IQ scores not accurate marker of intelligence, study shows

iStockphoto

Could IQ scores be a false indicator of intelligence?

Researchers have determined in the largest online study on the intelligence quotient (IQ) that results from the test may not exactly show how smart someone is.

"When we looked at the data, the bottom line is the whole concept of IQ -- or of you having a higher IQ than me -- is a myth," Dr. Adrian Owen, the study's senior investigator and the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Cognitive Neuroscience and Imaging at the university's Brain and Mind Institute said to the Toronto Star. "There is no such thing as a single measure of IQ or a measure of general intelligence."

More than 100,000 participants joined the study and completed 12 online cognitive tests that examined memory, reasoning, attention and planning abilities. They were also asked about their background and lifestyle.

They found that there was not one single test or component that could accurately judge how well a person could perform mental and cognitive tasks. Instead, they determined there are at least three different components that make up intelligence or a "cognitive profile": short-term memory, reasoning and a verbal component.

Scientists also scanned participants' brains with a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine and saw that different cognitive abilities were related to different circuits in the brain, suggesting that the theory that different areas of the brain control certain abilities may be true.

Researchers also discovered that training one's brain to help perform better cognitively did not help.

"People who 'brain-train' are no better at any of these three aspects of intelligence than people who don't," Owen said.

For some reason, people who played video games did better on reasoning and short-term memory portions of the test.

However, aging was associated with a decline on memory and reasoning abilities. Those who smoked did worse on short-term memory and verbal portions, while those with anxiety did badly on short-term memory test components.

"We have shown categorically that you cannot sum up the difference between people in terms of one number, and that is really what is important here," Owen told the CBC.

"Now we need to go forward and work out how we can assess the differences between people, and that will be something for future studies," he added.

The study was published in Neuron on Dec. 20.

[rhetorich1]

// the whole concept of IQ -- or of you having a higher IQ than me -- is a myth //
...
CONSIDER instead
...
// the whole concept of IQ -- or of *YOUR* having a higher IQ than *I* -- is a myth //

Where are my other Grammar Police with scary-high IQs to see if anybody agrees?

[fwupow]

We know that the brain can inhibit and suppress all sorts of physiological functions but how much do we understand about how the brain inhibits and suppresses itself? What I mean is that loneliness, depression, heartbreak etc. takes away, not just a person's interest in mental exercise but the ability to focus and concentrate as well. It's the mind's way of saying "NO! You have more important things of an emotional nature to attend to." The problem is that we don't attend to them. The prevailing views of the masses often delegitimize many of our natural/normal emotional human truths and people force themselves to continue going through the motions of a "normal life", when in fact it's quite incompatible with the natural function of our brain. For one thing, we have way too many people packed into way too little space. We are overworked and overstressed. Family breakdown, divorce and dysfunction are also huge problems.

[Jonseen]

I took the standard IQ test back in the 70's, and so did all my brothers. One brother who is exceptionally good in math scored very high on the test. That made sense to me because I noticed that a good share of the questions were math or number questions.

I hate math, but I love English, Art, Philosophy. My "math-brain" brother is really a lost cause in those subjects. I often say he's "verbally challenged" because he doesn't do much in the way of Facebook, Tweets, forums and it's very hard to find out what's going on his family. He loves numbers; he even enjoys number games which sounds like torture to me.

So I wondered back then in the 1970's if the test was slanted in favor of math-brains. I could see there were very different kinds of people. And how do you test for that?

Also, the test was verbal. And some people definitely do not do as well with verbal testing as with written testing. I tend to transpose numbers and letters when I hear them. Not exactly dyslexic but kinda similar. In this respect, the test was very stressful for me.

I suppose they've changed the IQ testing a lot since the 1970's, I don't know. At the time I thought the tests were a good indicator but I could see a lot of flaws even though I was just a teen.

[samuel5028]

There will one or two whose IQ might be accurate and Thanks for the info.

[jsf14]

"short-term memory, reasoning and a verbal component" there are at least three different components that make up intelligence or a "cognitive profile"( the "three different components that make up intelligence") sounds like what the SAT tests. I'll bet most good bosses will tell you that employees who are good in those areas are better able to do their "white collar-type" work.

[judymar14]

A different study everytime we turn around...Who finances them? Why not a study on which one is the most useless.

[Scimajor]

Ah humans, always trying to quantify the unquantifiable. Yet another study whose conclusion was obvious decades ago without the need for a prolonged and expensive study.

[Holy_R_Moly]

This is a junk study. There is a g-factor (single common first factor) and that is the core of what IQ has always been about. There is no news here. NO one ever said a single number summed up EVERYTHING about a person's smarts--just that all different sorts of smarts are correlated and that a single number provides a fair representation of mental ability. The authors of this study are publicity hounds who tried to pass off what they have done as radically new, when it is anything but.

[jsf14]

I agree.

[trullywhy]

Well, to call it a "myth" is exegerated, but of course catchy title. IQ testing: itisn't accurate, we knew it for long time anyway, as the idea of multiple intelligences isn't new, and also is established for such a long timne that is mentioned in academic books.So, not a big sensation here. Also linking verbal abilities with intelligence isn't new idea either,as the criticism that IQ tests are very limited.

IQ tests were administered to children c.one century ago, the test is very outdated and was designed in order to ***** academic abilities and fish out children who had real trouble (less IQ) and to see who could perform better.This was a simple purpose and people made out of it something like intelligence measuring tool in popular imagination.

I find it funny when people comment online and claim they have very high IQ.

JOLHOFT1: there are studies who study studies, those are very well established, it is called meta analizing, to say simply. TGR235: studies sometimes contradict each other, but not as much as many people assume.If they contradict each other, researchers look closer why such discrepancies find place, and why it happened, what are the indications, etc.

[trullywhy]

PS I see that a word which is part of academic terminology was transformed into stars :) The similar word is "evaluation."

[ttipbc]

"Exegerated"? Not a word. And work on your sentence structure.

[eroteme2]

'Researchers' have blessed us with another 'study'. How thankful we should be, but not me. I have had enough of these endless 'studies' by 'researchers'. Most of them border the rediculous. I especially enjoyed the 'study' when 'researchers' determined the cause of schoolgirl pregnancies was their addiction to motherhood. The others are mostly a means to 'prove' what they believe, instead of an honest search for a truthful result.

[sdouiHOWSTHAT]

Erotemes2...that is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. According to your logic, we should just stop doing brain research because you're tired of hearing the results. Stupidity worthy of the religious right.

[ttipbc]

"Rediculous"? That is not a word.