If by mechanical intelligence, you mean the ability to learn certain kinds of things by doing, or being mechanically-inclined, then even that is not really a good measure of IQ, I think. I am in the autistic spectrum, with "mild" Asperger's (meaning everyone finds me wierd, but not necessarily bizarre or offensive, as they might those with a much worse case). So socially I am pretty "stupid", but mechanically I am pretty quick on the uptake, and especially with patterns of certain kinds of things I am very good at recognition and figuring things out (even though I can rarely get anyone else to see what I see once I do). I'm also horrible at math, and programming, and other things requiring logical structures. Intuitive leaps and formless-pattern-finding, now that I can do very well. Some of those leaps even leave me standing upright, instead of at terminal velocity just beyond the edge of a cliff. 
Of course, that's among all those graded by a particular test. So if your area took a test that biased it's questions toward information or ways of asking questions that did not match the culture your area's people were raised and educated in, it's scores would naturally be lower than an area that did match those questions and information in it's upbringing and education, and vice-versa.
IQ isn't totally meaningless, but it's a relative thing, and because ways of thinking vary between cultures, and so do ways of asking questions, no single test is suited to all cultures. Thus, no single "normal" or "nominal" point can be given on any numeric scale that equates between cultures, and IQ can't be truly equated between cultures that differ by much.
Even just writing a test in British English and having American English speakers take that test, you would have a percentage of otherwise very smart people miss questions simply because of language differences (assuming insufficient context in the question to figure it out). If a question of any type referred to the boot of a car, the American might or might not know that is the "trunk". Or it might speak of chips, biscuits, or some other same-name-different-item food, which would confuse some Americans.
It would be even worse with people that had no experience with some item referenced in a question, or with the phrasing of a question (even if it had been translated from the original language).
Even the translation of a question itself could change the conditions of the test sufficiently to bias the test, simply because some languages are specific about certain things that others are not, such as gender. Some languages have no gender-neutral references but others only have that kind, so in translation a question might potentially give away an answer, or might destroy the context a question was written with, making it difficult or impossible to be certain of the answer.
If the questions are actually written specifically for a certain culture, then you still can't compare the results of that test with the tests for other cultures, *because* the questions are different.
So while IQ tests might or might not be hogwash, the measurements they give are certainly not cross-culturally equal.
Wouldn't, by definition, the average IQ be around 100?Being from s africa, you will notice that our ave iq here is around 67
Of course, that's among all those graded by a particular test. So if your area took a test that biased it's questions toward information or ways of asking questions that did not match the culture your area's people were raised and educated in, it's scores would naturally be lower than an area that did match those questions and information in it's upbringing and education, and vice-versa.
IQ isn't totally meaningless, but it's a relative thing, and because ways of thinking vary between cultures, and so do ways of asking questions, no single test is suited to all cultures. Thus, no single "normal" or "nominal" point can be given on any numeric scale that equates between cultures, and IQ can't be truly equated between cultures that differ by much.
Even just writing a test in British English and having American English speakers take that test, you would have a percentage of otherwise very smart people miss questions simply because of language differences (assuming insufficient context in the question to figure it out). If a question of any type referred to the boot of a car, the American might or might not know that is the "trunk". Or it might speak of chips, biscuits, or some other same-name-different-item food, which would confuse some Americans.
It would be even worse with people that had no experience with some item referenced in a question, or with the phrasing of a question (even if it had been translated from the original language).
Even the translation of a question itself could change the conditions of the test sufficiently to bias the test, simply because some languages are specific about certain things that others are not, such as gender. Some languages have no gender-neutral references but others only have that kind, so in translation a question might potentially give away an answer, or might destroy the context a question was written with, making it difficult or impossible to be certain of the answer.
If the questions are actually written specifically for a certain culture, then you still can't compare the results of that test with the tests for other cultures, *because* the questions are different.
So while IQ tests might or might not be hogwash, the measurements they give are certainly not cross-culturally equal.
Last edited:
