Ratio IQ estimation versus IQ tests

It occurs to me that ratio IQ estimation has a great advantage over IQ tests. All IQ tests have ceiling effects: a gifted child can easily bump against these ceilings or have their test score lowered without even bumping against them. The simple presence of a ceiling has a depressant effect on scoring.

So what can we do about this? Well, I would advise an older method of estimating IQ, used for assessing the IQs of people who were not able to be tested in any other ways: ratio IQ estimation.

Why is there an advantage to ratio IQ estimation, as detailed in the previous post? Well, there are NO ceiling effects and you are getting a true grasp of how gifted a child is. The estimate of IQ obtained by looking at ratio IQs may seem a rough guide - but it could prove far more accurate than measuring the more gifted children with a test that has a ceiling of some kind - even a high ceiling. The estimate you get will not have been capped by the ceiling of a test. In this way, we can be sure that the estimates of historic personages like William James Sidis - estimated at 250 to 300 - are accurate, in the sense that they are likely to be at least a threshold below which he could not have been, to have achieved what he did.

So, are we to throw away IQ tests? Well, perhaps for our most gifted, we should - because ALL IQ tests have natural ceilings and all will depress scores for the most gifted. This problem is now much more serious than it used to be, since, for reasons that are quite unfathomable, all modern tests are designed to lower the scores of gifted students. All of these tests will give an inaccurate assessment of any gifted child.

So, if you want a truer handle on your child's giftedness, calculate a ratio IQ: it will give a better insight into the true state of affairs, if your child is one of those who hits ceilings.

The Great IQ Con

Perhaps you have taken an IQ test. Perhaps you scored well. Perhaps you think you know your IQ, then. It is probable that you don't, however.

You see IQ tests don't behave in the way that people expect. They don't actually measure the upper ranges of humanity very well, at all. In fact, they are a source of much mismeasure. The modern IQ test isn't equipped to ascertain the most gifted among us at all - in fact, it is almost as if they are designed to hide them. Perhaps that is exactly what is happening.

I should explain. Everyone has heard the phrase "ceiling effects" - but there is much more to it than this. Firstly, when do ceiling effects invalidate the test result? One researcher put it that if you have answered 90% of the test items then that test cannot measure your IQ. The result is invalid. Indeed, an IQ test can only give an accurate result if you are able only to answer HALF the questions. The higher your point of failure to answer is above that, the less accurate the result will be.

When else might we see ceiling effects? If you scored in the 99th percentile on ANY subtest, then that test is, more than likely, underestimating your score. It cannot determine how much beyond that score you would have scored in a test with a higher ceiling. This is important to note. Just because this has happened, does not mean your score - or your child's score would have been astronomically beyond the ceiling - it might be in the right place after all - but it is more than likely that it is an underestimate - and it could be a very great discrepancy indeed. There is no way of knowing.

That seems bad enough. But wait until you hear about what they do to the "norming". Did you know that the number of extremely gifted individuals is higher than expected for a normal distribution of intelligence? Did you also know that the number of extremely intellectually impaired individuals is much higher than expected too? In a rational profession, given to promoting truth, above convenience or dogma, you would have thought that psychologists would acknowledge this...but no. What do IQ tests do? They eliminate the phenomenon by cheating the test.

What I mean by this is that the norms of the test impose an artificial correction of the results to eliminate the unexpectedly high number of extremely gifted scorers. They "compress" the upper scoring range to fit a normal curve, artificially "re-norming" or depressing high scores. Basically, modern psychometric tests steal IQ points from you, by pretending those points don't exist: they are simply squashed out of existence.

How many points are lost in this fashion? I have seen one estimate, by a psychologist not happy about the situation, placing the discrepancy at 25 points, for high scorers. This means someone who would have scored 180 - and been labelled "profoundly gifted" - may be renormed to score 155 - a much more common seeming score.

In practice, how much discrepancy do all these effects add up to? Prepare to be shocked - but first place an estimate on it yourself and see just how honest and fair to the gifted population modern psychometric testing is.

Got a number?

Well, the measured difference on real life test cases between some extremely gifted children measured on old style tests, with higher ceilings - and modern tests with much lower ceilings is - an unbelievable 85 to 107 IQ points.

That means something very clear. The most gifted segment of the population will not now be identifiable - but will score similarly to those who are moderately or slightly more gifted.

One real life example scored 120 points on a WISC test. The same person scored 220 on an old Stanford Binet LM. Now, that is disturbing. For the child would not have been admitted to a gifted program on the basis of the first score - yet was clearly very profoundly gifted when measured on a test with a higher ceiling.

Remember this: you DON'T have to score at the top of a test, to be affected by the ceiling. Ceiling effects get stronger the closer you get to the end of the test - but make the test totally invalid by the time 90 per cent of the test items are answered. Yet, long before that point, they could be making a significant difference to the results.

IQ is not what it was - and it never was what we thought it was, anyway. What a con.