Instigator / Pro
1493
rating
3
debates
16.67%
won
Topic

IQ is a good measure of intelligence.

Status
Debating

Waiting for the contender's third argument.

The round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Science
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Judicial decision
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
1716
rating
45
debates
70.0%
won
Description
~ 215 / 5,000

definitions:
good: correct in most cases to determine whether or not someone has a characteristic.
intelligence: high ability to solve problems.

rules:
1. stick to the definitions.
2. The burden of proof is shared.

Round 1
Pro
The first thing to keep in mind is that the different intelligences are correlated.

This becomes more obvious when you consider that there is not a single shark that surpasses it in some type of intelligence, the difference between species shows the g factor.
Now, unlike what many say, the IQ does not measure only logical-mathematical intelligence, but also spatial and verbal linguistics, mathematical logic.
the IQ is nothing more than a generalization of these aspects, so the effect of this correlation becomes even more precise, now the IQ is directly correlated with the success within each respective profession
which in itself implies a higher capacity for problem solving.

Con
Measure: a way to discover the excact size or amount of something  (the result must be expressed by number(s) and a unit(s))

Unit: a reference "amount" of something   (examples:  temperature-Kelvin, distance-metre, etc)



ARGUMENTS


There are different types of intelligence
The ability to learn, think and solve problems is not restricted to logical puzzles. Yet IQ tests are, making them unrepresentative.


IQ tests captures too little to accurately represent intelligence
"""After conducting the largest online intelligence study on record, a Western University-led research team has concluded that the notion of measuring one's intelligence quotient or IQ by a singular, standardized test is highly misleading. The results showed that when a wide range of cognitive abilities are explored, the observed variations in performance can only be explained with at least three distinct components: short-term memory, reasoning and a verbal component.
No one component, or IQ, explained everything. Furthermore, the scientists used a brain scanning technique known as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), to show that these differences in cognitive ability map onto distinct circuits in the brain.""" [1].

IQ even fails at measuring logical problem-solving skills. IQ misrepresents intellectual ability by oversimplifying it into one number when you need at least three.


Intelligence Quotient is not a valid unit for measurement
Unlike the Kelvin, the metre or the second, IQ is not actually a defined unit. Nobody knows what 1 IQ means, nor do we know the actuall difference between a person with 200 and one with 300 IQ. All IQ tells us is where on the distribution of test scores any given person would land. If everyone become twice as smart, IQ scores would not change. And no, the test scores are not valid measurement units either. The tests are made with difficulty corresponding to the capability of humans. We know that animals are intelligent to some degree, but unlike good measurements like kilogram, IQ tests are incompatible with animals. We would need to make new tests for animals. But then we wouldn't know how high of an IQ a human would get if it were to take the new easier test for animals.

IQ cannot actually measure intelligence as it neither has a unit of intelligence nor a scale of intelligence.



REBUTTALS

The first thing to keep in mind is that the different intelligences are correlated... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3985090/

I find no support this statement in PRO's source, and it didn't mention a shark either. The study's conclusion is as follows: "Cortical thickness is positively associated with general intelligence (g) in a wide distribution of cortical association areas in both brain hemispheres." Correlation between the size of the brain and cognitive abilities is not the same as IQ describing the other types of intelligence. Thus, IQ is still not proven representative for intelligence.


the IQ is directly correlated with the success within each respective profession
This correlation between IQ and success is not conclusive evidence. Even if IQ was directly correlated to intelligence it would still not be a good measurement of intelligence. On average, mass is correlated to a star's volume, but that doesn't mean that kilogram is a good measure of volume. To measure the volume of a star you have to measure the diameter of that star. Similarly, you cannot measure intelligence without testing all relevant aspects of it.


At best, IQ is an estimation of total intelligence --- not a measurement. With current technology and our limited knowledge it is impossible to measure intelligence.




CONCLUSION:
IQ is not a good measure of intelligence. The resolution fails.
Round 2
Pro
riddle:
a puzzling, misleading, or puzzling question posed as a problem to be solved.
Many questions on an IQ test are neither puzzling nor misleading, so the test is not limited to logical puzzles.
Now your second argument is irrelevant, even if the IQ test is very misleading, even if it is not able to measure all the variations in cognitive abilities, even if it does not explain everything, and even if more components are needed, that does not . . It means that it does not determine in most cases whether or not someone has a measure of intelligence, which is the only thing I have to prove given the definitions in the description.
your other argument is also irrelevant, it doesn't matter whether or not IQ is a valid measure of intelligence, it only matters whether it determines in most cases whether someone has a measure of intelligence (check definition of good in description).
If most of the intelligences are correlated with the size of the cerebral cortex, then as one intelligence increases, the more likely that the cerebral cortex is large and, therefore, the other intelligences are high; however, the IC analyzes various types of intelligence. That means a person with a high IQ is more likely to be intelligent than someone with a low IQ and someone with a medium IQ, someone with a low IQ is less likely to be intelligent than someone with a medium IQ. . and someone with a high IQ While someone with a medium IQ The IQ is less likely than someone with a high IQ and more than someone with a low IQ, that is, in most cases the IQ it is correct to determine if someone is smart or not.
the correlation of success is not conclusive, but it is a good indication, now if intelligence and IQ are correlated, that means that in most cases the IQ determines whether or not a person possesses a measure of intelligence (if has some degree of intelligence to possess it.)
Again, it is not relevant whether or not the IQ is a measure of intelligence, it is only relevant whether in most cases it determines whether or not someone possesses an intelligence measure.

Con


Of course not all questions on IQ-tests are riddles --- because none of them are. Here are some riddles, for reference. You need to understand that riddles and logical puzzles do not have even remotely the same meaning. Your argument for IQ testing broad skillsets is terrible, so I will refer to your first round.

 IQ does not measure only logical-mathematical intelligence, but also spatial and verbal linguistics, mathematical logic.
IQ-test question examples. The overwhelming majority of theese questions are spacial reasoning. The reason for that is that any other type of question would be unbelieveably misleading. Math and language knowledge is dependent on your upbringing and education more than on your intelligence. Including a wide array of questions would make the test inherently biased and unfair. History shows us this problem to the point where IQ-test have been used to justify racism and discrimination against people groups that weren't unintelligent but simply from different cultures [1]. 


That means a person with a high IQ is more likely to be intelligent than someone with a low IQ
PRO is here talking in terms of probability. The reason for this is that IQ-tests don't measure intelligence, they really only estimate it, and that based on testing a tiny fraction of a persons ability to solve problems written in paper. PRO argues that since IQ is correlated to intelligence, IQ tests actually measure intelligence. This is false, as the largest test on intelligence concluded that measuring intelligence with one number is impossible, you need at least 3. Correlation between the intelligences and the cerebral cortex thickness doesn't prove the validity of IQ as a way to measure the intelligences.

 it doesn't matter whether or not IQ is a valid measure of intelligence, it only matters whether it determines in most cases whether someone has a measure of intelligence 
PRO is shifting the goalpost. Everyone has "a measure of intelligence", and IQ-tests are not made with that purpose in mind. They are made as an attempt to quantify intelligence, which studies have show to be impossible with only one number. I have shown how IQ-tests don't measure intelligence, a fact which PRO has yet to dispute. His concession is followed by an appeal to nonsensical, unsourced definitions in the description. The latter of which defined "good" as being correct in most cases to determine whether or not someone has a carachteristic. In that case, the word "good" in the tittle has one meaning while the word "measure" has a completely other meaning. Neither I nor the voters are under any obligation to interpret the resolution in this constructed, nonsensical manner.


PRO did not rebutt my arguments or my evidence proving that IQ is not a good measure of intelligence. Extend all arguments.


CONCLUSION:
Intelligence cannot be validly nor accurately measured by IQ. The resolution fails.
Round 3
Pro
If you say that the puzzle and the logic puzzle mean different things, you must present the sources; If we put the definition of logic and puzzle together, it turns out that a logic puzzle is a puzzle.
The tests it shows are Internet tests, so they are generally incomplete, finding a complete test on the Internet will take some time, so I will show that example in the next round.
Knowledge of mathematics and language are related to intelligence, due to their limited access to information, they had lower intelligence on average.
naturally I speak of probability, because it is the only thing I have to prove.
Just because IQ tests are not done with a purpose in mind does not mean that they cannot fulfill that purpose, the reason they serve that purpose is that in most of them they determine whether or not someone has a high capacity. to solve problems and therefore a unit of that capacity, unit, since a quantity of something (in this case the intelligence of the person) is a unit.
The definition must be interpreted that way, as the rules say, it must conform to the definitions, otherwise it must be considered misconduct.
It is true that they have different different meanings, however when the definition you gave is combined with the one I gave it is concluded that I just have to show that in most cases someone has a high capacity problem solving unit.
I have shown that IQ is correct in most cases when determining if someone has a high degree of problem solving, the reason they do not refute their arguments is because most of them are irrelevant.
It does not matter if the IQ measures intelligence or not, it does not matter if it is incomplete to have a margin of failure, the only thing that matters is if it is correct in most cases when determining if someone has a high capacity unit for solve problems, and that is shown by the correlation between IQ and intelligence.
no fonts are needed because the description explains what I mean by good.

Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet