Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by beebmam 1118 days ago
Wouldn't this imply, at least a little bit, that the current definition of IQ is a poor metric?
4 comments

Not a psychologist here.

I guess you want to say that it’s a poor metric for intelligence.

Not so sure. IQ is measured in standardized tests. Participants should have the same amount of time to answer the questions. If intelligent people take longer to reach the correct answers than non-intelligent, then, it seems paradox.

The idea could be to prolong the test. So we better see who reaches the correct answers without much time pressure (but still with the same amount). Or go even further and ask really difficult questions without any limit.

These would probably also measure the ability to concentrate, or motivation to continue, … which might not be what you want for an IQ test.

However, if your question would be true, designers of IQ test could fix them in light of this research: they plan for enough time so that even the most intelligent have time to answer the questions. It’s of course a problem to find a couple of really intelligent people if your test is flawed in the first place.

The timespan here is mostly seconds, so e.g. a "intelligent brain" might take 2 seconds instead of 1 second to solve the problem.

A standard IQ test take an hour or so to administrate.

IQ tests have problems of varying difficulty and as the article mentions easier problems are solved faster. So on average the time limit should not be a problem.
I don't think so, the subjects with higher intelligence were determined by their previous IQ score.