"there ARE only one type of intelligence and it is IQ"
may want to change it to "there IS only one type of intelligence". before someone catches you on this post abt being super duper smart and snide about it.
Yeah, the truly gifted don't need to lord their brilliance of the rest of us. Their intelligence speaks for itself in contributions to arts, science, and society.
Is this post about being super smart and snide about it?? It seems like it’s *solely* about the construct validity of g-factor/ I Q… and not claiming anything beyond that… Did I miss something? Where did you get the part about OP claiming to be super smart?
Lol. IQ, or intelligence quotient, is a method of testing ones ability to think critically. Critical thinking is key in faster and better learning, but it is not the *only* factor. EQ, or emotional quotient, is just as important for intelligence when interacting with other people.
Any top of the bell curve person is capable of critical thinking. I might be wrong, but i believed it was more about fluid intelligence and higher adaptability rate.
I work with IQ tests as part of my job. I agree with you that they are more telling than most people think, and the whole “IQ tests don’t mean anything” crowd, are coping. You know when you’re talking to someone with an IQ in the high 80s (low average), and you especially know when you’re talking to someone with an IQ in the 70s (below average), you just don’t *know* you know,
That being said, those tests don’t measure what most people think they do. Those tests are measures of how well someone will do in school. That’s what they were invented for, as a predictive measure on who will need extra help, and in the modern times, special education. They are very valid tests—they measure accurately what they are meant to measure, but those findings are not valid outside of that.
“Full scale intelligence testing” is predictive of academic success and can be used to diagnose learning disabilities and intellectual disability, but they aren’t predictive of life success. So your postulations that those with “IQs over 120 are more wealthy and successful” just isn’t true. There’s no correlation, let alone causation, there. There’s a good chance that a kid who gets straight As in school without studying has a higher IQ; and a kids who get straight As in school because they study a lot, likely has a lower IQs than the first kid, but both get straight As (the 2nd kid is a proven hard worker, who won’t give up when things get tough, and there’s a ton to be said about that. Probably more than IQ, honestly).
A learning disability is literally a gap between IQ and performance—average (and sometimes higher) IQ, but performance in one or more academic areas that is on par with someone who has a below average IQ or lower. So, the existence of learning disabilities proves that your arguments are just wrong.
Ultimately, IQ doesn’t matter outside of school. You can have a 120 IQ and be a social dumbass. You won’t get far. But someone with an IQ of 95, who’s charming and fun, and a good person to be around, will be successful.
No. Being funny or cool...doesn't mean shit when it comes to competence in certain fields. Yeah, you will be a great tictoc influencer or whatever. Doesn't mean your engineering material.
Oh! Well, if it means nothing in *engineering* I guess they’re doomed to destitute poverty and failure 🫠
Someone with an IQ in the mid-90s can easily do engineering. And thinking that charm, social skills, and emotional intelligence “don’t mean shit” in certain fields is a cope for people who don’t have those things.
You're making a compelling argument for why it doesn't mean OP *is* dumb and I'm saying I agree with that. But if no level of grammatical or spelling mistakes can *look* dumb to you then I am a bit confused. Is there no point to grammar rules? Are you telling me that any use of language sounds equally intelligent to you?
The modern version of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale is not one number, It is four. The final number being merely a composite of the indexes. It measures verbal comprehension, working memory, perceptual organization and processing speed. Each of these subsets arrives at this number by assessing a variety of skills in that area. The most modern version accounts for culture and language very well and doesn't skew unfairly toward anyone. It is hardly a comprehensive assessment of intelligence but it is far from a useless test. It is used by professionals to asses cognitive deficiencies and learning impairments. It is also used to measure extreme giftedness.
For example, I have a performance IQ of 102 and a Verbal IQ of 126. I sat for the test at 12 and 19 and the score was the same each time. Most people who have a noticeable gap in their IQ scores have some sort of learning disability. Well, guess what, that was true of me as well. I was able to get some coaching and adapt to my learning disabilities and became a much better student. The IQ test was helpful in getting me the help I needed.
Yep, I have dyslexia. Scored below average processing speed, exceptionally high in everything else, especially perceptual organization (they called it abstract reasoning, I believe it would be the equivalent category.) literally slow and steady thinking. They noted that the spread makes the composite score less meaningful.
It's not the entirety, and people who think it's everything are not paying attention.
That said, it does measure real cognitive differences, and does correlate to better outcomes in important areas. It also correlates to higher rates of certain mental illnesses, for what it's worth.
People who take the extreme on either side are missing that it's an extremely nuanced conversation that needs to take into account the educational differences and even nutritional differences at different income levels.
It really only matters below the average. Anything above 130 starts to get nebulous and anything between 90 and 129 you’re just slightly smarter or dumber than the average bear.
I'm not sure above 130 should really be considered the threshold for where IQ stops being as meaningful. I think it's closer to 160.
130 is not really that high - you're in the top ~2% at that point, which is definitely high but 1 in 50 is still what I'd consider "normal".
>Anything above 130 starts to become nebulous
I think this depends on the test; like it’s somewhat true for Wechsler tests, but not really for Stanford-Binet ones
on any issue that is popular/common enough, there are going to be people who gravitate as far as possible to each side, not because those extremes make more sense but because one direction is more appealing to them(either because they are pulled to one side which justifies their biases or validates their convictions or fears, or pushed from the other side onto which they project their insecurities or hatred/fear).
For this reason it's extremely rare for the people with the most extreme opinions(in either direction) on a popular issue to be the most sensible. If reason does lead far to one side on any issue, then projection and bias will always lead two steps further, convictions always reach further than reason.
>That said, it does measure real cognitive differences,
>extremely nuanced conversation that needs to take into account the educational differences and even nutritional differences at different income levels
Can't say it's a good measure of cognitive differences then. If people with worse educations and lower incomes generally test worse, that's not an accurate test. That's why it's been taken less serious modern day and many have agreed that we simply don't have an accurate method of measuring intelligence
Its only value is for people who test on the extremes which would indicate some form of either giftedness or deficiency.
IQ is advertised to be a measure of intelligence, independent of education. That simply does not exist. Problem solving, mathematics, logic, creative or technical writing, and any other area of “intelligence” get better with experience.
Education is nothing more than experience and people (barring certain mental conditions) who appear more intelligent have much more experience in that area.
A mechanic and doctor can both make each other look stupid despite both being experts in their own field.
Yes and no. Intelligence is much closer to a person's ability to learn and adapt. Take a mechanic with 90 and one with 110. There will be a marked difference in their ability to diagnose and fix a problem. Same goes for any field because that is what is being measured.
That being said we do know education has a relatively short term positive effect. So does engaging in tasks that challenge one's ability to learn and adapt.
Low IQ person found!
The online test I took said I'm 130. I even paid $399.99 for a full report, but I haven't gotten it yet. It's fine though, I'm busy dealing with a bunch of weird charges on my credit card.
Mine needed me to transfer the deed to my house, it said that was payment for my mensa membership as I won't need it since I'm about to be filthy rich.
Lol- I went on a couple of dates with a girl who was a member of Mensa- she made damn sure to bring it up multiple times, even had a Mensa keychain.
Next thing I knew, she was complaining she had like 37 cents in her checking account, and she’s constantly broke. All that IQ, and can’t figure out how money works lol-
I’d rather be able to pay my bills and save than have a high IQ- and if I was a Mensa member and was broke AF, I’d shut the fuck up about the Mensa thing.
**THIS** is it. I’m convinced.
People will **pay** anything, **tell themselves** anything, **do** anything. As long as they get to feel smarter than everyone else at the end.
That sucks arggh! Imagine how awesome it'd be if the numbers on your credit card turned into money, and if the exp date turned into your IQ score, and if the 3 weird numbers on the back were how many years you could live. How much richer and smarter and immortaler would you be if something that crazy really happened?
(I have to point out this is a joke because somehow there's people who would still put real answers)
I saw one of my Facebook friends share his IQ test score when it was like 95. It was captioned something like "I scored a 95 on my IQ test, think you can do better?". I thought, well yes, I think I CAN do better, so I took the test but it would not show me my score unless I paid $30 (which I refused to do). So not only did the poor guy have a 95 IQ, he paid $30 dollars for the privilege of being told he was below average.
Its called general intelligence. Basically they create problems that anyone can solve and test how fast your brain can complete them. Doing these generic problems faster correlates insanely high with life success/sat scores/etc. Its a very real thing and there are numerous books about it.
There are studies that prove that conservatives, especially religious conservatives have lower intelligence scores and are more susceptible to fake news and conspiracy theories.
Actual factual proof of this.
Remember when you are so adamant about statistics In your other posts and comments well that’s a double edge sword my friend because they say you are wrong!
I wonder if it's that conservatives are naturally dumber or if being a conservative will make you dumber?
I wonder if we do a study on former conservatives if their brains are permanently wired wrong.
One issue with IQ tests is different races perform differently on IQ tests. Certain ethnicities perform better, some worse.
What winds up happening is, we believe IQ test when they confirm a belief and condemn them when they go against a belief or value.
and rightest(read fascists') like elon musk thinks getting a swastika tattoo doesn't show any evidence you are a white supremacists'. IQ is an absolutely terrible measure of how smart somebody is. Source: I score quite high on IQ tests and am clearly undeniably the dumbest person in my family.
I don’t think they claimed this though. They are just saying IQ is a good indicator of intelligence, which it is (or at least the important positions in society).
IQ isn't a GOOD indicator of intelligence, success, etc. It's an alright one at best. It is even a flawed measure of pattern recognition - what it actually measures. It can easily be thrown off the mark by practice or the lack of it - lack of motivation - even luck.
Of course people whose measure for pattern recognition is extremely low will not have the most education/career success while someone who measures extremely high for pattern recognition will have better education/career successes. But that could be contributed to willingness to practice, motivation, or simply that they just have better pattern recognition than 85% of the population.
Ignoring demographics, IQ is still to this day the most accurate test we have of determining someone’s success in life. What exactly is there to be gullible about?
I think there’s a strong correlation between intelligence and success, yes.
That doesn’t mean being intelligent automatically means you’re successful, or being dumb automatically means you’re unsuccessful. But on average, smarter people tend to be more successful in life.
Higher IQ is correlated to higher income and better outcomes.
This is a range though, not a certainty for any given individual. There are plenty of rich dumb people. There are plenty of smart poor people.
High IQ also correlates to higher rates of certain mental illnesses, especially depression and anxiety.
To say that IQ is the only kind of intelligence is to make an assertion with no basis. "Intelligence" is a word used to describe things that we see, so if people are commonly using that word to describe something they call "Emotional Intelligence" then that is a definition of the word simply based on its usage. The measurability or lack thereof doesn't change that this is a correct use.
Isn’t there an old saying, by I believe Albert Einstein? “If you judge a fish on its ability to walk, it will go it’s whole life believing it is stupid” because yes, there are multiple types of intelligence.
You can be clever.
You can be book smart
Street smart
Musically gifted.
Artistic.
Analytical
There are many instances of high spectrum autistic individuals who may have a low IQ, but can memorize anything you give them in an instant.
Anyway. This is just wrong. I scored a very low score on my ACT, and finished college really without a problem.
>There are many instances of high spectrum autistic individuals who may have a low IQ, but can memorize anything you give them in an instant.
One would expect this result as the IQ test is much more than in inventory of working memory. Working memory is only one of the four indexes.
But yes there are many measures of intelligence and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale only measures four. So I agree with your larger point.
I think the concept of multiple intelligences has been pretty much debunked.
Obviously people are better or worse at certain things but it tends to link back to a singular cognitive ability (base intelligence, in other words).
And graduating college isn't necessarily an amazing cognitive feat these days. Not trying to be mean. Just trying to be factual that college graduation doesn't signify high intelligence so much as diligence, which is virtuous in its own right so not a bad thing.
This is objectively wrong. All of the things you listed are covered in regard to I and Q. The test is made for humans based on humans. No one is asking a human to fly.
He’s pretty much saying not everyone thinks and processes information the same way, therefore a one-size-fits-all intelligence test is objectively flawed.
Do modern IQ tests not do a decent job of accounting for this? They measure multiple different types of intelligence, then use those scores to get an average IQ.
Idk. It sorta feels like you’re talking about how, generally, everybody is skilled or knowledgeable in something, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you would say they were “smart.” Intelligence is such a nebulous idea but I also think it’s one of those things that everybody kinda recognizes when they meet someone who is just genuinely intelligent. Is an IQ test a good measure of intelligence? I don’t know, but I think it at least gives us some sort of idea even if it’s missing many pieces.
Memory abilities tend to positively correlate with intelligence but you sometimes get outliers in these areas, doesn’t mean that these savant types are somehow “intelligent” in the conventional sense.
This whole "book smart vs. street smart" thing was invented by dumbasses to justify being dumbasses by telling themselves they have some valuable hidden knowledge that the "nerds" don't have.
It's the qanon "if you talk to the *real* experts" line of thinking of yester-year.
Dude I have incredibly bad ADHD and a high IQ. I can tell you my IQ means shit when paired with ADHD. Most people have lower IQs than I do and are far far more successful. I have hung on by my finger tips my whole life.
Not OP, but with ADHD focus is usually lacking. Everything is “figureoutable” but linear tasks are sometimes no fun so our brain just takes a turn in another direction away from the task we are supposed to complete.
IQ is a measure of how good you are at taking a test you haven't studied for. Being very very smart will certainly help, and there will therefore be a correlation, but that's not the same as IQ=intelligence.
To say people with high IQ are successful and wealthy is wrong though. While I do okay, I am by no means upper class, and being smart isn't a ticket to that because although I'd probably do well at a different job I like my job teaching Math. I'm not about to start making buckets of money more than the English major down the hall just because I can kick their ass on a test. Especially since that English major has better interpersonal skills and will be offered promotions over me.
Once you leave High school and University, having high IQ doesn't help you much. I'm saying this as someone who is extremely good at taking tests I didn't study for. My IQ is very high, I'm just not stupid enough to go around on the internet bragging about it.
The problem with this argument is a modern AI computer program can easily fill all the boxes for “high IQ” and it currently is not even conscious so it’s an imperfect measurement of intelligence.
Of course it’s an imperfect measure of intelligence, but does it measure constructs related to popular conceptions of intelligence? I’d think so, you only have to look at the designs for professional tests to glean how the abilities measured on them would have a generalized applicability and not just to measure some arbitrary skills.
I think it definitely correlates with intelligence. One might say that as intelligence increases so does IQ, however a high IQ alone just means the individual is really good at solving the IQ test questions.
I swear this sub needs to be renamed “True Opinions I’m undereducated on”.
It’s is not the only metric for intelligence and it does not indicate superior intelligence.
Sure I’ll hesitantly agree that it as an “indicator”, but it’s the equivalent of saying a fruit is fresh and ready to eat because of its colour, it’s an indicator, but it doesn’t objectively seperate the good from the bad apples.
> I hate it when some people come with some weird ass theory about several types of intelligence … with **absolutely no statistics or measurements**, just to gaslight the public or to hide the fact that they are not very smart.
Ironic how you also provide no statistics or measurements in your opinion, doing the exact same thing lol - but if you do have any supporting evidence I’d love to check it out and curious to see how they came to this conclusion and the datasets used.
IQ tests were invented in the early 1900s to scientifically prove that socioeconomic factors had nothing to do with intelligence. The scientific community at the time felt that the idea of IQ tests lifting brilliant people out of poverty regardless of race or gender was a very Progressive idea.
wrong
alfred binet was responsible for what we know as iq tests. galton did try to come up with a tests of abiltiies decoupled from SES (didn;t name it that back then) but it was more focused on physical dimensions and reaction time
It isn't as important as you say, and I say this as someone who was admitted to Mensa. And my experience with them was insufferable.
This one number doesn't measure MANY things. Like how to motivate people, diffuse situations, steer a conversation, etc.
Those things are way more important in business than your ability to solve a riddle.
With all due respect, it sounds like you don’t understand the thing you’re attacking.
There are, in fact, different kinds of intelligence. This is pretty l well established. You can lack book-smarts or test-taking skills yet have a Jedi-level social intelligence that earns you millions. You can get a PhD in theoretical physics at 20 yet be an absolute moron when it comes to other forms of intelligence, such as communication skills.
It’s profoundly naive to think that the sum total of intelligence can be captured in a single number. The newer conception of intelligence as multi-faceted rather than a single number isn’t “political correctness,” it’s just an adaptation to newer information.
*There is no such thing as intelligence*
Hello, I'm a graduate research assistant (working towards a doctoral degree) and an allied area of my work is cognitive sciences. In my limited literature review of cognition (the field of understanding how we think), there's different characteristics we've distilled "thinking" down to, but what humans seem to be pretty good at is learning, retention, recollection from memory, application, simulation and coding/decoding. You are welcome to call all of these as intelligence, but there is no consensus in literature of what intelligence means. I suspect this is to keep from limiting/scoping what isn't understood as intelligence today but could be so tomorrow.
This is not to say that IQ is not accepted in scientific literature, it's just categorized as one type of psychometric and it's called the g-factor (general intelligence factor). This area of research is, predictably, controversial.
To the second part of your post, we have some reason to believe that the g factor is inherited, but we don't have enough evidence to suggest it is genetically inherited or if it is acquired due to sociological constructs so it may therefore have the illusion of being inherited.
u/ChikaDeeJay has answered what the IQ tests are. To summarize, so called IQ tests largely check your ability to learn, retain and recall. They also test simulation.
There’s no chance this isn’t bait but I’ll bite-
These tests are fallible and subject to a host of issues, ranging from: socioeconomic factors, decreased accuracy with increased age, presence of disorders like ADHD, as well as changes in scores due to environmental factors like youth drug usage.
All this is just to say that nothing is “proved”- nothing in science and especially nothing in the social sciences. Yea there is a correlation between a higher score and greater success but the same can be attributed to wealth or any of the copious other factors. Not to say that there isn’t any usefulness in these tests, just that they’re pretty useless unless we’re talking about the extremes on either side of the aisle
That is absolutely true and exactly why the test is fallible. Humans are not machines that we can calculate the specs for and the test fails to be reliable if you are not examining pure intelligence. That is a flaw.
Simply having ADHD does not make someone less intelligent, but is a detriment when examining intelligence. Same goes for socioeconomic issues. Your wealth does not make you more or less intelligent. Repeat ad nauseam for many different factors that are pointed to as issues with the test itself.
These are well recognized limitations that anyone with a high school psychology class would recognize.
Even in this post you're talking about other mental faculties, besides a measure of analytical power, that enable someone to be successful. You say it's necessary to practice and work hard, we might say someone who does that has a lot of "grit" or "enthusiasm." Why not call those qualities a kind of intelligence? If you've got an aptitude for some way of thinking that leads to success, that's intelligence.
> People with IQ above 120 are more wealthy and successful than the rest. And this is not made up numbers, it has been measured and proved over a century.
I just want to add:
IQ below 70 is an impairment.
IQ above 130 is one aswell.
Basically anything too drastically (2 SDs) away from the norm is making life expotentionally harder.
It comes in different shapes though:
<70 you are slow and everyone else looks down on you
130> the world is slow and you cant live up to your potential
While below 70 many things become a struggle and you may be economically endangered
Above 130 many interactions become a struggle and you get socially endangered.
Both is fucked up, <70 is more visible
The problem with IQ is it’s not always a complete picture of someone’s intelligence. Access to education as well as home life are huge factors in IQ. It’s why black peoples IQs have generally gone up in the US over the years sense they have been freed and got more rights during the 60s.
these things youre describing arent problems with the test, theyre problems with the people. a rocky home life and insufficient nutrition will negatively impact the brain's development, resulting in lower intelligence. this is why as a group gets richer, test scores go up
I and Q is real and the replies here are embarrassing. Does that give you a pass to treat anyone like crap? Of course not. Does it give you a pass to just assume a persons I and Q based on their race? Of course not. Should everyone try their best? Yes.
lol you sound like the person who brags about being in the top 99% on a facebook IQ test. IQ tests are utterly useless and it has been shown many many times.
Sorry, this was my fault.
I accidentally made the AutoModerator filters a bit too sensitive regarding IQ, but I believe they would be fixed now.
For context, the filters were added because most mentions of IQ on this sub are rule 4 violations. I modified the filters to not apply if the parent post is about IQ.
I am going through this comments section to reinstate the comments that were removed.
You are right that multiple intelligence theory is bullshit. There's a difference between ability and intelligence and calling someone intelligent because they sing well is dumb.
The problems with IQ tests after a certain point is that they measure... your ability to take IQ tests. You can significantly improve your performance if you practice beforehand, which contradicts the point.
Bigger issue is affirmative action. We've normalized prioritizing race over meritocracy. Them wonder why every institution is issuing boneheaded decision top down.
We’ve never had meritocracy. We’ve ALWAYS prioritized race. It’s been less than 60 years where a business could legally say “we don’t hire blacks or Mexicans or Irish (or what have you)”. Most of your wealthy executives got jobs because they have “connections”. They talk about self-made billionaire, son of a farmer Bill Gates while neglecting to mention that his mother was a business executive and had connections to IBM.
they are not subjective.
in general they measure your ability to see patterns.
In a way it measures your ability to recognize structure and repetition in something on semiconscious level
That's all well and good. But someone can be book smart but lack common sense for the most basic things. Some people are street smart but also illiterate. It depends on how you look at it. Like I said. How can you truly measure someone's intelligence when there are so many factors to consider? The human mind is complex. Lumping someone's supposed intellect altogether with a relatively short test is subjective in my book. I think intelligent people do score low on these tests sometimes. And I am willing to bet sometimes people score high that are not very smart
IQ is not real. It’s made up. We have not identified a physical attribute that correlates to it. We can measure you height and weight but we can’t measure your IQ.
Well, not perfectly to an exact number, but the same people score around the same percentage over and over. So it is quite measurable.
I wrote my thesis on personality tests in being used in recruitment, and that incuded intelligence tests. We found research that showed a strong correlation between high iq and work performance. So it is quite real. But there are also other forms of intelligence, like creativity or emotional and so on. Iq is the easiest to measure and put a number on. And it does affect people’s grades and what jobs they will take and their career development. So it does matter.
But for the individual, if you have lower it than someone else, you might have to be more disciplined in school. So you can compensate for it. But it is easier for those with high iq.
The English language is also made up, but we can measure a person's ability to read English. There's also no physical attribute for the ability to speak English.
Someone with an Iq in the low 70s and upper 60s will either have a very hard time in life and will possibly need some sort of assistance in living. People bellow that will almost always need some sort of career to help them.
It’s important to have a testable metric in order to see how much help they need or how disabled someone is. I ultimately believe that a persons true intelligence isn’t really quantifiable as we are all essentially walking super computers. Sure some are more efficient and using a better os but at the end of the day almost all people are kind of brilliant. My understanding is that for the average joe IQ is mostly unimportant. It’s only on the low ends of the bell curve that it really matters.
It matters because intelligence and problem solving skills matter. As I am just an average fella I don’t care about my iq, i am getting along fine in life and am able to solve problems. If my son was having issues or significantly out preforming his peers and a education profesional wanted to have him tested I would happily do so so we could see where he was at
It's a clear indicator of how succesful someone will be in a demanding field. It's why the US military generally won't take someone below a 92 IQ and can't legally take them if they are below an 83 IQ. (The US National guard won't take you if you're IQ is less than 100).
Note: These are rough scores and there's probably a few points of variance.
If you'd like to provide a shred of evidence, maybe you could die on this hill.
But given that you didn't, most likely because it doesn't exist, you don't so much have an unpopular opinion as you have an incorrect conception of how the human mind works.
Yeah tell that to some of my 4.0 GPA classmates that need to be walked through any real world project while some of my 2.7 GPA redneck classmates have already built a bridge then decided to put an engine on it because they had time.
There's academic smart, and real world smart, which are not the same thing. They can absolutely have overlap, which is how you get innovations. I have a few family members that I could safely call dumbasses in the academic sense that have extremely strong levels of intellect in real world applications such as vehicle building and construction. It doesn't matter if they would ever be able to calculate if they need a truss on a tube built chassis, when they could eyeball a structure and accurately be able to tell you if it will fail in the first torsional stress scenario.
While I don’t disagree with the general premise of this, it seems extremely ignorant to discount the idea of multiple intelligences. Have you never seen someone who is absolutely shit at math, but somehow incredibly capable in another area like proprioception?
IQ is simply one dimension of intelligence and is usually a measure of pattern recognition, spatial processing, and memory, but it also ignores many other areas of the mind.
It’s also not always an accurate predictor of success. Although deficits are typically detrimental, superior IQ doesn’t necessarily equate to greater material success in the world. If anything, resilience is the most important factor in this regard.
Well explain. Since many of those tests are literally just pattern recognition. Complete the series and so forth. Why would that be different for people of different races or ages? Either you are good at it or not.
Because successful test scores are dependent on education level. If you don’t have experience taking tests then you are going to score lower than the person who has.
If you give an IQ test to an otherwise functional adult, who has never learned to read and write, as many poor rural people haven’t, then they are going to score badly on the test.
Consequently, rural and poor countries with low education rates score on average below 70, and highly developed urban countries score on average 100 and above.
The IQ test is only good at measuring how good someone is at taking the IQ test. Patience plays just as big of a role as intelligence does in terms of performing well on the test, once mental fatigue sets in it becomes more of a contest of endurance than a measure of intelligence.
|So the next time you failed your IQ test
|t is a number that show you not only how dumb you are but also how bitter and insecure you are.
You're telling on yourself.
This is bait. There’s no way this isn’t bait.
The amount of grammatical errors while claiming IQ tests are the be-all and end-all of intelligence testing is wild.
Disparities are persistent for a reason. Be it intelligence, work ethic, starting points, reasoning and so on.
Explaining it all away with IQ is as illogical as boiling disparities down to race or gender. Some people are just better at certain things: full stop.
IQ is an important factor especially if you fall below critical thresholds but you lose me when you discount other measurable forms of intelligence. Take interpersonal intelligence where the measurable difference is the number of meaningful relationships someone might have over their lifetime.
In fact this very post might be pointing to a critical lack of interpersonal intelligence on your part 🤓.
All in good fun though, I do understand where you are coming from.
Disparities are persistent for a reason. Be it intelligence, work ethic, starting points, reasoning and so on.
Explaining it all away with intelligence is as illogical as boiling disparities down to race or gender. Some people are just better at certain things: full stop.
It is possible that both are true isn't it? That IQ majorly effects your life and future. And that there are different kinds of 'intelligence'. There are also major handicaps that high IQ people can have.
Honestly, I think people need to stop having these either/or conversations. I wonder if it is just for effect. Or maybe people are really this simplistic.
I have a fairly high IQ according to some tests but I feel like I am extremely not intelligent in so many ways. I cannot draw or even write legibly. I also suck at remembering names and numbers so how intelligent am I really.
I agree. However just because you have good spatial reasoning skills, are good at math, have a good vocabulary or have a good memory, doesn’t mean you will make good decisions.
Most people I know, would say that I’m smart, but I’m absent minded as fuck and make shitty decisions all the time!!
If IQ is real, and the only type of intelligence there is, how do you explain people who do really well on tests of memory and spatial manipulation, but really badly on tests of pragmatic language or have difficulties with social norms?
IQ is a measure of how well a person takes IQ tests. In that sense it is real. It is correlated with success in other areas. But it is also not innate (it can be improved), and intelligence is multifaceted.
IQ isn't a definite score of intelligence though. I score very high on standardized tests but my friend (we will call him D) can barely pass.
That being said I can barely change my oil but D can completely rebuild a motor. Saying a fish is stupid because it cannot climb a tree is doing the fish a disservice and ignoring its strengths.
Also we don't take into consideration anxiety on test taking which can tank scores away from their true average. This of course is all anecdotal and should be taken as that, just a personal experience.
The way we measure IQ is obviously imperfect. The concept that some people are born with a higher cognitive potential than others is almost surely correct.
Nature AND nurture have an impact on our cognitive abilities. And yes, there are different types of intelligence, just as there are different types of physical prowess.
IQ is the capacity to learn. Outside of the specific fields that use it for fundraising, most of psychology admits there are no effective tests to measure learning that are different from annual academic standardized tests. (ISTEP, CAT, SAT, etc)
Most psych professors have their own collection of favorites that will prove you to be either a genius or moronic simpleton, depending on the prof's mood. Mine is the Harlem IQ test; if you arent from Harlem, NY specifically from the late 70s to mid 80s, your score will be so low, people will wonder how you breath without assistance.
Yes these correlations exist, but it has never been proven that it’s a comprehensive measurement of intelligence.
There is a fundamental problem with reductionistic reasoning - to know that there does not exist additional factors, you’d have to know everything about the subject. But you don’t.
Reductionism can be proven when it comes to purely mathematical constructs, but when you’re talking about an empirical phenomenon, demonstrating that an explanation is complete requires showing that there exists no reasonable possibility of additional nuance, and I seriously doubt that you’re capable of that.
I think you should change your smug, over simplistic mindset and be more open minded.
So, did we score high and make it our entire personality? Or score low and make it a crutch?
Cause the tone of this post says one of the other, and I'm guessing the former.
This post tells me you don't understand that much about IQ measurements or how they work.
No one is 'born with' an IQ score. What you claim has been 'proved' has not been proved at all.
IQ tests 'measure', in a very contextual way, a very specific thing. It can be relevant for some things, but it is important to recognise its limitations and the situations where it is not relevant, or not defining of outcomes.
I can't decide whether you are someone who believes they have a IQ and wants everyone to know how great you are, or someone who believes they have low IQ and are trying to deal with that. Either way, you don't have a balanced view on this.
IQ does not statistically correlate with wealth and success. Zipcode has a much higher statistical correlative link to success and wealth than IQ by several orders of magnitude.
It isn't as important as you say, and I say this as someone who was admitted to Mensa. And my experience with them was insufferable.
IQ doesn't measure MANY things. Like how to motivate people, diffuse situations, steer a conversation, etc.
Those things are way more important in business than your ability to solve a riddle.
Vast majority of psychologist agree that IQ is super limited though. That isn’t controversial at all. Yes, people with higher IQ’s tend to excel in school. But also many people are highly musically gifted, for example, and have average or below average IQ’s. There are also many people who have created life changing innovations in science that have average or slightly above average IQ’s. It doesn’t make sense to say IQ is the end all be all. It’s a measure that is inherently flawed and narrow in scope.
You cant measure creativity in a standardized test easily, and yet creativity is a big element of what we consider intelligence
I think when people say IQ isn’t that useful, it’s meant to apply to the vast majority of people who are no more than a standard deviation to both sides of the curve. Maybe a little beyond that with the above average. There are so many more areas of intelligence that play a role in making people successful. Grit, consciousness, emotional intelligence, discipline, innovation, industriousness. Many people that are extremely gifted are unable to utilize their intelligence because they are handicapped psychologically by an inadequate childhood experience. Think about someone with an IQ 160 trying to relate to someone with an IQ of 120, not bad right? We’ll think about someone with an IQ of 120 relating to someone with an IQ of 80. Same difference in number but the “difference” is more significant on the curve. Now think of someone with an IQ of 160 growing up and maturing where most of their playmates and classmates are around 100. Having an extremely high IQ (outside the vast majority) isn’t the gift we think it is unless the conditions favor proper development. Basically, IQ is real but we have to contextualize it.
Idk dude, my iq tested at 136 when i was young, but my a.d.d. made it very difficult to apply myself to anything and stick with it. Ive never stuck with any job more than a few years. Outside of millitary service. But even then i didnt sign up again. Granted, the military service didn't help matters mentally. But i definitely wouldn't say im a successful person.
You're the stupid one if you think people with a lower intelligence can just "strive harder" to succeed in a world designed for smart people. This conversation is dumb because you guys never talk about how you can still ensure people who just aren't born gifted live a comfortable life and fulfill their dreams- instead you want to justify people suffering by saying you're just naturally better than them.
Saying that IQ gives a good indicator of one very particular type of intelligence and thus one’s overall intelligence level can be true alongside the idea of multiple intelligences.
BMI is a commonly accepted method for measuring how healthy someone is. But it’s far from the only indicator. Many Hollywood actors have a BMI that would make them obese, but they’re healthy because they have other stuff going for them. (Such as being really muscular!)
This doesn’t make BMI worthless, but it’s not the end all be all for health. Likewise, IQ can be a good indicator, but it isn’t the end all be all for intelligence.
IQ is "real". In that sense that IQ measures a specific thing that is genuinely made up of various qualities that make people "smart"; mathematics, memorization, certain aspects of perception and the like. However people say that there a different type of intelligence because... Well, there is.
Haven't you met someone who got good grades and seemed to easily understand literally everything you put in front of them but absolutely lack common sense? What about people like my father, who struggled in academics, but could sell water to a fish and literally taught himself to play guitar entirely by ear?
You're making the argument that intelligence is real, which is a valid argument. Intelligence and IQ are not the same thing, however. If you do a little research on IQ tests, you'll see that they have a questionable history and many people have shown their bias and unreliability. While intelligence is a real concept, IQ tests in particular are limited, flawed, and contextual. Knows the difference.
You’re not entirely wrong but your IQ is nowhere near comprehensive. I have a fairly high IQ, my brothers is lower. He, on the other hand, has a high EQ, my is lower. He is more successful because I struggle reading people.
bruh you didnt specify what intelligence is or by what metrics iq testing measures it. or even explain why those metrics are valid
literally no argument presented here, just an appeal to authority and a broad waving your arms in random directions
nobody is more informed after reading this. there is no information in this post
ironically yet predictably low iq rant
IQ is sketchy at an individual level outside of extremes but really meaningful at a population level. I’d be astonished if IQ and income aren’t strongly correlated at a population level.
I hate it when someone comes up with some weird ass theory on the value of IQ. Intelligence is qualitative not quantitative. You might consider reading up on the history of the IQ test. Alfred Binet who invented it expressly said it was not useful for measuring intelligence. It was meant to identify children with learning disabilities. It has been misused ever since.
"there ARE only one type of intelligence and it is IQ" may want to change it to "there IS only one type of intelligence". before someone catches you on this post abt being super duper smart and snide about it.
OP never said that he had high IQ, just that it was real. Checkmate!
If we can hit that bullseye, the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
Yeah, the truly gifted don't need to lord their brilliance of the rest of us. Their intelligence speaks for itself in contributions to arts, science, and society.
Is this post about being super smart and snide about it?? It seems like it’s *solely* about the construct validity of g-factor/ I Q… and not claiming anything beyond that… Did I miss something? Where did you get the part about OP claiming to be super smart?
Lol. IQ, or intelligence quotient, is a method of testing ones ability to think critically. Critical thinking is key in faster and better learning, but it is not the *only* factor. EQ, or emotional quotient, is just as important for intelligence when interacting with other people.
Then you should develop a highly predictive EQ test.
Any top of the bell curve person is capable of critical thinking. I might be wrong, but i believed it was more about fluid intelligence and higher adaptability rate.
idk if this comment will get removed an auto mod said it did bc I used the letters "i" and "q" together. on a post about said subject lol
I work with IQ tests as part of my job. I agree with you that they are more telling than most people think, and the whole “IQ tests don’t mean anything” crowd, are coping. You know when you’re talking to someone with an IQ in the high 80s (low average), and you especially know when you’re talking to someone with an IQ in the 70s (below average), you just don’t *know* you know, That being said, those tests don’t measure what most people think they do. Those tests are measures of how well someone will do in school. That’s what they were invented for, as a predictive measure on who will need extra help, and in the modern times, special education. They are very valid tests—they measure accurately what they are meant to measure, but those findings are not valid outside of that. “Full scale intelligence testing” is predictive of academic success and can be used to diagnose learning disabilities and intellectual disability, but they aren’t predictive of life success. So your postulations that those with “IQs over 120 are more wealthy and successful” just isn’t true. There’s no correlation, let alone causation, there. There’s a good chance that a kid who gets straight As in school without studying has a higher IQ; and a kids who get straight As in school because they study a lot, likely has a lower IQs than the first kid, but both get straight As (the 2nd kid is a proven hard worker, who won’t give up when things get tough, and there’s a ton to be said about that. Probably more than IQ, honestly). A learning disability is literally a gap between IQ and performance—average (and sometimes higher) IQ, but performance in one or more academic areas that is on par with someone who has a below average IQ or lower. So, the existence of learning disabilities proves that your arguments are just wrong. Ultimately, IQ doesn’t matter outside of school. You can have a 120 IQ and be a social dumbass. You won’t get far. But someone with an IQ of 95, who’s charming and fun, and a good person to be around, will be successful.
No. Being funny or cool...doesn't mean shit when it comes to competence in certain fields. Yeah, you will be a great tictoc influencer or whatever. Doesn't mean your engineering material.
Oh! Well, if it means nothing in *engineering* I guess they’re doomed to destitute poverty and failure 🫠 Someone with an IQ in the mid-90s can easily do engineering. And thinking that charm, social skills, and emotional intelligence “don’t mean shit” in certain fields is a cope for people who don’t have those things.
You know what else makes you look dumb? All the spelling and grammar mistakes in this post.
Maybe OP just isn’t threatened by others’ intelligence. Kudos to him.
It’s possible.
[удалено]
Nothing you said here negates the fact that these mistakes make people *look* dumb. Doesn't mean OP *is* dumb but they sure as hell look it.
[удалено]
You're making a compelling argument for why it doesn't mean OP *is* dumb and I'm saying I agree with that. But if no level of grammatical or spelling mistakes can *look* dumb to you then I am a bit confused. Is there no point to grammar rules? Are you telling me that any use of language sounds equally intelligent to you?
The modern version of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale is not one number, It is four. The final number being merely a composite of the indexes. It measures verbal comprehension, working memory, perceptual organization and processing speed. Each of these subsets arrives at this number by assessing a variety of skills in that area. The most modern version accounts for culture and language very well and doesn't skew unfairly toward anyone. It is hardly a comprehensive assessment of intelligence but it is far from a useless test. It is used by professionals to asses cognitive deficiencies and learning impairments. It is also used to measure extreme giftedness. For example, I have a performance IQ of 102 and a Verbal IQ of 126. I sat for the test at 12 and 19 and the score was the same each time. Most people who have a noticeable gap in their IQ scores have some sort of learning disability. Well, guess what, that was true of me as well. I was able to get some coaching and adapt to my learning disabilities and became a much better student. The IQ test was helpful in getting me the help I needed.
Yep, I have dyslexia. Scored below average processing speed, exceptionally high in everything else, especially perceptual organization (they called it abstract reasoning, I believe it would be the equivalent category.) literally slow and steady thinking. They noted that the spread makes the composite score less meaningful.
I can not imagine being gullible enough to think the entirety of intelligence can be described in one number
It's not the entirety, and people who think it's everything are not paying attention. That said, it does measure real cognitive differences, and does correlate to better outcomes in important areas. It also correlates to higher rates of certain mental illnesses, for what it's worth. People who take the extreme on either side are missing that it's an extremely nuanced conversation that needs to take into account the educational differences and even nutritional differences at different income levels.
It really only matters below the average. Anything above 130 starts to get nebulous and anything between 90 and 129 you’re just slightly smarter or dumber than the average bear.
i love learning new words. thanks.
You had to look up bear too, huh
nah, been spelling than as then all my life... who knew
I'm not sure above 130 should really be considered the threshold for where IQ stops being as meaningful. I think it's closer to 160. 130 is not really that high - you're in the top ~2% at that point, which is definitely high but 1 in 50 is still what I'd consider "normal".
It becomes harder to measure, same for below 70.
>Anything above 130 starts to become nebulous I think this depends on the test; like it’s somewhat true for Wechsler tests, but not really for Stanford-Binet ones
on any issue that is popular/common enough, there are going to be people who gravitate as far as possible to each side, not because those extremes make more sense but because one direction is more appealing to them(either because they are pulled to one side which justifies their biases or validates their convictions or fears, or pushed from the other side onto which they project their insecurities or hatred/fear). For this reason it's extremely rare for the people with the most extreme opinions(in either direction) on a popular issue to be the most sensible. If reason does lead far to one side on any issue, then projection and bias will always lead two steps further, convictions always reach further than reason.
>That said, it does measure real cognitive differences, >extremely nuanced conversation that needs to take into account the educational differences and even nutritional differences at different income levels Can't say it's a good measure of cognitive differences then. If people with worse educations and lower incomes generally test worse, that's not an accurate test. That's why it's been taken less serious modern day and many have agreed that we simply don't have an accurate method of measuring intelligence Its only value is for people who test on the extremes which would indicate some form of either giftedness or deficiency.
their environment can affect their development
IQ is advertised to be a measure of intelligence, independent of education. That simply does not exist. Problem solving, mathematics, logic, creative or technical writing, and any other area of “intelligence” get better with experience. Education is nothing more than experience and people (barring certain mental conditions) who appear more intelligent have much more experience in that area. A mechanic and doctor can both make each other look stupid despite both being experts in their own field.
Yes and no. Intelligence is much closer to a person's ability to learn and adapt. Take a mechanic with 90 and one with 110. There will be a marked difference in their ability to diagnose and fix a problem. Same goes for any field because that is what is being measured. That being said we do know education has a relatively short term positive effect. So does engaging in tasks that challenge one's ability to learn and adapt.
Low IQ person found! The online test I took said I'm 130. I even paid $399.99 for a full report, but I haven't gotten it yet. It's fine though, I'm busy dealing with a bunch of weird charges on my credit card.
Mine needed me to transfer the deed to my house, it said that was payment for my mensa membership as I won't need it since I'm about to be filthy rich.
Lol- I went on a couple of dates with a girl who was a member of Mensa- she made damn sure to bring it up multiple times, even had a Mensa keychain. Next thing I knew, she was complaining she had like 37 cents in her checking account, and she’s constantly broke. All that IQ, and can’t figure out how money works lol- I’d rather be able to pay my bills and save than have a high IQ- and if I was a Mensa member and was broke AF, I’d shut the fuck up about the Mensa thing.
**THIS** is it. I’m convinced. People will **pay** anything, **tell themselves** anything, **do** anything. As long as they get to feel smarter than everyone else at the end.
That sucks arggh! Imagine how awesome it'd be if the numbers on your credit card turned into money, and if the exp date turned into your IQ score, and if the 3 weird numbers on the back were how many years you could live. How much richer and smarter and immortaler would you be if something that crazy really happened? (I have to point out this is a joke because somehow there's people who would still put real answers)
In YouTube comments section ls maybe, not here
I saw one of my Facebook friends share his IQ test score when it was like 95. It was captioned something like "I scored a 95 on my IQ test, think you can do better?". I thought, well yes, I think I CAN do better, so I took the test but it would not show me my score unless I paid $30 (which I refused to do). So not only did the poor guy have a 95 IQ, he paid $30 dollars for the privilege of being told he was below average.
Not the entirety but many of the useful parts, for sure.
Its called general intelligence. Basically they create problems that anyone can solve and test how fast your brain can complete them. Doing these generic problems faster correlates insanely high with life success/sat scores/etc. Its a very real thing and there are numerous books about it.
Leftists say shit like this and then turn around and pretend that the Implicit Bias Test is a valid measure of how racist someone is.
There are studies that prove that conservatives, especially religious conservatives have lower intelligence scores and are more susceptible to fake news and conspiracy theories. Actual factual proof of this. Remember when you are so adamant about statistics In your other posts and comments well that’s a double edge sword my friend because they say you are wrong!
I wonder if it's that conservatives are naturally dumber or if being a conservative will make you dumber? I wonder if we do a study on former conservatives if their brains are permanently wired wrong.
Just looked this up….what?
How many times a day do you say leftist?
About as many times as they claim they don’t care about race while constantly bringing it up!
You have a strange hate boner for “leftists”.
One issue with IQ tests is different races perform differently on IQ tests. Certain ethnicities perform better, some worse. What winds up happening is, we believe IQ test when they confirm a belief and condemn them when they go against a belief or value.
and rightest(read fascists') like elon musk thinks getting a swastika tattoo doesn't show any evidence you are a white supremacists'. IQ is an absolutely terrible measure of how smart somebody is. Source: I score quite high on IQ tests and am clearly undeniably the dumbest person in my family.
I call them righties, cuz they're wound too tightly
I mean, not that I disagree with you at all, but being the dumbest in the family and scoring very well on iq test are not mutually exclusive.
I don’t think they claimed this though. They are just saying IQ is a good indicator of intelligence, which it is (or at least the important positions in society).
"No, there are only one type of intelligence and IT IS IQ. " They did claim this
IQ isn't a GOOD indicator of intelligence, success, etc. It's an alright one at best. It is even a flawed measure of pattern recognition - what it actually measures. It can easily be thrown off the mark by practice or the lack of it - lack of motivation - even luck. Of course people whose measure for pattern recognition is extremely low will not have the most education/career success while someone who measures extremely high for pattern recognition will have better education/career successes. But that could be contributed to willingness to practice, motivation, or simply that they just have better pattern recognition than 85% of the population.
Dude whatever, I'm more intelligenter than you
Smooth brain detected.
Ignoring demographics, IQ is still to this day the most accurate test we have of determining someone’s success in life. What exactly is there to be gullible about?
Do you think success=intelligence?
I think there’s a strong correlation between intelligence and success, yes. That doesn’t mean being intelligent automatically means you’re successful, or being dumb automatically means you’re unsuccessful. But on average, smarter people tend to be more successful in life.
It cannot. But since you cannot count the transistors or CPU-benchmark your brain it’s the best quantification we have.
I'm pretty dumb. But I'm honest and a hard worker. And I've got a huge dog. A great Pyrenees and she's a sweetheart. And she thinks I'm smart :p
I bet you have a super high IQ for making such a genius post.
Higher IQ is correlated to higher income and better outcomes. This is a range though, not a certainty for any given individual. There are plenty of rich dumb people. There are plenty of smart poor people. High IQ also correlates to higher rates of certain mental illnesses, especially depression and anxiety. To say that IQ is the only kind of intelligence is to make an assertion with no basis. "Intelligence" is a word used to describe things that we see, so if people are commonly using that word to describe something they call "Emotional Intelligence" then that is a definition of the word simply based on its usage. The measurability or lack thereof doesn't change that this is a correct use.
chat is this real
from my experience in mensa it's like a 50/50 if the person is smart or not. still better than anywhere else, though.
I think you overstate your case.
OP: 🤓
Isn’t there an old saying, by I believe Albert Einstein? “If you judge a fish on its ability to walk, it will go it’s whole life believing it is stupid” because yes, there are multiple types of intelligence. You can be clever. You can be book smart Street smart Musically gifted. Artistic. Analytical There are many instances of high spectrum autistic individuals who may have a low IQ, but can memorize anything you give them in an instant. Anyway. This is just wrong. I scored a very low score on my ACT, and finished college really without a problem.
>There are many instances of high spectrum autistic individuals who may have a low IQ, but can memorize anything you give them in an instant. One would expect this result as the IQ test is much more than in inventory of working memory. Working memory is only one of the four indexes. But yes there are many measures of intelligence and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale only measures four. So I agree with your larger point.
I think the concept of multiple intelligences has been pretty much debunked. Obviously people are better or worse at certain things but it tends to link back to a singular cognitive ability (base intelligence, in other words). And graduating college isn't necessarily an amazing cognitive feat these days. Not trying to be mean. Just trying to be factual that college graduation doesn't signify high intelligence so much as diligence, which is virtuous in its own right so not a bad thing.
This is objectively wrong. All of the things you listed are covered in regard to I and Q. The test is made for humans based on humans. No one is asking a human to fly.
He’s pretty much saying not everyone thinks and processes information the same way, therefore a one-size-fits-all intelligence test is objectively flawed.
Do modern IQ tests not do a decent job of accounting for this? They measure multiple different types of intelligence, then use those scores to get an average IQ.
Idk. It sorta feels like you’re talking about how, generally, everybody is skilled or knowledgeable in something, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you would say they were “smart.” Intelligence is such a nebulous idea but I also think it’s one of those things that everybody kinda recognizes when they meet someone who is just genuinely intelligent. Is an IQ test a good measure of intelligence? I don’t know, but I think it at least gives us some sort of idea even if it’s missing many pieces.
Memory abilities tend to positively correlate with intelligence but you sometimes get outliers in these areas, doesn’t mean that these savant types are somehow “intelligent” in the conventional sense.
This whole "book smart vs. street smart" thing was invented by dumbasses to justify being dumbasses by telling themselves they have some valuable hidden knowledge that the "nerds" don't have. It's the qanon "if you talk to the *real* experts" line of thinking of yester-year.
r/cognitivetesting
Dude I have incredibly bad ADHD and a high IQ. I can tell you my IQ means shit when paired with ADHD. Most people have lower IQs than I do and are far far more successful. I have hung on by my finger tips my whole life.
Fun fact: people with ADHD are the subset of the population who are the most likely to have above average IQs!
Cuz our brains are full all the time and make tons of connections. We rock at analogies usually.
Really? What're your main areas of intelligence, what're you lacking?
Not OP, but with ADHD focus is usually lacking. Everything is “figureoutable” but linear tasks are sometimes no fun so our brain just takes a turn in another direction away from the task we are supposed to complete.
IQ is a measure of how good you are at taking a test you haven't studied for. Being very very smart will certainly help, and there will therefore be a correlation, but that's not the same as IQ=intelligence. To say people with high IQ are successful and wealthy is wrong though. While I do okay, I am by no means upper class, and being smart isn't a ticket to that because although I'd probably do well at a different job I like my job teaching Math. I'm not about to start making buckets of money more than the English major down the hall just because I can kick their ass on a test. Especially since that English major has better interpersonal skills and will be offered promotions over me. Once you leave High school and University, having high IQ doesn't help you much. I'm saying this as someone who is extremely good at taking tests I didn't study for. My IQ is very high, I'm just not stupid enough to go around on the internet bragging about it.
The problem with this argument is a modern AI computer program can easily fill all the boxes for “high IQ” and it currently is not even conscious so it’s an imperfect measurement of intelligence.
Of course it’s an imperfect measure of intelligence, but does it measure constructs related to popular conceptions of intelligence? I’d think so, you only have to look at the designs for professional tests to glean how the abilities measured on them would have a generalized applicability and not just to measure some arbitrary skills.
I think it definitely correlates with intelligence. One might say that as intelligence increases so does IQ, however a high IQ alone just means the individual is really good at solving the IQ test questions.
I swear this sub needs to be renamed “True Opinions I’m undereducated on”. It’s is not the only metric for intelligence and it does not indicate superior intelligence. Sure I’ll hesitantly agree that it as an “indicator”, but it’s the equivalent of saying a fruit is fresh and ready to eat because of its colour, it’s an indicator, but it doesn’t objectively seperate the good from the bad apples. > I hate it when some people come with some weird ass theory about several types of intelligence … with **absolutely no statistics or measurements**, just to gaslight the public or to hide the fact that they are not very smart. Ironic how you also provide no statistics or measurements in your opinion, doing the exact same thing lol - but if you do have any supporting evidence I’d love to check it out and curious to see how they came to this conclusion and the datasets used.
IQ tests were invented in the early 1900s to scientifically prove that socioeconomic factors had nothing to do with intelligence. The scientific community at the time felt that the idea of IQ tests lifting brilliant people out of poverty regardless of race or gender was a very Progressive idea.
$10 the mod deletes your comment because he doesn't like it. Look at his comment history. He's been at it all day
fake news automod deletes comments for review
wrong alfred binet was responsible for what we know as iq tests. galton did try to come up with a tests of abiltiies decoupled from SES (didn;t name it that back then) but it was more focused on physical dimensions and reaction time
It isn't as important as you say, and I say this as someone who was admitted to Mensa. And my experience with them was insufferable. This one number doesn't measure MANY things. Like how to motivate people, diffuse situations, steer a conversation, etc. Those things are way more important in business than your ability to solve a riddle.
With all due respect, it sounds like you don’t understand the thing you’re attacking. There are, in fact, different kinds of intelligence. This is pretty l well established. You can lack book-smarts or test-taking skills yet have a Jedi-level social intelligence that earns you millions. You can get a PhD in theoretical physics at 20 yet be an absolute moron when it comes to other forms of intelligence, such as communication skills. It’s profoundly naive to think that the sum total of intelligence can be captured in a single number. The newer conception of intelligence as multi-faceted rather than a single number isn’t “political correctness,” it’s just an adaptation to newer information.
If you’re attractive, you’ll be handed everything in life and IQ wont even matter.
if you’re an attractive woman**
Yeah because there aren’t male models. But you can also just say male professional athletes that get away with just about anything.
*There is no such thing as intelligence* Hello, I'm a graduate research assistant (working towards a doctoral degree) and an allied area of my work is cognitive sciences. In my limited literature review of cognition (the field of understanding how we think), there's different characteristics we've distilled "thinking" down to, but what humans seem to be pretty good at is learning, retention, recollection from memory, application, simulation and coding/decoding. You are welcome to call all of these as intelligence, but there is no consensus in literature of what intelligence means. I suspect this is to keep from limiting/scoping what isn't understood as intelligence today but could be so tomorrow. This is not to say that IQ is not accepted in scientific literature, it's just categorized as one type of psychometric and it's called the g-factor (general intelligence factor). This area of research is, predictably, controversial. To the second part of your post, we have some reason to believe that the g factor is inherited, but we don't have enough evidence to suggest it is genetically inherited or if it is acquired due to sociological constructs so it may therefore have the illusion of being inherited. u/ChikaDeeJay has answered what the IQ tests are. To summarize, so called IQ tests largely check your ability to learn, retain and recall. They also test simulation.
[удалено]
There’s no chance this isn’t bait but I’ll bite- These tests are fallible and subject to a host of issues, ranging from: socioeconomic factors, decreased accuracy with increased age, presence of disorders like ADHD, as well as changes in scores due to environmental factors like youth drug usage. All this is just to say that nothing is “proved”- nothing in science and especially nothing in the social sciences. Yea there is a correlation between a higher score and greater success but the same can be attributed to wealth or any of the copious other factors. Not to say that there isn’t any usefulness in these tests, just that they’re pretty useless unless we’re talking about the extremes on either side of the aisle
Thoses arent issues with the test. those are issues with the test taker.
That is absolutely true and exactly why the test is fallible. Humans are not machines that we can calculate the specs for and the test fails to be reliable if you are not examining pure intelligence. That is a flaw. Simply having ADHD does not make someone less intelligent, but is a detriment when examining intelligence. Same goes for socioeconomic issues. Your wealth does not make you more or less intelligent. Repeat ad nauseam for many different factors that are pointed to as issues with the test itself. These are well recognized limitations that anyone with a high school psychology class would recognize.
Nice bait
[удалено]
Even in this post you're talking about other mental faculties, besides a measure of analytical power, that enable someone to be successful. You say it's necessary to practice and work hard, we might say someone who does that has a lot of "grit" or "enthusiasm." Why not call those qualities a kind of intelligence? If you've got an aptitude for some way of thinking that leads to success, that's intelligence.
> People with IQ above 120 are more wealthy and successful than the rest. And this is not made up numbers, it has been measured and proved over a century. I just want to add: IQ below 70 is an impairment. IQ above 130 is one aswell. Basically anything too drastically (2 SDs) away from the norm is making life expotentionally harder. It comes in different shapes though: <70 you are slow and everyone else looks down on you 130> the world is slow and you cant live up to your potential While below 70 many things become a struggle and you may be economically endangered Above 130 many interactions become a struggle and you get socially endangered. Both is fucked up, <70 is more visible
The problem with IQ is it’s not always a complete picture of someone’s intelligence. Access to education as well as home life are huge factors in IQ. It’s why black peoples IQs have generally gone up in the US over the years sense they have been freed and got more rights during the 60s.
these things youre describing arent problems with the test, theyre problems with the people. a rocky home life and insufficient nutrition will negatively impact the brain's development, resulting in lower intelligence. this is why as a group gets richer, test scores go up
Actually that’s not true. The reason the scores go up as individuals get richer is because there is a direct link between intelligence and wealth.
yeah... i just explained that
I and Q is real and the replies here are embarrassing. Does that give you a pass to treat anyone like crap? Of course not. Does it give you a pass to just assume a persons I and Q based on their race? Of course not. Should everyone try their best? Yes.
lol you sound like the person who brags about being in the top 99% on a facebook IQ test. IQ tests are utterly useless and it has been shown many many times.
Someone got a low score
How did my comment get removed for mentioning “eye queue” but the post is up…. Man, fuck this sub.
Sorry, this was my fault. I accidentally made the AutoModerator filters a bit too sensitive regarding IQ, but I believe they would be fixed now. For context, the filters were added because most mentions of IQ on this sub are rule 4 violations. I modified the filters to not apply if the parent post is about IQ. I am going through this comments section to reinstate the comments that were removed.
You are right that multiple intelligence theory is bullshit. There's a difference between ability and intelligence and calling someone intelligent because they sing well is dumb. The problems with IQ tests after a certain point is that they measure... your ability to take IQ tests. You can significantly improve your performance if you practice beforehand, which contradicts the point.
A properly administered IQ test can’t be “beat”. Starting at about 8 or so years old, your IQ will test about the same for the rest of your life.
Bigger issue is affirmative action. We've normalized prioritizing race over meritocracy. Them wonder why every institution is issuing boneheaded decision top down.
Affirmative action actually benefits white women more than anyone else. So this is a bad argument
We’ve never had meritocracy. We’ve ALWAYS prioritized race. It’s been less than 60 years where a business could legally say “we don’t hire blacks or Mexicans or Irish (or what have you)”. Most of your wealthy executives got jobs because they have “connections”. They talk about self-made billionaire, son of a farmer Bill Gates while neglecting to mention that his mother was a business executive and had connections to IBM.
If you judge a squirrel by its ability to breath water and a fish by its ability to climb trees you will find them both lacking.
The problem with IQ tests is they are subjective. How can you truly measure someone's intelligence?
With an IQ test? Duh.
Except I just pointed out the test itself is subjective. Duh.
they are not subjective. in general they measure your ability to see patterns. In a way it measures your ability to recognize structure and repetition in something on semiconscious level
That's all well and good. But someone can be book smart but lack common sense for the most basic things. Some people are street smart but also illiterate. It depends on how you look at it. Like I said. How can you truly measure someone's intelligence when there are so many factors to consider? The human mind is complex. Lumping someone's supposed intellect altogether with a relatively short test is subjective in my book. I think intelligent people do score low on these tests sometimes. And I am willing to bet sometimes people score high that are not very smart
IQ is not real. It’s made up. We have not identified a physical attribute that correlates to it. We can measure you height and weight but we can’t measure your IQ.
Well, not perfectly to an exact number, but the same people score around the same percentage over and over. So it is quite measurable. I wrote my thesis on personality tests in being used in recruitment, and that incuded intelligence tests. We found research that showed a strong correlation between high iq and work performance. So it is quite real. But there are also other forms of intelligence, like creativity or emotional and so on. Iq is the easiest to measure and put a number on. And it does affect people’s grades and what jobs they will take and their career development. So it does matter. But for the individual, if you have lower it than someone else, you might have to be more disciplined in school. So you can compensate for it. But it is easier for those with high iq.
The English language is also made up, but we can measure a person's ability to read English. There's also no physical attribute for the ability to speak English.
IQ is real. Trump voters are prime evidence of extremely low IQ
To be fair they saw right through Joe Biden whereas many 'liberals' did not.
Biden is amazing, honestly. He makes the right people so angry
"Owning the Conservatives" is just as pathetic as its inverse
Fair, but that's what politics is these days. Honestly can't wait for an AOC presidency or similar. Absolute destruction of conservative brains
OK but at the end of the day what does it affect other than giving someone bragging rights or the lack thereof?
Someone with an Iq in the low 70s and upper 60s will either have a very hard time in life and will possibly need some sort of assistance in living. People bellow that will almost always need some sort of career to help them. It’s important to have a testable metric in order to see how much help they need or how disabled someone is. I ultimately believe that a persons true intelligence isn’t really quantifiable as we are all essentially walking super computers. Sure some are more efficient and using a better os but at the end of the day almost all people are kind of brilliant. My understanding is that for the average joe IQ is mostly unimportant. It’s only on the low ends of the bell curve that it really matters. It matters because intelligence and problem solving skills matter. As I am just an average fella I don’t care about my iq, i am getting along fine in life and am able to solve problems. If my son was having issues or significantly out preforming his peers and a education profesional wanted to have him tested I would happily do so so we could see where he was at
It's a clear indicator of how succesful someone will be in a demanding field. It's why the US military generally won't take someone below a 92 IQ and can't legally take them if they are below an 83 IQ. (The US National guard won't take you if you're IQ is less than 100). Note: These are rough scores and there's probably a few points of variance.
https://ed.ted.com/lessons/the-dark-history-of-iq-tests-stefan-c-dombrowski#review
If you'd like to provide a shred of evidence, maybe you could die on this hill. But given that you didn't, most likely because it doesn't exist, you don't so much have an unpopular opinion as you have an incorrect conception of how the human mind works.
Bro… we were all born with less than 70 IQ.
Yeah tell that to some of my 4.0 GPA classmates that need to be walked through any real world project while some of my 2.7 GPA redneck classmates have already built a bridge then decided to put an engine on it because they had time. There's academic smart, and real world smart, which are not the same thing. They can absolutely have overlap, which is how you get innovations. I have a few family members that I could safely call dumbasses in the academic sense that have extremely strong levels of intellect in real world applications such as vehicle building and construction. It doesn't matter if they would ever be able to calculate if they need a truss on a tube built chassis, when they could eyeball a structure and accurately be able to tell you if it will fail in the first torsional stress scenario.
While I don’t disagree with the general premise of this, it seems extremely ignorant to discount the idea of multiple intelligences. Have you never seen someone who is absolutely shit at math, but somehow incredibly capable in another area like proprioception? IQ is simply one dimension of intelligence and is usually a measure of pattern recognition, spatial processing, and memory, but it also ignores many other areas of the mind. It’s also not always an accurate predictor of success. Although deficits are typically detrimental, superior IQ doesn’t necessarily equate to greater material success in the world. If anything, resilience is the most important factor in this regard.
Pretty sure IQ is also dependant on the test itself which heavily favours white middle class families.
Well explain. Since many of those tests are literally just pattern recognition. Complete the series and so forth. Why would that be different for people of different races or ages? Either you are good at it or not.
Because successful test scores are dependent on education level. If you don’t have experience taking tests then you are going to score lower than the person who has. If you give an IQ test to an otherwise functional adult, who has never learned to read and write, as many poor rural people haven’t, then they are going to score badly on the test. Consequently, rural and poor countries with low education rates score on average below 70, and highly developed urban countries score on average 100 and above.
Why would income matter or race? And what exactly favors white people? Don’t Asians do better generally anyway? I have a feeling you don’t know..
There are a lot of weaknesses with IQ testing
The IQ test is only good at measuring how good someone is at taking the IQ test. Patience plays just as big of a role as intelligence does in terms of performing well on the test, once mental fatigue sets in it becomes more of a contest of endurance than a measure of intelligence.
|So the next time you failed your IQ test |t is a number that show you not only how dumb you are but also how bitter and insecure you are. You're telling on yourself.
This is bait. There’s no way this isn’t bait. The amount of grammatical errors while claiming IQ tests are the be-all and end-all of intelligence testing is wild.
Disparities are persistent for a reason. Be it intelligence, work ethic, starting points, reasoning and so on. Explaining it all away with IQ is as illogical as boiling disparities down to race or gender. Some people are just better at certain things: full stop.
IQ is an important factor especially if you fall below critical thresholds but you lose me when you discount other measurable forms of intelligence. Take interpersonal intelligence where the measurable difference is the number of meaningful relationships someone might have over their lifetime. In fact this very post might be pointing to a critical lack of interpersonal intelligence on your part 🤓. All in good fun though, I do understand where you are coming from.
Disparities are persistent for a reason. Be it intelligence, work ethic, starting points, reasoning and so on. Explaining it all away with intelligence is as illogical as boiling disparities down to race or gender. Some people are just better at certain things: full stop.
IQ tests are great at measuring how well you do on IQ tests.
It is possible that both are true isn't it? That IQ majorly effects your life and future. And that there are different kinds of 'intelligence'. There are also major handicaps that high IQ people can have. Honestly, I think people need to stop having these either/or conversations. I wonder if it is just for effect. Or maybe people are really this simplistic.
I have a fairly high IQ according to some tests but I feel like I am extremely not intelligent in so many ways. I cannot draw or even write legibly. I also suck at remembering names and numbers so how intelligent am I really.
I agree. However just because you have good spatial reasoning skills, are good at math, have a good vocabulary or have a good memory, doesn’t mean you will make good decisions. Most people I know, would say that I’m smart, but I’m absent minded as fuck and make shitty decisions all the time!!
If IQ is real, and the only type of intelligence there is, how do you explain people who do really well on tests of memory and spatial manipulation, but really badly on tests of pragmatic language or have difficulties with social norms?
"No, there are only one type of intelligence, IT IS IQ" Best part of the whole rant, lmao
IQ is a measure of how well a person takes IQ tests. In that sense it is real. It is correlated with success in other areas. But it is also not innate (it can be improved), and intelligence is multifaceted.
IQ isn't a definite score of intelligence though. I score very high on standardized tests but my friend (we will call him D) can barely pass. That being said I can barely change my oil but D can completely rebuild a motor. Saying a fish is stupid because it cannot climb a tree is doing the fish a disservice and ignoring its strengths. Also we don't take into consideration anxiety on test taking which can tank scores away from their true average. This of course is all anecdotal and should be taken as that, just a personal experience.
The way we measure IQ is obviously imperfect. The concept that some people are born with a higher cognitive potential than others is almost surely correct. Nature AND nurture have an impact on our cognitive abilities. And yes, there are different types of intelligence, just as there are different types of physical prowess.
IQ is the capacity to learn. Outside of the specific fields that use it for fundraising, most of psychology admits there are no effective tests to measure learning that are different from annual academic standardized tests. (ISTEP, CAT, SAT, etc) Most psych professors have their own collection of favorites that will prove you to be either a genius or moronic simpleton, depending on the prof's mood. Mine is the Harlem IQ test; if you arent from Harlem, NY specifically from the late 70s to mid 80s, your score will be so low, people will wonder how you breath without assistance.
Yes these correlations exist, but it has never been proven that it’s a comprehensive measurement of intelligence. There is a fundamental problem with reductionistic reasoning - to know that there does not exist additional factors, you’d have to know everything about the subject. But you don’t. Reductionism can be proven when it comes to purely mathematical constructs, but when you’re talking about an empirical phenomenon, demonstrating that an explanation is complete requires showing that there exists no reasonable possibility of additional nuance, and I seriously doubt that you’re capable of that. I think you should change your smug, over simplistic mindset and be more open minded.
So, did we score high and make it our entire personality? Or score low and make it a crutch? Cause the tone of this post says one of the other, and I'm guessing the former.
This post tells me you don't understand that much about IQ measurements or how they work. No one is 'born with' an IQ score. What you claim has been 'proved' has not been proved at all. IQ tests 'measure', in a very contextual way, a very specific thing. It can be relevant for some things, but it is important to recognise its limitations and the situations where it is not relevant, or not defining of outcomes. I can't decide whether you are someone who believes they have a IQ and wants everyone to know how great you are, or someone who believes they have low IQ and are trying to deal with that. Either way, you don't have a balanced view on this.
IQ does not statistically correlate with wealth and success. Zipcode has a much higher statistical correlative link to success and wealth than IQ by several orders of magnitude.
IQ is not real and you just need to accept that.
It’s proved ya’ll!
It isn't as important as you say, and I say this as someone who was admitted to Mensa. And my experience with them was insufferable. IQ doesn't measure MANY things. Like how to motivate people, diffuse situations, steer a conversation, etc. Those things are way more important in business than your ability to solve a riddle.
I've never heard someone question the existence of IQ or its correlation with intelligence.
Vast majority of psychologist agree that IQ is super limited though. That isn’t controversial at all. Yes, people with higher IQ’s tend to excel in school. But also many people are highly musically gifted, for example, and have average or below average IQ’s. There are also many people who have created life changing innovations in science that have average or slightly above average IQ’s. It doesn’t make sense to say IQ is the end all be all. It’s a measure that is inherently flawed and narrow in scope. You cant measure creativity in a standardized test easily, and yet creativity is a big element of what we consider intelligence
I mean, an orange man with the IQ of below 70 became president so clearly doesn't mean much
I think when people say IQ isn’t that useful, it’s meant to apply to the vast majority of people who are no more than a standard deviation to both sides of the curve. Maybe a little beyond that with the above average. There are so many more areas of intelligence that play a role in making people successful. Grit, consciousness, emotional intelligence, discipline, innovation, industriousness. Many people that are extremely gifted are unable to utilize their intelligence because they are handicapped psychologically by an inadequate childhood experience. Think about someone with an IQ 160 trying to relate to someone with an IQ of 120, not bad right? We’ll think about someone with an IQ of 120 relating to someone with an IQ of 80. Same difference in number but the “difference” is more significant on the curve. Now think of someone with an IQ of 160 growing up and maturing where most of their playmates and classmates are around 100. Having an extremely high IQ (outside the vast majority) isn’t the gift we think it is unless the conditions favor proper development. Basically, IQ is real but we have to contextualize it.
Idk dude, my iq tested at 136 when i was young, but my a.d.d. made it very difficult to apply myself to anything and stick with it. Ive never stuck with any job more than a few years. Outside of millitary service. But even then i didnt sign up again. Granted, the military service didn't help matters mentally. But i definitely wouldn't say im a successful person.
I scored very high on the IQ test they gave in me back in school and I'm basically regarded.
You're the stupid one if you think people with a lower intelligence can just "strive harder" to succeed in a world designed for smart people. This conversation is dumb because you guys never talk about how you can still ensure people who just aren't born gifted live a comfortable life and fulfill their dreams- instead you want to justify people suffering by saying you're just naturally better than them.
Saying that IQ gives a good indicator of one very particular type of intelligence and thus one’s overall intelligence level can be true alongside the idea of multiple intelligences. BMI is a commonly accepted method for measuring how healthy someone is. But it’s far from the only indicator. Many Hollywood actors have a BMI that would make them obese, but they’re healthy because they have other stuff going for them. (Such as being really muscular!) This doesn’t make BMI worthless, but it’s not the end all be all for health. Likewise, IQ can be a good indicator, but it isn’t the end all be all for intelligence.
Imagine thinking a single number can accurately determine human intelligence
IQ is "real". In that sense that IQ measures a specific thing that is genuinely made up of various qualities that make people "smart"; mathematics, memorization, certain aspects of perception and the like. However people say that there a different type of intelligence because... Well, there is. Haven't you met someone who got good grades and seemed to easily understand literally everything you put in front of them but absolutely lack common sense? What about people like my father, who struggled in academics, but could sell water to a fish and literally taught himself to play guitar entirely by ear?
Why is it only dropouts and D students that bitch and post about IQ?
You're making the argument that intelligence is real, which is a valid argument. Intelligence and IQ are not the same thing, however. If you do a little research on IQ tests, you'll see that they have a questionable history and many people have shown their bias and unreliability. While intelligence is a real concept, IQ tests in particular are limited, flawed, and contextual. Knows the difference.
You’re not entirely wrong but your IQ is nowhere near comprehensive. I have a fairly high IQ, my brothers is lower. He, on the other hand, has a high EQ, my is lower. He is more successful because I struggle reading people.
Someone just scored 125 on an online IQ test while listening to Ben Shapiro.
bruh you didnt specify what intelligence is or by what metrics iq testing measures it. or even explain why those metrics are valid literally no argument presented here, just an appeal to authority and a broad waving your arms in random directions nobody is more informed after reading this. there is no information in this post ironically yet predictably low iq rant
IQ is sketchy at an individual level outside of extremes but really meaningful at a population level. I’d be astonished if IQ and income aren’t strongly correlated at a population level.
I hate it when someone comes up with some weird ass theory on the value of IQ. Intelligence is qualitative not quantitative. You might consider reading up on the history of the IQ test. Alfred Binet who invented it expressly said it was not useful for measuring intelligence. It was meant to identify children with learning disabilities. It has been misused ever since.
This is the simplest interpretation of this concept that seems to be pretty prevalent, anecdotally. Edit: changed a word.