform well on those tests, but have real problem with life practical questions and problems. It is working only 50/50...

I actually feel very strongly about the dangers of IQ testing. When I was a child, my IQ tested very high, and the stress that put on myself and my half-brother was a very bad thing for us. I felt like I was constantly being demeaned for not doing enough with my potential, even though I wasn't given the opportunity to do anything with it either. My family refused to let me skip grades but expected me to somehow find challenges in school, and any time I made the slightest mistake I was in major trouble. My half-brother, on the other hand, basically had to spend his entire childhood being told he was just never going to be as good as me. He was advised to study things that he could do without much thinking, and never encouraged to follow through with anything that really interested him. It caused so much rancor in our relationship that he literally tried to kill me. As an adult, I've accepted that just because I am intelligent doesn't mean that I have to do things that "smart people" are supposed to do, and that I do use my intelligence in many ways even if they aren't the ones people expected of me. I am pretty happy with the things I am doing with my life, and while I would like to continue my education when I get the chance, I don't feel as if it's something that I HAVE to do to please others. Since I left the area where my biological family lives, I've even managed to patch up things with my half-brother a little, because our roles within the family no longer really apply.

The Concept of Intelligence There has probably been a concept of intelligence, and a word for it, since people first started to compare themselves with other animals and with one another. We know this at least since thinkers first put pen to paper about the nature of the mind. To the philosopher Plato, in Ancient Greece, the concept was simple: intelligence is that which distinguishes the different social classes, and is unevenly endowed by God. So fixed and innate to the individual was this endowment, he said, that general improvement could be obtained only by restricting reproduction to the 'rulers'. These are the so-called eugenic measures of which we have heard many an echo in modern times. Plato's pupil Aristotle was more egalitarian, arguing that people(other than the slaves, which he barely considered to be human) were much the same intheir faculty of intellect, differences being due to teaching and example (and their possession of this faculty alone distinguished them from the animals, which, he said, were deprived of it). The Romans, too, debated these matters, as did the saints and schools of the Middle Ages, the philisopher/psychologists of the Renaissance... indeed the debate has not ceased, up to the present time. Such a concept, and a word(or words) for it, has been found in every known society, including contemporary tribal societies, in various parts of the world. In everyday discourse today,'intelligent' must be one of the most commonly used terms for describing people. Indeed, people tend to use the term remarkably freely to describe others, and seem to be able to spot it extremely quickly. Interview panels think they can find it, or not, in their candidates in half an hour of searching questions. Teachers usually have no hesitation in describing their pupils as intelligent or not(often in the form of euphemisms like 'bright' or 'dull'). Parents often look for tell-tale signs of it in their own children -- according to some reports, even in the first few days of life! They see the cultivation of their children's innate intelligence as the main function of the school, and often worry about whether it is being exercised or 'stretched' enough for its full development. Popular pressure groups for streaming and gifted children want means of identifying it, as individual 'potential', at the earliest possible age so that special treatments can be designed to help fulfil it. Other public bodies, such as a recent national commission on education, set up by the British Association, stress how, under increased international competition, the cultivation of intelligence has become central to economic success. This pervasiveness of the idea of intelligence is such that most people take it for granted, and don't question it too much. What is post peculiar, though, is that most of the time these people won't worry really be sure what they are talking about: they 'know' what intelligence is, but they can't say what it is. Ask those same parents, teachers, politicians, employers and so on what they mean by intelligence, and the chances are that they will not get far beyond shallow euphemisms such as 'bright', 'quick', 'brainy', 'clever', 'quick to learn', 'smart' and what have you. This paradox - of 'knowing', yet not knowing, what intelligence is - has been shown in a number of more systematic studies.

I seriously doubt that an IQ test can be seen as objective. For one thing you could take the IQ test on different days and get different scores. I agree with you on it being biased towards english speaking people who are probably good test takers. I know plenty of intelligent people who just do not do well on tests in general. In order to get a real idea of how intelligent someone is and to get a quantification of it one would first have to figure out how they learn and communicate. They give them a test according to their type (and in their language). Then you would at least get a better idea.

IQ as measured by written tests is more of a measure of the rapidity with which a person can learn material from a book or in a classroom than it is a measure of innate intelligence. Sometimes, these two factors corollate well, sometimes they do not. Therein lies the confusion.

I would say IQ is definitely not a measure of anything. I don't think much of testing in general. A lot of the smartest people I know didn't graduate highscool. Some of the most naive and silly people (and ignorant) people I know have gone to universities and have letters following their names lol.

I think IQ is relevent, but the testing methods are not. Tests given to different groups have scored differently and it may be do to cultural differences. On the other hand, EQ (emotional quotient) is probably far more important in dealing with life on a daily basis. I have a brother who has the IQ of a genius, but he is socially inept.

I think so, but now it seems that EQ is much more important than IQ. A high IQ person may not get a success at last, but high EQ persons easily succeed.

Yes, you are right that IQ tests are not objective and one of the reasons is language barriers since most IQ tests are in English. But there are also IQ tests that do not require you to understand english. Abstract reasoning that uses shapes and figures is a common IQ test. IQ primarily measures intelligence in terms of logic, numbers and analysis because these are skills that one has but does not necessarily have to learn in school but can be DEVELOPED thru education. IQ and performace in school is not the same. A person who has a high IQ does not mean that he/she will top the class. An intelligent person will not top his class if he's lazy and unmotivated. So a pathetic student does not mean low IQ. I believe that IQ is a measure of intelligence...I am a psychology major. It is not absurd quantification but it is not 100% correct. But equally important is EQ (emotional quotient)which measures a persons ability to be successful in life. If you have high EQ, you have self-conficence, self awareness and you are able to adjust during difficult times.

Beats me! I don't know why people put so much value in it. It has been proven time and again that IQ alone does not give a person many friends. It does not guarantee quality living. I believe more in the balance of things, IQ, EQ and whatever Q's they would like to include, LOL!

what you are telling is absolutely correct. Even i have different definition for the IQ. Even everybody has Good IQ in their own way. But most of the people dont know how to utilize it. this is something like liking and disliking. if you started working on your interested field. your IQ automatically will increases. but choosing your interesting field is very difficult part. since most of the time we are doing thing what others are doing, even not thinking our power. thats my point of view.

I think IQ measure our intelligence, it's a reliable method.

I do believe that IQ is the measure of intelligence...but its not the only the only measure and certainly not the only intelligence. There are many types of intelligences that an individual has and IQ is considered ABSTRACT intelligence which consists verbal, spacial, numerical, attention span & mental agility. Another intelligence which isn't part of IQ are EMOTIONAL, ARTISTIC & GOOD JUDGMENT OR COMMON SENSE. One isn't dumb when one has low IQ because he/she maybe high on the other aspects of intelligence.

The Concept of Intelligence There has probably been a concept of intelligence, and a word for it, since people first started to compare themselves with other animals and with one another. We know this at least since thinkers first put pen to paper about the nature of the mind. To the philosopher Plato, in Ancient Greece, the concept was simple: intelligence is that which distinguishes the different social classes, and is unevenly endowed by God. So fixed and innate to the individual was this endowment, he said, that general improvement could be obtained only by restricting reproduction to the 'rulers'. These are the so-called eugenic measures of which we have heard many an echo in modern times. Plato's pupil Aristotle was more egalitarian, arguing that people(other than the slaves, which he barely considered to be human) were much the same intheir faculty of intellect, differences being due to teaching and example (and their possession of this faculty alone distinguished them from the animals, which, he said, were deprived of it). The Romans, too, debated these matters, as did the saints and schools of the Middle Ages, the philisopher/psychologists of the Renaissance... indeed the debate has not ceased, up to the present time. Such a concept, and a word(or words) for it, has been found in every known society, including contemporary tribal societies, in various parts of the world. In everyday discourse today,'intelligent' must be one of the most commonly used terms for describing people. Indeed, people tend to use the term remarkably freely to describe others, and seem to be able to spot it extremely quickly. Interview panels think they can find it, or not, in their candidates in half an hour of searching questions. Teachers usually have no hesitation in describing their pupils as intelligent or not(often in the form of euphemisms like 'bright' or 'dull'). Parents often look for tell-tale signs of it in their own children -- according to some reports, even in the first few days of life! They see the cultivation of their children's innate intelligence as the main function of the school, and often worry about whether it is being exercised or 'stretched' enough for its full development. Popular pressure groups for streaming and gifted children want means of identifying it, as individual 'potential', at the earliest possible age so that special treatments can be designed to help fulfil it. Other public bodies, such as a recent national commission on education, set up by the British Association, stress how, under increased international competition, the cultivation of intelligence has become central to economic success. This pervasiveness of the idea of intelligence is such that most people take it for granted, and don't question it too much. What is post peculiar, though, is that most of the time these people won't worry really be sure what they are talking about: they 'know' what intelligence is, but they can't say what it is. Ask those same parents, teachers, politicians, employers and so on what they mean by intelligence, and the chances are that they will not get far beyond shallow euphemisms such as 'bright', 'quick', 'brainy', 'clever', 'quick to learn', 'smart' and what have you. This paradox - of 'knowing', yet not knowing, what intelligence is - has been shown in a number of more systematic studies.

In my opinion, intelligence can't necessarily be measured but rather estimated. There's no true way to measure an individuals amount of knowledge. I say that IQ is rather a test of logic instead of intelligence.