Here is a summary that I was particularly pleased with because it demonstrates critical thinking. It highlights some of the problems with intelligence tests and gives real life evidence (not in all instances but pretty good) of why the author is skeptical about IQ tests. It also ties the issue of IQ testing to a broader social context showing that this is not just an academic exercise of psychologists but that perceptions of IQ have an impact on people in real life. We always need to be on the lookout for evidence that supports or refutes any given statement and then decide what our stance is on an issue based on evidence not just personal opinion. That is what critical evaluation is.

Summary on Intelligence

It appears that both Daki and I feel that emotional intelligence, is not something that can easily be measured, or even if it exsists. Context plays an important role in how you react to something(like a pet dying). Your upbrinnging probaly also play a large role emotional reactions. This also plays into culture as well. Also the writer of the quastionare may also have specific feelings about what is an indication of emotional quotient. Does this mean that they're correct? These issues also aply to the measuring of Intelligence. Just because Galton felt that reaction time was the key to intelligence doesn't mean he was right. We know that many things can effect intelligence. Socioeconomic standing is a big part of it. "The Bell Curve" almost proves
it, by the testing groups that were used. Also the difficulty of defining intelligence is reflected in the poblem of testing it. Is it the ability to learn? Well the school grades should be a way to test it, but doesn't work and study habits play into that as well. Also some say that IQ is consitant in your life time, but then why do people score higher after attending university? So that can't be it. Reaction time? Oh,well I guess Stephen Hawking is mentally retarded. Language? So someone who's first language is not english is stupid. What about the language the tester uses
in their questions. If you don't quite understand the question are you not intelligent. If the writer is an english major, that has an overwhelming vocabulary and uses it, wouldn't that be difficultfo someone in (for example) engineering, who takes so little english courses. Throughout the history of intelligence tests there have been many writers with agendas. There have been tests designed specifically for the first eugenics programs, also "The Bell Curve" shows that you can manipulate tests and their results to prove whatever you want.In general we all have to be leary of these sorts of tests because we're not sure what they are really testing or what the questioner is going to do with it.

(This group also answered the Gardner question in a separate message)