Maggie Toplak: What IQ Tests Miss

Do intelligence and rationality go hand in hand?

Maggie Toplak is an associate professor at York University in the department of psychology and faculty of health. One of her main areas of interest is reasoning and decision making.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• IQ
• Intelligence
• Quotient
• Rational
• Thought
• Rationality
• TVO
• TVOntario
• Ontario
• Canada
• Agenda
• Steve
• Paikin
• current
• affairs
• analysis
• debate

[koldFREEZE29]

I study physics and took a course about statistics. Maggie Toplak is actually wrong about the gambling problem. I a coins has come up head five times there is a slightly greater chance than 50% that the coin will come up head again that six'th time.

Imagine the coin had come up head a billion times and tail zero times in a real life situation. In that case the coin is probably fixed and therefore the probability for head is very large.

[jonros1369]

a ball and bat is 110, the bat is a dollar more than the ball, this is using the bat being a minimum of 101, then the ball is 01- 9, not including tax,the bat can be 103- leaving the ball at 7. as long as the ball does not exceed 9, the bat cannot diminish below 101 as long as they add up your right unless math doesn't work in canada

[jonros1369]

stupid question, the answer could not be determined, speculating does not solve the answer, no wonder iq test are not reliable

[braddyboy82]

Let's keep in mind here, these are Canadians talking. So factor that while you watch this video.

[BartBVanBockstaele]

@Mzbecharm EQ is not taken seriously where classical intelligence is concerned. There are two big reasons for this. EQ seems to be a creation of types who just happen to score rather low on IQ tests and who -sour grapes- therefore feel the need to add something completely different to the issue.

Let's not forget to IQ is (trying to be) about solving problems for which there is an objective solution. Rationality is part of that equation. Emotion is not, if anything, it is a hindrance.

[wize1]

evidence that western science is slow to understand the complexity of human mind -- obviously book smarts does not equate to life decision making or AKA street smarts. its just one part of many intelligences.. at least shes breaking some peoples false egos!

[Mzbecharm]

@BartBVanBockstaele I would said: IQ, RQ and EQ (emotion intelligences)

[Mzbecharm]

@longshikong For your information, it is a legitimate question to test one's RQ, Here are the reasons: problems like this are can easily been solved with our previous knowledge of mathematics solving skill. ( x + 1.00 + x = 1.10) HOWEVER, people are less rational will jump quick to the conclusion and subtract one number out from another. AND even if you have no skill in mathematics, you should stop and check your answer first (a = 10 cents) for it is irrational and incorrect.

[longshikong]

Aren't the questions in the 2nd half, IQ rather than RQ? Otherwise, both would appear highly irrational. If, as Toplak states, rationality is both "achieving personal goals" and 'how we make choices and our natural tendencies', then the example questions clearly exclude the former and possibly the latter definition as well. At least it underscores the degree to which standardized IQ tests have become the determining factor of how smart we are.

[BartBVanBockstaele]

I loved this interview and I very much agree with Maggie Toplak. It would be great to see rationality tests as a part of test batteries. I see IQ, rationality and (to a lesser extent) memory as three important elements of intelligence. They are all, on their own, necessary but insufficient.