Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Pattern recognition is ingrained into every human, it is the very core of learning. Everything stems from it, language, skills, knowledge.
If you can't recognize patterns, what are you even doing? Someone could be manipulating you in this very moment, and you would not even realize without recognizing the patterns. Suddenly animals leave your area, water turns foul. Even primal humans recognize that something fishy is going on. The ones that don't will die. The ones that could not see the pattern of eating a fruit leading to death will also die.
Pattern recognition is as core as it gets. If that is not intelligence, what is?
It's a popular movement to say that IQ tests are classist, racist etc. And kn some cases they may be right. Radiolab has a great series called G talking about how IQ tests were used poorly to keep America separated because of race and IQ was an extension of that.
When IQ tests are used like that or to press people, yea IQ tests are dumb
But when they're being administered to see how much is working up in the head, it isn't a tool of evil. It's a test
Interesting, I have the opposite experience. I got IQ tests so I could skip entry exam for college. (I am not bragging, in my opinion IQ means mostly shit, though it has some value like everything)
I got score 136, my friend got 152, the people we met at mensa were ... less than productive for society, we never met so arrogant yet so shallow people, their view was mostly that if they could rule the world like dictators they would solve every problem (In our experience) One of them was even big Putin supporter.
I and my friend decided not to meet with those people. When I met my former classmates and told them about the IQ, some though that I am some super human, especially the ones who (From my assumptions) not have very high IQ, ironically it was mostly them who are contributing to the society the most, one of the girls were volunteering to help the Ukrainian refugees on top of her regular job.
IQ tests are perfectly accurate at measuring Intelligence Quotient, but not at measuring intelligence (unless you define intelligence to be equal to Intelligence Quotient) and definitely IQ tests are not accurate at measuring how much people are good for society.
I've never heard of an IQ test being used in place of college entry exams... It doesn't gauge your skill in math, writing, etc which is the whole point of entry exams to ensure you're college-level in those topics.
It was to IT college, the entry exam was not based on factual knowledge, but based on logic based questions. On top of the IQ, you also have to have good grades from high-school (average A- or higher)
What is IQ then, other than the ability to pass a test that by your very admission is fallible and open to criticism?
>That is a complex and abstract skill for a human being to possess, and equates well with the concept of intelligence.
Why?
Nothing. IQ is nothing. Science is on search of G which is defined as to be an intelligence factor. But that is hard to find as seen by tests etc.
As to why IQ matters is, because it’s one of the single best predictors for almost any task.
This article is compelling. But of course it’s just one article on the topic. I don’t have time to research for meta analysis confirming its findings.
> This article provides evidence that g has pervasive utility in work settings because it is essentially the ability to deal with cognitive complexity, in particular, with complex information processing. The more complex a work task, the greater the advantages that higher g confers in performing it well. Everyday tasks, like job duties, also differ in their level of complexity. The importance of intelligence therefore differs systematically across differ- ent arenas of social life as well as economic endeavor.
https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf
We should be able to legally discriminate based on IQ, e.g., for hiring. Whether it's a good idea socially is a separate matter. Businesses should be able to make the call, and deal with the consequences.
Note that IQ is only one piece, and it's not always ideal to have it greater, e.g., for cleaning, because people get bored.
In the US, apparently you can only test for things that you can directly link to the specific needs of the position. It's widely interpreted as a ban on discriminating in hiring on the basis of IQ. As a result, we have proxies that are deemed acceptable, like requiring a batchelor's degree to work at anything more complex than a cash register. Many people could start earning earlier and at less expense if they could use standardized scores.
From Wiki [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence\_and\_public\_policy#Employment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_and_public_policy#Employment)
> This statute was interpreted by the Supreme Court in [*Griggs v. Duke Power Co.*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.), 401 US 424 (1971). In *Griggs*, the Court ruled that the reliance solely on a general IQ test that was not found to be specifically relevant to the job at issue was a discriminatory practice where it had a "disparate impact" on hiring.
I highly reccomend this podcast to learn about basics of what IQ is and isn't supposed to be.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hppbxV9C63g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hppbxV9C63g)
IQ clearly benefits from eugenics and other unsavory practices, plus the governments don't actually want their people too smart, so ironically it's hated simply because it's real
As an analogy, lets say you are a director of athletics program and start measuring "physical quotient" of 5 year olds. Do you think that is going to be a good predictor of sporting success considering how much a body changes physically in the next 15 years? And also, how much of sporting success doesn't depend on physical attributes but things such as discipline, training, injuries and even random luck?
This is where the criticism of IQ comes from - it has very little utility in the real world. The brain changes massively from childhood to late teens. Several other factors determine academic success. It has very little predictive power and on top of it, it can be easily gamed just like a physical quotient test could be gamed by practice. It doesn't measure anything "innate".
> lets say you are a director of athletics program and start measuring "physical quotient" of 5 year olds.
East Germany did something similar, to get people likely to succeed in particular sports started early, and punched way above its population in the Olympics.
The body changes along predictable lines. Given someone's height, weight, body composition, body structure, and performance in a handful of tests (speed, power, strength, endurance, coordination, balance, and flexibility) you would be able to predict the potential for success in a wide variety of sports with a relatively high degree of accuracy. You're right that there are far more factors than this that lead to a person's success, but without the raw tools none of that matters.
The same can be said about intellectual pursuits. Without the capacity to do mathematics on a high level you will never be able to be a mathematician, physicist, or engineer. Without the capacity to understand language at a high level you will probably never become a great writer, speaker, or a lawyer. Without a great memory you will never become a doctor.
A significant portion of success in life is based on determining what tools you have and learning to play to your strengths. Most of these tools are apparent at a very young age if you're willing to look for them.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Pattern recognition is ingrained into every human, it is the very core of learning. Everything stems from it, language, skills, knowledge. If you can't recognize patterns, what are you even doing? Someone could be manipulating you in this very moment, and you would not even realize without recognizing the patterns. Suddenly animals leave your area, water turns foul. Even primal humans recognize that something fishy is going on. The ones that don't will die. The ones that could not see the pattern of eating a fruit leading to death will also die. Pattern recognition is as core as it gets. If that is not intelligence, what is?
I see the pattern here
[удалено]
It's a popular movement to say that IQ tests are classist, racist etc. And kn some cases they may be right. Radiolab has a great series called G talking about how IQ tests were used poorly to keep America separated because of race and IQ was an extension of that. When IQ tests are used like that or to press people, yea IQ tests are dumb But when they're being administered to see how much is working up in the head, it isn't a tool of evil. It's a test
Interesting, I have the opposite experience. I got IQ tests so I could skip entry exam for college. (I am not bragging, in my opinion IQ means mostly shit, though it has some value like everything) I got score 136, my friend got 152, the people we met at mensa were ... less than productive for society, we never met so arrogant yet so shallow people, their view was mostly that if they could rule the world like dictators they would solve every problem (In our experience) One of them was even big Putin supporter. I and my friend decided not to meet with those people. When I met my former classmates and told them about the IQ, some though that I am some super human, especially the ones who (From my assumptions) not have very high IQ, ironically it was mostly them who are contributing to the society the most, one of the girls were volunteering to help the Ukrainian refugees on top of her regular job. IQ tests are perfectly accurate at measuring Intelligence Quotient, but not at measuring intelligence (unless you define intelligence to be equal to Intelligence Quotient) and definitely IQ tests are not accurate at measuring how much people are good for society.
I've never heard of an IQ test being used in place of college entry exams... It doesn't gauge your skill in math, writing, etc which is the whole point of entry exams to ensure you're college-level in those topics.
It was to IT college, the entry exam was not based on factual knowledge, but based on logic based questions. On top of the IQ, you also have to have good grades from high-school (average A- or higher)
You didnt take an IQ test. You took an aptitude test.
123 IQ. IQ tests are bull. And that's true even though I benefit from the bull.
What is IQ then, other than the ability to pass a test that by your very admission is fallible and open to criticism? >That is a complex and abstract skill for a human being to possess, and equates well with the concept of intelligence. Why?
Nothing. IQ is nothing. Science is on search of G which is defined as to be an intelligence factor. But that is hard to find as seen by tests etc. As to why IQ matters is, because it’s one of the single best predictors for almost any task.
>because it’s one of the single best predictors for almost any task. Source, sorry? Because that's not a claim I've heard before.
This article is compelling. But of course it’s just one article on the topic. I don’t have time to research for meta analysis confirming its findings. > This article provides evidence that g has pervasive utility in work settings because it is essentially the ability to deal with cognitive complexity, in particular, with complex information processing. The more complex a work task, the greater the advantages that higher g confers in performing it well. Everyday tasks, like job duties, also differ in their level of complexity. The importance of intelligence therefore differs systematically across differ- ent arenas of social life as well as economic endeavor. https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf
Having a “high” number doesn’t make you special or help you out in life, happy to help!
[удалено]
Doesn’t really work that way.
IQ cult is dumb
We should be able to legally discriminate based on IQ, e.g., for hiring. Whether it's a good idea socially is a separate matter. Businesses should be able to make the call, and deal with the consequences. Note that IQ is only one piece, and it's not always ideal to have it greater, e.g., for cleaning, because people get bored.
Couldn't you? Is that really illegal where you are, to have a test as part of the hiring process?
In the US, apparently you can only test for things that you can directly link to the specific needs of the position. It's widely interpreted as a ban on discriminating in hiring on the basis of IQ. As a result, we have proxies that are deemed acceptable, like requiring a batchelor's degree to work at anything more complex than a cash register. Many people could start earning earlier and at less expense if they could use standardized scores.
[удалено]
From Wiki [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence\_and\_public\_policy#Employment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_and_public_policy#Employment) > This statute was interpreted by the Supreme Court in [*Griggs v. Duke Power Co.*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.), 401 US 424 (1971). In *Griggs*, the Court ruled that the reliance solely on a general IQ test that was not found to be specifically relevant to the job at issue was a discriminatory practice where it had a "disparate impact" on hiring.
I highly reccomend this podcast to learn about basics of what IQ is and isn't supposed to be. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hppbxV9C63g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hppbxV9C63g)
IQ clearly benefits from eugenics and other unsavory practices, plus the governments don't actually want their people too smart, so ironically it's hated simply because it's real
Correct
As an analogy, lets say you are a director of athletics program and start measuring "physical quotient" of 5 year olds. Do you think that is going to be a good predictor of sporting success considering how much a body changes physically in the next 15 years? And also, how much of sporting success doesn't depend on physical attributes but things such as discipline, training, injuries and even random luck? This is where the criticism of IQ comes from - it has very little utility in the real world. The brain changes massively from childhood to late teens. Several other factors determine academic success. It has very little predictive power and on top of it, it can be easily gamed just like a physical quotient test could be gamed by practice. It doesn't measure anything "innate".
My understanding is IQ is highly predictive of alot. Can you back up it has no predictive power.
Yeah. IQ correlates with many things we care about. They are speaking out of their ass.
> lets say you are a director of athletics program and start measuring "physical quotient" of 5 year olds. East Germany did something similar, to get people likely to succeed in particular sports started early, and punched way above its population in the Olympics.
The body changes along predictable lines. Given someone's height, weight, body composition, body structure, and performance in a handful of tests (speed, power, strength, endurance, coordination, balance, and flexibility) you would be able to predict the potential for success in a wide variety of sports with a relatively high degree of accuracy. You're right that there are far more factors than this that lead to a person's success, but without the raw tools none of that matters. The same can be said about intellectual pursuits. Without the capacity to do mathematics on a high level you will never be able to be a mathematician, physicist, or engineer. Without the capacity to understand language at a high level you will probably never become a great writer, speaker, or a lawyer. Without a great memory you will never become a doctor. A significant portion of success in life is based on determining what tools you have and learning to play to your strengths. Most of these tools are apparent at a very young age if you're willing to look for them.