Originally, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) had 12 subtests that measured only Verbal IQ, Performance IQ, and Full-scale IQ.
Then after some revisions, the verbal IQ was divided into Verbal comprehension IQ and Auditory working memory IQ, and the Performance IQ was divided into Perceptual reasoning IQ and Processing speed IQ, giving four sub-IQs (called index scores) in addition to the Full-scale IQ.
Now, on the latest revision (the WISC-V), they have subdivided the Perceptual reasoning section, so there are five sub-IQs (index scores), in addition to full-scale IQ: Verbal comprehension IQ, Auditory working memory IQ, Spatial IQ, Pure abstract reasoning IQ, and Processing speed IQ (the WISC-V refers to the Pure abstract reasoning IQ as “fluid reasoning” but that’s a bit of a misnomer because it’s no more fluid than the spatial and working memory sections; the former of which also involves reasoning).
Processing speed is the least loaded on g (general intelligence factor) and I question its relevance to an IQ test since it seems as much a measure of motor speed as intelligence. On the other hand, it seems sensitive to certain neurological impairments so that’s probably why they keep the test on.
If they would let me be a consultant on the Wechsler team, I would advise they dump the Processing speed section, and replace it with Executive function IQ, and Social IQ (Theory of Mind), both of which are impaired in autism, which is a very hot topic right now.
………………………………………………………..
The term social IQ should never be confused with “emotional intelligence”, a largely pseudoscientific construct, in my humble opinion. The reason I reject “emotional intelligence” is that some tests of EQ involve impulse control and the ability to delay gratification, which strikes me as more a personality trait than a cognitive ability (though they are correlated with cognitive abilities). By contrast the term “social cognition” (Theory of Mind) refers only to the cognitive role in social interactions. Many people suck at making friends, not because they lack social cognition, but because they lack the right temperament and emotions. If an IQ test is to include social measures, it should ONLY include cognitive measures of social functioning, and leave the emotional functions to personality tests.
It’s very important to make a clear distinction between cognitive functions and emotional functions. This goes back to the most ancient philosophical understanding, which divided the mind into the intellect (that which thinks, reasons, knows and understands), and emotion (that which feels, wills and wants) Intelligence can be defined as the cognitive ability to adapt or problem solve. A problem by definition is whatever we want solved. The emotional part of the brain generates the problems, and the cognitive part (intelligence) generates solutions.
Sadly, too many psychologists today are blurring the line between cognition and emotion (assuming you believe in these concepts).
Pumpkin Person 
social IQ should never be confused with “emotional intelligence”
neither are relevant to IQ
IQ is supposed to be a measure of overall global intellectual functioning, but it can be subdivided into verbal comprehension, spatial ability, working memory etc
I’m not sure why social cognition should not be one of the subdivisions too. Indeed traditionally a couple subtests on the Wechsler (comprehension & picture arangement) were though to require some social intelligence. The mistake is when people equate personality traits with cognitive abilities
when then, that would require a different test; otherwise, we’re moving the goalposts. There are many psych tests for personality and EQ, although, unlike IQ tests, they are easier to game. When you try to lump the two, you get a less effective IQ test. If I were an employer and I wanted to know how quickly a trainee will pick up on a skill, I imagine an IQ test would be a better predictor than a personality test.
Every IQ test moves the goal posts. If an IQ test consists mostly of spatial questions, East Asians will do best.
If the test consists mostly of verbal questions, Ashkenazi Jews will do best.
Your score on an IQ test can vary a lot based on whether the test asks you to reason about words, objects, numbers etc
So the most accurate IQ tests tend to be those which include as many different kinds of cognitive abilities as possible
Should they include measures of personality and emotion? Of course not, because those are not cognitive abilities
However since the earliest days of intelligence testing, there have been some items that measured common sense understanding of social situations. One example is the picture arangement test where you must put a series of cartoon pictures in the correct sequence so they tell a logical story
Another example is the comprehension subtest which was included in the Army Alpha & many Wechsler scales & includes items like “why should you knock before entering a room?”
are you implying that tests that involve picture sequences may be culturally biased.If too many people are finding it hard to infer the intent of the test maker, either they aren’t smart enough to answer the question or the test is badly designed. Test designers try to avoid the later by coming up with situations that are common enough to avoid a cultural bias…picture sequences that involve assembling a chain of events may be a poor type of question
indeed. the fictional character House, M.D. had very high social cognitive ability, but at the same time was a jerk, a cynic, selfish, etc.
in fact, i think this may be the usual outcome. in the case of dealing with people, one can be too smart. that is, if he sees people as they really are, he becomes a misanthrope and a cynic.
and it’s been my observation countless times that the “popular people” are not especially clued in to the motivations and “frame” of other people. they’re just the one’s for whom being liked is most important and at the same time have no gross defects like ugliness or poverty.
the first question for the socially intelligent isn’t, “is what this guy’s saying true?” it’s, “why does he care about this at all? why is he saying anything at all?”
“socio-cognitive” ability is already tested to some extent in the “comprehension” subtest.
Sadly, the comprehension subtest is no longer one of the core subtests on the Wechsler. Neither is picture arangement (a non-verbal measure of social cognition)
Wechsler would be rolling in his grave
there’s even an episode of House titled “the social contract” where becuase of some brain disease the patient can’t help saying what he really thinks.
but, of course, there’s
1. not saying what you really think
2. not seeing things social as they really are.
3. not realizing that it may not be comme il faut to say such and such.
AND
4. being fully cognizant of the social norms and deliberately breaking them because you think they’re bullshit.
there’s even an episode of House titled “the social contract” where becuase of some brain disease the patient can’t help saying what he really thinks.
but, of course, there’s
1. not saying what you really think
2. not seeing things social as they really are.
3. not realizing that it may not be comme il faut to say such and such.
AND
4. being fully cognizant of the social norms and deliberately breaking them because you think they’re bullshit.
And
5. Not having the impulse control to resist speaking your mind, which is probably more a personality/emotional defect than a cognitive one, but emotions (like cognition) can be impaired by brain disease.
at the same time, however socially intelligent one is, most human behavior is inexplicable and inexplicable even to the people themselves.
they will often have rationalizations for what they do, but these aren’t the real reasons.
human beings are for the most part irrational and inexplicable.
often enough the answer to “why?” is…actually…stupidity or evil.
“can’t we all just get along?”
no! and rodney king’s plea displayed a certain lack of social intelligence. people are not only irrational and inexplicable, but when they are rational their interests are often irreconcilable…one man’s happiness is another’s misery, etc.
at the same time, however socially intelligent one is, most human behavior is inexplicable and inexplicable even to the people themselves.
they will often have rationalizations for what they do, but these aren’t the real reasons.
human beings are for the most part irrational and inexplicable.
Economists sometimes get criticized for claiming humans are rational. I agree with them only to the extent that I believe the human mind is a calculator that weighs costs and benefits (as defined by its own emotions, and what is costly to one person is beneficial to another) every waking minute of the day, and then acts according to the calculation.
I believe the notion of smart people who do dumb things is largely an oxymoron. Smart people can be dumb erratically, but not consistently, across a wide range of situations, because all conscious human behavior is motivated by the desire to solve a problem, and the better one’s cost/benefit calculator, the more efficient one’s solution
often enough the answer to “why?” is…actually…stupidity or evil.
Of course if one is evil, then evil behavior is very rational, assuming they don’t get caught, and even if they do, it may have still been a risk worth taking. But stupid people are indeed irrational because they miscalculate costs and benefits.
“can’t we all just get along?”
no! and rodney king’s plea displayed a certain lack of social intelligence. people are not only irrational and inexplicable, but when they are rational their interests are often irreconcilable…one man’s happiness is another’s misery, etc.
And even within one person, goals are often irreconcilable (i.e. I want to be rich, but I want to be lazy and moral. I want to relax and eat pizza but I want to be thin) Thus, even some super intelligent people will fail miserably to adapt, not because they lack cognitive adaptability, but because they were cursed with mutually exclusive goals.
grey enlightenment seems very…very…slow.
i was on brainsize…and i was wondering why jorge videla is still commenting here, it clearly appear that this guy’s life suck, it’s sad but it doesn’t make me sad because i don’t really give a shit…but it must be sad for his parents if they are not yet dead, to see what their beloved son became.
and a high score on the sat with that
your idea of a life that “sucks” and mine are very very different.
sic transit gloria mundi.
stat crux dum volvitur orbis.
not to excuse my not being a billionaire…
but to really explain.
“I mean about Christmas and the star and the three kings and the ox and the ass.”
“Oh yes, I believe that. It’s a lovely idea.”
“But you can’t believe things because they’re a lovely idea.”
“But I do. That’s how I believe.”
those for whom the world has nothing to offer, nothing in addition to what they have already without effort…will make no effort.
men chase after status and women and money…
for what?
why?
use your intelligence…
your SOCIAL intelligence.
That could be an item on the WAIS-IV comprehension subtest (no longer a core subtest as mentioned above)
the current “epidemic” in ASD and ADHD diagnoses can only exist because of lots of socially stupid parents.
this “epidemic” simply doesn’t exist outside the anglo-(prole-)sphere.
not in continental europe.
not in japan.
not in s korea.
etc.
steve shoe’s millions and un-critical acceptance of anglo-american psychology shows incontrovertibly that…
what makes for success in one culture are unlike those which make for success in another…
and, contradictorily, professor shoe has actually agreed with this…
why?
because indian americans are so much more successful in silicon valley than are chinese and other mongoloid americans….
shoe sees the truth when it suites him.
otherwise he’s BLIND.
I wasnt meaning that moron….i was meaning that youre simply looking unhappy…you are a broken man.
how old are you btw ? 38 ?
what’s a “broken man”?
“broken” has the sense of “tamed”.
i’m not that!
fo sho!
what is g ? from a biological point of view not a statistical one
May be you will do an article about it thats wvy you dont answer…or may be you are realizing that g doesnt exist
why this blog is gradually losing his best commenters…and keep the trash ?
why don’t you do a post on your one iq, i remember that a lot of people ask you to do so before and you were suppose to do so
you were also suppose to do the post on eminem iq that cale ask you
In November. October is just for estimating the IQ of scary people.
I will. I already mentioned it once on my old blog.
You mean you have already mentionned your real on brainsize ?
was carl churchill on your speech in nyc ? because he seems pretty sure about what color is your eyes
Was carl curchill at pumpkins speech in nyc ?
hope someone will read all my comments
[unrelated] Please estimate the IQ of Vladimir Nabokov and/or Ludwig Wittgenstein
Nevermind, they’re not scary. I’ll ask later!
I’ll do one of them in November
This makes me happy! You’re the best, PP.
and let “us” undermine peepee’s thinking…
sap her thoughts…if she knows what “sap” means…
she’s a canadian after all.
the biggest lie she believes, as do almost all americans…
that the soviet union was an economic failure…
HARDLY!
the russian empire…which became the soviet union…was, at the time of The October Revoluton, at the same level as brazil…but…
so many nobels in science, so many medals at the olympics, the world chess championship, AND…
the first man in space…
could you imagine brazil doing this?
for a country which at the time of the revolution was a JOKE!
the truth again:
i’m not a marxist, as if that meant anything. i am a stalinist.
just like zizek.
amazing how soviet socialism OVERCAME HBD…
even in athletics…
So in November we have(at least):
– The IQ of Eminem
– The IQ of Vladimir Nakobov/Ludwig Wittgenstein
– The real IQ of Pumpkin
– Sexual differences in IQ
Did I forgot smthg ?
Pumpkin, could connectivity between different brain parts with differents fonctions could influence g ?
Although Jensen felt g is a unitary trait at the psychometric level, he predicted that at the biological level, g is actually many different properties of the brain working together (i.e. overall brain size, degree of nerve myelination, brain glucose metabolism. nerve conduction velocity etc, etc)
Seems logical that connectivity would be one of these many variables. Connectivity has also been linked to autism. Autistics, if I understand correctly, have lots of short range connections which are good for specific savant talents, but not so many long range connections that are good for seeing the big picture
So if we could be able to know all these variables we could make a direct mesure of g ?
If we knew all the variables that determine g and how they interacted, we could directly measure g.
But it’s tricky because many people argue g is different in different populations in different times and places. However others argue that humans and animals can be ranked on the same g factor and that there’s been much natural selection for g among other primates
g is whatever causes all mental abilities to positively correlate in a given population at a given time.