65 Iq - 85 Iq [584x590 - 52KB] | Poal: Say what you want.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

[–] • 3 pts

(edited )

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/conversations-with-koko-the-gorilla

With Koko's physical well-being provided for, we have every opportunity to promote and observe her mental and social progress. From the start I monitored Koko's performance on human intelligence tests. In February 1975 Koko's intelligence quotient was 84 on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. Five months later, at the age of 4, her IQ rose to 95, only slightly below the average for a human child. By January 1976 the IQ was back to 85, which is not an uncommon fluctuation. Her scores on other tests confirmed the general range established by the Stanford-Binet scale.

AI summary if it can be trusted:

Koko took actual standardized human IQ tests - the same tests used for children: - Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale - Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI) - Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - Kuhlman-Anderson - McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities

BUT they had to be heavily adapted for a non-verbal gorilla. Patterson herself acknowledged that these tests had to be modified because: - Koko couldn't speak or write - Gorillas mature at different rates than humans - The tests had to use only the performance/visual components - Many verbal subtests couldn't be administered

So while these were legitimate standardized tests (not just conversions from brain size), they weren't administered in the "normal" way a human child would take them. Patterson likely used pointing, sign language responses, and non-verbal selection tasks.

The key difference: Koko actually took tests and got scores, unlike the chimp "20-25 IQ" estimates which are just theoretical ("performs like a 3-year-old, so we'll call that IQ 20-25"). But even Koko's testing required significant modifications that arguably undermine direct comparison to human scores.

Patterson herself said the testing revealed "as much about the tests' inadequacies as about gorilla cognition" - acknowledging the fundamental limitation of applying human tests cross-species.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/conversations-with-koko-the-gorilla > With Koko's physical well-being provided for, we have every opportunity to promote and observe her mental and social progress. From the start I monitored Koko's performance on human intelligence tests. In February 1975 Koko's intelligence quotient was 84 on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. Five months later, at the age of 4, her IQ rose to 95, only slightly below the average for a human child. By January 1976 the IQ was back to 85, which is not an uncommon fluctuation. Her scores on other tests confirmed the general range established by the Stanford-Binet scale. [pdf documenting the actual research it seems](https://www.koko.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/PAPER_The_Case_for_Personhood_of_Gorillas.pdf) AI summary if it can be trusted: > Koko took **actual standardized human IQ tests** - the same tests used for children: - Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale - Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI) - Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - Kuhlman-Anderson - McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities > **BUT** they had to be **heavily adapted** for a non-verbal gorilla. Patterson herself acknowledged that these tests had to be modified because: - Koko couldn't speak or write - Gorillas mature at different rates than humans - The tests had to use only the performance/visual components - Many verbal subtests couldn't be administered > So while these were legitimate standardized tests (not just conversions from brain size), they weren't administered in the "normal" way a human child would take them. Patterson likely used pointing, sign language responses, and non-verbal selection tasks. > **The key difference:** Koko actually *took tests and got scores*, unlike the chimp "20-25 IQ" estimates which are just theoretical ("performs like a 3-year-old, so we'll call that IQ 20-25"). But even Koko's testing required significant modifications that arguably undermine direct comparison to human scores. > Patterson herself said the testing revealed "as much about the tests' inadequacies as about gorilla cognition" - acknowledging the fundamental limitation of applying human tests cross-species.

parent
link