Why are some people really good at standardized testing? Forum

[ajmanyjah]

Just for those comparing the LSATs to IQ tests, they aren't considered to be in the same class of test by those who make it. They also consider any measurement beyond 130 (ie three standard deviations, 99th percentile) in ANY test to be inherently unreliable, at least when it comes to aptitude. And the first Binet tests were primarily tests of reflexes, not cognitive abilities.
-----

FTR, 130 is standard deviation 2 (not 3) for most IQ tests, and actually Stanford-Binet is a 16-point standard deviation increment test, meaning that 132 is the SD2 level. Each SD increase from the 100-level IQ baseline represents the addition of a "9" to the percentile rank in descending place-value order corresponding to increase by standard deviation (the increase is actually in terms of 'rarity' of the score). Therefore, using a 15-point increment curve: SD1 (115 IQ)=90th percentile/out of 10 people you are smartest; SD2 (130 IQ)=99th percentile/out of 100 people you are smartest; SD3 (145 IQ)= 99.9 percentile/out of 1,000 people you are smartest, SD4 (160 IQ)= 99.99 percentile/ out of 10,000 people you are smartest; SD5 (175 IQ)= 99.999 percentile/out of 100,000 people you are smartest etc. Using a 16-point increment scale (such as Stanford-Binet), the scores corresponding to these increments are 116,132,148,164,180. The scale (bell curve) also moves in reverse below one hundred, though I lack much understanding in how intellectual deficits/MR is measured, especially into the very profound and unusual range. From what I have read there is considerable variability across different types of IQ tests; in fact, a person who arguably has the world's highest IQ has one calculation that is around 180, and another around 230, which are considered essentially the same score due to the different types of scales used/tests administered. I question whether individuals who score extremely high like this on IQ tests are perhaps extremely good at performing the tasks required by these tests rather than necessarily having a profound intelligence in the functional (useful) sense. I think that real genius centers upon the question of utility and accomplishment more than that of ability. Profound cognitive ability is required for certain types of intellectual accomplishment, but apart from helpful application I believe that high-IQ is in fact a totally neutral quality (just as likely bad as good- reference UNABomber who has a 167 IQ, or Bobby Fischer with a 180s IQ, who though not comparable to UNAbomber in terms of negative impact, made some pretty outrageous and bizarre racist statements according to what I have read).

Really?...hmm I need to brush up, my psych test prof would kick my ass (though the class was damned easy in the end)

[ajmanyjah]

The gap between individuals can already be predicted between 2 and 8 months of age. Some of this might still be environmental, but I think it runs counter to the idea that it's just the environment.

Edit:Research on newborns isn't as common in the field(or available for met-analysis) because it's kind of difficult logistically to do studies on newborns(Hi, I hear you *just* gave birth, can we do a test on your newborn?)

Ugh I hate to post over and over again, but tests (even on newborns) still don't discount the ability of newborns to take in the environment. Fetal conditioning exists---for example, a baby who hears Japanese prosody in the womb is more likely to be able to perceive it even when just born.

Yeah, but what environmental factors would you suggest would produce those results? Don't misunderstand me--I absolutely believe that the environment plays a role, without a doubt, and a lot of evidence supports this. I also believe, with a fair amount of data supporting it as well, that genetics plays a role as well.
Also, yes, science journalism is like this:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174

Hearing Japanese in the womb, the replicated the womb and found prosodic elements can be heard---the counter test for control was someone adopted at birth to a different language before language exposure and also cross testing prosodies--

As for intelligence testing, I would say things like pre-natal vitamins, drug use by the mother etc (though crack babies have been proven to not actually be worse off, cigs and drink babies are)...

The issue I have with the nature/nurture divide is that you aren't measuring genomes with these tests, but statistical similarities, while nurture can be quantified as of now

[094320]

..

[jason8821]

I know this thread is long dead , but I just recently read Colvin's Talent is Overrated and I was wondering if anyone else got into this book, and if so how you think it relates to the LSAT. For those who didn't read it, The main point is pretty much that people are not naturally more prone to becoming great at birth, extreme talent in most fields (he does mention that this is not the case in fields where height, or some other extreme genetic benefit/defect come into play.) is the result of "deliberate practice" which basically means practicing all of the hard stuff over and over, while having other environmental factors come into play (I.E a good teacher). It is safe to infer that according to Colvin a person with a 100 on a standard IQ test at the age of 10, would certainly score higher on the LSAT than a similar person scoring a 140 if the former invested significantly more hours of deliberate practice than the later. Any thoughts?

[d34d9823]

I know this thread is long dead , but I just recently read Colvin's Talent is Overrated and I was wondering if anyone else got into this book, and if so how you think it relates to the LSAT. For those who didn't read it, The main point is pretty much that people are not naturally more prone to becoming great at birth, extreme talent in most fields (he does mention that this is not the case in fields where height, or some other extreme genetic benefit/defect come into play.) is the result of "deliberate practice" which basically means practicing all of the hard stuff over and over, while having other environmental factors come into play (I.E a good teacher). It is safe to infer that according to Colvin a person with a 100 on a standard IQ test at the age of 10, would certainly score higher on the LSAT than a similar person scoring a 140 if the former invested significantly more hours of deliberate practice than the later. Any thoughts?

I think it's bullshit because I scored much higher than a lot of (fairly smart) people who put a hell of a lot more work than me into it.

If you allow me to count all the time spent doing intellectual things in my lifetime, than maybe, but I don't buy it the way you phrased it.

[Adjudicator]

I have always been a good test-taker my whole life.

I think that part of it is that I'm never nervous going into tests and I never freak out during them. But why not? I'm not sure what the underlying cause is. I did read a ton as a child and I have strong language skills.

[Sell Manilla]

Why are some people really good at ping pong???

[094320]

..

[jason8821]

I probably should not have tried to articulate the main point of the novel, because I know that it's difficult to express the level of profundity in which each of his points are rooted. It's not just to say that because you only studied for the lsat for 10 hours, and someone else studied for 500 that they should now be on a level playing field, it's the kind of practice, it's the environment the practice took place in etc. There are tons of variables he mentions. You don't have to do shit for LSAT prep, maybe 2 hours to get a breakdown of the test and a few pt's if you've had subtle interest in logic, coding, reading and such throughout your entire life. I'm not saying my experience proves his theories correctly, but as stated earlier. I read two books throughout High School, I probably spent 20 hours on books that were not challenging. I have spent 500+ hours in the last 8+ months reading material that challenges my ability to focus, I have also been more aware of vocabulary words i didn't know, and always look them up. This combination has greatly increased my reading speed/ability, in just 8 short months imagine people who did this kind of study or something similar for 15 years.

One of Colvin's arguments is that myelin builds up around certain areas of the brain that control different functions I.E) spatial, verbal, math etc.

This happens more during ones youth, but can be taken advantage of in adulthood as well, or so he says. It is this myelin that makes us "more intelligent" in those areas.

[emorystud2010]

.

[jason8821]

I feel like a lot of people act like a 99th percentile LSAT is synonymous with a 99th percentile IQ/SAT, I doubt it's even close. It's probably like 1/2 of college students who even think have a strong enough shot at law school to take the test. Without doing too much math, that probably sets up a situation where the 95th percentile is more like 99 on other tests, plus with the LSAT I think people are pushed more to take prep classes to compete.

[094320]

..

[fosterp]

I know this thread is long dead , but I just recently read Colvin's Talent is Overrated and I was wondering if anyone else got into this book, and if so how you think it relates to the LSAT. For those who didn't read it, The main point is pretty much that people are not naturally more prone to becoming great at birth, extreme talent in most fields (he does mention that this is not the case in fields where height, or some other extreme genetic benefit/defect come into play.) is the result of "deliberate practice" which basically means practicing all of the hard stuff over and over, while having other environmental factors come into play (I.E a good teacher). It is safe to infer that according to Colvin a person with a 100 on a standard IQ test at the age of 10, would certainly score higher on the LSAT than a similar person scoring a 140 if the former invested significantly more hours of deliberate practice than the later. Any thoughts?

Sounds a lot like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_%28book%29

[Na_Swatch]

I skimmed this thread, so i may have missed it, but my question involves the "gifted" kids who were in the 99 percentile for the SAT and other tests. Why do those kids go from that to scoring in the 160's on the lsat, even if they had a prep class? Something about this test seems different than others earlier in an educational career.

The mains reasons for this are twofold.. as noted before, the SATs are taken by every single person applying to college in America (and some who won't). However the LSATs are only taken by people who have finished college and want to pursue law school degrees... thus 99 percentile on LSAT is probably another significant fraction of a standard deviation beyond the 99% on SAT.

Secondly, the LSAT focuses almost exclusively on verbal/ logical skills... SAT is a little more broad so you'll encounter differences with people who perhaps are stronger in other areas.

For example I'd say (from 1-100) that I'm a 97 at Verbal, 98 at Logic, 99 at Math, 93 at grammar... this easily meant almost a full score at the SATs (except for my grammar section ), but it took a lot more effort to replicate that for the LSAT.

[jason8821]

I skimmed this thread, so i may have missed it, but my question involves the "gifted" kids who were in the 99 percentile for the SAT and other tests. Why do those kids go from that to scoring in the 160's on the lsat, even if they had a prep class? Something about this test seems different than others earlier in an educational career.

I honestly feel like the SAT is more game-able and more learn able than the LSAT. Those who take prep classes for the SAT tend to see better gains, I think, than those who take the LSAT. I'm sure there is no study out there who looks at it, but I'd be curious to see what happens with those who take the SAT with minimal prep do on the LSAT. Also, the SAT is testing math and reading skills(along with their crappy nonsense new writing section), while the LSAT looks at reading, logic, and analysis, so slightly different skills there.

ETA: Myelin is important for a lot of things in the brain...myelination enables action potentials to travel a lot faster...but I would, again, caution you from reading books written by those who aren't in the field. Colvin has an economics degree....he doesn't study neuro or cognitive science...careful.
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174 sums it up, basically.
Also, yes, like stated before, *masters* are created through effort---talent alone can't make you a professional basketball star or Nobel prize winner. The LSAT is nowhere near what I could call a skill with "masters" of the kind he seems to be referring to.

That is a valid point, and I usually refrain from reading articles/books written by people who have no or little experience in the topic at hand. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong. They could be just as right or even more so than someone who has 50 years experience in psychology. I am not certain, but I don't think Gladwell had a real strong a background in sociology or psychology when he started writing, and he has been called by some the most brilliant sociologist of our time.

At first glance, the LSAT is not one of the skills he is talking about, but with a deeper look, it actually is. I don't know if you read the book or are basing it off reviews, but he talks about reading, and math being skills and how it take tons of hours to master these. Logic is a skill that is not mentioned, but I would say it's similar to math. Colvin talks a lot about memory retrievel systems, and Gladwell does the same when he mentions why Asians are good at Math. For all intensive purposes I am substituting math for logic. If you are good at one, you are likely good at the other. Another component of the LSAT that may be even more important than a profound knowledge of logic is your reading/processing speed. That also seems to be a skill that with tons of practice can be significantly improved upon.
The

[094320]

..

[CalBear2011]

Some people earlier in the thread mentioned that they did not believe it was possible for someone who doesn't read to score very high on the LSAT. Well, as a matter of fact, I never read a book until college, I would always sparknote everything in high school and absolutely never read anything for fun. My diagnostic was somewhere in the 150's and now I am starting to regularly break 170 on PT's. This somewhat proves to me that all you need to score 165+ is a certain level of intelligence and some dedication to prep. Many people on this forum have read much more than I have throughout life and prep until their eyes fall out but cannot manage to get into the 160's, this baffles me, and it must be because their level of intelligence is not commensurate with a score in the 160+ area. Right? Even the most dedicated individual, if his mental capacity is not high enough, will have a hard time scoring in the 165+ range. With that being said everybody can improve from their initial diagnostic score.

I believe an individual with an intelligence past a certain level can train themselves to go from the 150's to the 170's, no problem. This is one of the problems here, individuals ask if they can get a certain score based of a certain diagnostic, and others reply yes because others have, now sure if the individual asking has the same or higher intelligence level he can do it, but if he does not, which is routinely the case, he cannot reach that score.

[bk1]

Some people earlier in the thread mentioned that they did not believe it was possible for someone who doesn't read to score very high on the LSAT. Well, as a matter of fact, I never read a book until college, I would always sparknote everything in high school and absolutely never read anything for fun. My diagnostic was somewhere in the 150's and now I am starting to regularly break 170 on PT's. This somewhat proves to me that all you need to score 165+ is a certain level of intelligence and some dedication to prep. Many people on this forum have read much more than I have throughout life and prep until their eyes fall out but cannot manage to get into the 160's, this baffles me, and it must be because their level of intelligence is not commensurate with a score in the 160+ area. Right? Even the most dedicated individual, if his mental capacity is not high enough, will have a hard time scoring in the 165+ range. With that being said everybody can improve from their initial diagnostic score.

I believe an individual with an intelligence past a certain level can train themselves to go from the 150's to the 170's, no problem. This is one of the problems here, individuals ask if they can get a certain score based of a certain diagnostic, and others reply yes because others have, now sure if the individual asking has the same or higher intelligence level he can do it, but if he does not, which is routinely the case, he cannot reach that score.

Grats on being the next Einstein, bro. I commend you for patting yourself on the back for being a genius.

[Na_Swatch]

Some people earlier in the thread mentioned that they did not believe it was possible for someone who doesn't read to score very high on the LSAT. Well, as a matter of fact, I never read a book until college, I would always sparknote everything in high school and absolutely never read anything for fun. My diagnostic was somewhere in the 150's and now I am starting to regularly break 170 on PT's. This somewhat proves to me that all you need to score 165+ is a certain level of intelligence and some dedication to prep. Many people on this forum have read much more than I have throughout life and prep until their eyes fall out but cannot manage to get into the 160's, this baffles me, and it must be because their level of intelligence is not commensurate with a score in the 160+ area. Right? Even the most dedicated individual, if his mental capacity is not high enough, will have a hard time scoring in the 165+ range. With that being said everybody can improve from their initial diagnostic score.

I believe an individual with an intelligence past a certain level can train themselves to go from the 150's to the 170's, no problem. This is one of the problems here, individuals ask if they can get a certain score based of a certain diagnostic, and others reply yes because others have, now sure if the individual asking has the same or higher intelligence level he can do it, but if he does not, which is routinely the case, he cannot reach that score.

Grats on being the next Einstein, bro. I commend you for patting yourself on the back for being a genius.

ITT: Somebody discovers the true purpose of TLS for the 20th time.

[jason8821]

Some people earlier in the thread mentioned that they did not believe it was possible for someone who doesn't read to score very high on the LSAT. Well, as a matter of fact, I never read a book until college, I would always sparknote everything in high school and absolutely never read anything for fun. My diagnostic was somewhere in the 150's and now I am starting to regularly break 170 on PT's. This somewhat proves to me that all you need to score 165+ is a certain level of intelligence and some dedication to prep. Many people on this forum have read much more than I have throughout life and prep until their eyes fall out but cannot manage to get into the 160's, this baffles me, and it must be because their level of intelligence is not commensurate with a score in the 160+ area. Right? Even the most dedicated individual, if his mental capacity is not high enough, will have a hard time scoring in the 165+ range. With that being said everybody can improve from their initial diagnostic score.

I believe an individual with an intelligence past a certain level can train themselves to go from the 150's to the 170's, no problem. This is one of the problems here, individuals ask if they can get a certain score based of a certain diagnostic, and others reply yes because others have, now sure if the individual asking has the same or higher intelligence level he can do it, but if he does not, which is routinely the case, he cannot reach that score.

At what level? You believe there is some mysterious minimum requirement that one must meet, a requirement that often times defies all other numbers (SAT Scores, socio-economic status, IQ) and then all of the sudden it's just putting in the work? I don't mean to straw man you, so correct me if i'm wrong. I think there are a lot more factors that go into it than that. The following happens all the time on this site, and with other people. Person A: get's a 136 on a diagnostic, Depressed with his/her performance, they spend 500 hours and work their way up to an above average 156. They walk away perhaps hoping for higher, but happy to see a 20 point gain. Person B: get's a 150 diagnostic, sees an immediate 3-4 point gain with an improvement in logic games, very little improvement in RC, and slight improvement in LR, and also achieves a 156. They also spend 500 hours. Do you think they had the same potential for the test? I think that it has way more to do with study time, type of studying, type of prep course, and even how their early experiences with lsat were. That said, I highly doubt they have the same potential if neither has taken a logic class in recent history, and had no previous prep for the LSAT. There is up to a 25 point (raw score) difference in their diagnostic, that's enormous. One of the things that does not get mentioned on here enough is how important it is to study right from the beginning, if you don't do that it will ultimately lead to a lot of frustration, and frustration leads to hitting your ceiling faster, and requires a lot of time away from the test to regain your focus.