After reading all about IQ and tests to give you a proper intelligence result, the more I realized how non-valid it can be. I realize there are many correlations that show it shows the potential success and job success, but it does not do it entirely. What really grinds my gears is the fact that all college institutions, including IVY League schools rely on such tests as ACT and SAT. Also, the fact that there are programs out there to "boost" your ACT or SAT score by the means of attending a class for a month shows that it can be pretty easy to learn a concept that the test covers pretty easily. These IQ tests are suppose to be tests of what you learned your whole entire life, not what you learned in 4 weeks. I am glad that GPA is another factor that schools look into which shows work ethic, not just intelligence. In the job industry, you could have a worker who is naturally gifted academically, but won't work at all, so no work gets done. I really hope psychologists find a different method of IQ testing that is more valid than the ones now, or find a different system for colleges to accept students in for.
jaciu002: April 2012 Archives
Lying, it is apart of everyone's lives even though it is so frowned upon in society. It is moral's worst enemy. Studies have shown that college students will tell about two lies per day! So, when can we tell if someone really is telling a lie? There is no right answer, research shows that there is only about a 50-50 chance of being right, but average population shows about 55% accuracy. With these statistics, how are polygraph testers a whopping 98% accurate? It turns out that these can actually be quite misconstrued. In fact, it can pick up false positives (innocent people who are labeled as guilty, even when innocent). In addition, a polygraph test can confuse arousal with guilt, which jokingly got its name as the "arousal detector" rather than the "lie detector". So a suspect to a crime could be feeling an emotion other than guilt like anxiety when answering a question and the polygraph would pick up on it as a lie rather than just anxiety in itself. It also picks up on false negatives (people labeled as innocent even though they are guilty). So, if there are so many problems with this, then why do so many examiners insist on using such a non-liable piece of equipment? This can be answered by the sole fact that a polygraph elicits confessions, especially when the victim is guilty. It is a shame that it is still used though due to the fact that all of its results lead to the fact of how unfalsifiable it really is.