IQ tests only need to be proctored so that they are verified. If you're not so deluded you'll let yourself cheat on time or take questions you've seen before you can administer your own test with just a little discipline and a stopwatch, but the result is only useful for yourself (and anyone who trusts your objectivity greatly)
The hardest part is finding a good test, which have to be taken blind, so you have to take the whole test first and then evaluate if it was a good test, ideally before you receive/calculate your results to avoid bias.
Plus IQ is a pretty dated term for g, a measure of general intelligence, the holy grail of semi-quantifiable transferable capability across a wide range of cognitive tasks that the layperson intuits as natural intelligence. The most state of the art batteries of tests don't typically bill themselves as IQ tests anymore.
My understanding is that IQ and g are distinct. g is the quality that IQ attempts to (imperfectly) measure. Are there tests that present themselves as 'g' tests rather than IQ tests?
Yeah, 'g' is what IQ wishes it was but couldn't quite be.
Turns out it still can't be easily pinned down as a single objective number, best we get is more of a coefficient. After taking a bunch of different cognitive tests, weighting the results and integrating things down a level or two you can try to figure out how much those results were down to generalized cognitive aptitude and how much was specialised/learned talent for each task.
CHC cognitive testing (edit- changed from CAS, I mixed up my three letter cognitive test acronyms, -0.03g for me. You can also use the CAS2 battery of tests to calculate 'g' too, but they're against the idea that 'g' is a single constant so it seems kind of rude to do so 😂) is one battery of tests that has been around for a while that doesn't purport to be an "IQ test" but is comprehensive enough to be used as a base to try and calculate 'g' from. But that's the thing, the tests themselves stop at giving you the results of multiple independent cognitive performance tests, the 'g' calculating is something else afterwards.
The 'g' is only semi-dependant on the test results, you can get the different 'g' results from the same answers just by changing how you weight each test result, and they're all debatably plausible. 'g' is supposed to be the essence of general intelligence, it is not learned or specialized, it is something structural and rock steady across all tasks. The hallmark of a good formula for 'g' interpretation is that it is even more tightly heritable than traditional IQ values. But it's also kind of an academic distinction, good IQ values still track very closely with 'g' and the only diagnostic advantage of 'g' is potentially differentiating between edge cases of someone with high 'g' and low learned ability across almost all cognitive tasks and someone with moderate 'g' and high learned ability across almost all cognitive tasks, but the real world problem solving ability of both individuals is going to be comparable except on one or two types of task.
IQ tests only need to be proctored so that they are verified. If you're not so deluded you'll let yourself cheat on time or take questions you've seen before you can administer your own test with just a little discipline and a stopwatch, but the result is only useful for yourself (and anyone who trusts your objectivity greatly)
The hardest part is finding a good test, which have to be taken blind, so you have to take the whole test first and then evaluate if it was a good test, ideally before you receive/calculate your results to avoid bias.
Plus IQ is a pretty dated term for g, a measure of general intelligence, the holy grail of semi-quantifiable transferable capability across a wide range of cognitive tasks that the layperson intuits as natural intelligence. The most state of the art batteries of tests don't typically bill themselves as IQ tests anymore.
My understanding is that IQ and g are distinct. g is the quality that IQ attempts to (imperfectly) measure. Are there tests that present themselves as 'g' tests rather than IQ tests?
Yeah, 'g' is what IQ wishes it was but couldn't quite be.
Turns out it still can't be easily pinned down as a single objective number, best we get is more of a coefficient. After taking a bunch of different cognitive tests, weighting the results and integrating things down a level or two you can try to figure out how much those results were down to generalized cognitive aptitude and how much was specialised/learned talent for each task.
CHC cognitive testing (edit- changed from CAS, I mixed up my three letter cognitive test acronyms, -0.03g for me. You can also use the CAS2 battery of tests to calculate 'g' too, but they're against the idea that 'g' is a single constant so it seems kind of rude to do so 😂) is one battery of tests that has been around for a while that doesn't purport to be an "IQ test" but is comprehensive enough to be used as a base to try and calculate 'g' from. But that's the thing, the tests themselves stop at giving you the results of multiple independent cognitive performance tests, the 'g' calculating is something else afterwards.
The 'g' is only semi-dependant on the test results, you can get the different 'g' results from the same answers just by changing how you weight each test result, and they're all debatably plausible. 'g' is supposed to be the essence of general intelligence, it is not learned or specialized, it is something structural and rock steady across all tasks. The hallmark of a good formula for 'g' interpretation is that it is even more tightly heritable than traditional IQ values. But it's also kind of an academic distinction, good IQ values still track very closely with 'g' and the only diagnostic advantage of 'g' is potentially differentiating between edge cases of someone with high 'g' and low learned ability across almost all cognitive tasks and someone with moderate 'g' and high learned ability across almost all cognitive tasks, but the real world problem solving ability of both individuals is going to be comparable except on one or two types of task.