helios wrote: |
---|
Was it ever intended to? |
Given that it is called "intelligence quotient", I would hazard a guess at "yes."
helios wrote: |
---|
That's ridiculous. Motor skills are not an aspect of intelligence. |
Arguable. You could argue that someone whose CNS (central nervous system) is developed to allow greater control of muscle fibre activation (and hence greater strength, muscular endurance or dexterity) is in some ways more intelligent than other people. Some people are able to perform mental arithmetic very easily (I mean, it comes naturally to them, like walking or breathing) due to the way their brains work. Other people have a naturally well-developed CNS. In this way, they are more physically capable, more agile or more dexterous than the average person. I think this should be considered a form of intelligence.
Further, having superior motor neurons would allow greater control over motion, and hence better dexterity. I don't know if such a thing exists, but if some parts of the brain can be enlarged in some people (leading to different people being good at different things), then why not parts that deal with motor functions?
helios wrote: |
---|
Computers can solve problems. |
And? Humans are usually better at it, unless it requires heavy number crunching and such like. Computers are bad at solving problems
creatively. Creativity is of huge importance when considering intelligence, and something that IQ tests do not
helios wrote: |
---|
I remember seeing one question in a test where there were two equally valid answers, but one was harder to find. By "harder" I mean you had to look deeper into the patterns to see it. |
That's one example, it hardly defeats my whole argument. Just out of interest, did you get equal points either way?
helios wrote: |
---|
IQ tests test, I think, pattern matching skills, which makes sense if you think about it |
So then it should be PMAQ (Pattern Matching Ability Quotient). Pattern matching is not the only aspect of intelligence.
helios wrote: |
---|
Someone good at finding patterns will be good at solving problems because they'll be able to quickly apply previous experience to new situations, thus they'll also be quick learners. For example, they'll need less practice to realize when a solution in a group of solutions is more appropriate to solve a given problem. |
All true, but again, it is only one aspect of intelligence. Something which claims to quantify intelligence (hence "intelligence quotient") should consider all manifestations of intelligence.