/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9752889
There's a lot of different IQ tests, but the standards are memory and pattern recognition, usually tied to time. Some of the more elaborate ones test fluid reasoning (usually verbal only), or even academic stuff, like vocabulary.

A typical test might go like so:
>Arrange blocks to match image (timed)
>Recite the following series of random numbers (each set larger than the last until 3 consecutive fails)
>Determine which of these objects completes this series of images (timed)
...and so on and so forth.

It's psychology, so there's no "scientific assessment" somuchas there is a lot of debate, but the goal is usually to detect specific learning disabilities and aptitudes. Like most things in psychology, it's not meant to be an absolute end until itself, so much as open opportunities for further analyses.

>>8148260
>IQ isn't genetic, it depends on your education
IQ is independent of education, that's the point of an IQ test. It only tests your ability to solve puzzles and memory capacity, and shouldn't change drastically, regardless of education level. (Though childhood nutrition are definitely another thing.)

That said, the differences between blacks and whites is minute, they both fall well within each other's general range, even in the most biased of surveys. ...and both Asians and Jews test better than Whites.

You'd also be surprised how many Noble award winning scientists had their IQ's measured below 100. The mind is more nuanced than a simple IQ test can ascertain, and various strength and weaknesses compensate for one another in unpredictable ways. Even within the IQ test itself, some folks score abnormally high, in say spacial recognition, but poorly in memory, creating scores that are not necessarily representative of their actual potential.