Reini Urban <······@sbox.tu-graz.ac.at> writes:
>
> The easiest way of course would be to try and train other IQ tests. but
> this is probably only needed for hiring tests not for improving
> programming skills.
Indeed, to improve ones programming skills I guess you want to
practice programming and study relevant theoretical work. Improving
ones ability to get high IQ scores will presumably have little bearing
on this.
The trouble with IQ tests is they try to associated a number with
something that is inhenetly much more complex than can be captured by
such. Some people are very good at certain tasks that require
intelligence and not so great at others. It the context of the currect
discussion it may be that some people are just much better able to
express certain algorithms in, for example, C++; whereas others may
find Lisp provides a closer match with the way they envisage things.
From: Richard MacDonald
Subject: Trouble with IQ (Was Re: A Philosophical Diversion)
Date:
Message-ID: <6vle6n$qfv$1@news.kc.bv.com>
Paul Rudin wrote in message ...
>Reini Urban <······@sbox.tu-graz.ac.at> writes:
>>
>> The easiest way of course would be to try and train other IQ tests. but
>> this is probably only needed for hiring tests not for improving
>> programming skills.
>
>Indeed, to improve ones programming skills I guess you want to
>practice programming and study relevant theoretical work. Improving
>ones ability to get high IQ scores will presumably have little bearing
>on this.
>
>The trouble with IQ tests is they try to associated a number with
>something that is inhenetly much more complex than can be captured by
>such. Some people are very good at certain tasks that require
>intelligence and not so great at others. It the context of the currect
>discussion it may be that some people are just much better able to
>express certain algorithms in, for example, C++; whereas others may
>find Lisp provides a closer match with the way they envisage things.
>
The *real* trouble with IQ tests is how they are misused. They were invented
strictly as a tool for identifying retardation. There was *no* significance
to a number any higher than 50. Some stupid (and racist) sociologist took
the idea and ran with it. Society has paid dearly ever since. See Steven Jay
Gould's book "The Mismeasure of Man".