Do you believe in I.Q tests (and I.Q score in general)? - sleep deprived and overcaffeinated man has thonk over thonk points

[Foghot]

A lot of pepole like to dunk on dudes with shit I.Q scores, but what truly are your thoughts?

From what i'm observing, I personally believe modern I.Q tests haven't fallen into obsolesence because of two major things:

1) An overwhelming majority in the neuroscientific and psychological fields tend to over-rely on it without really bothering to at least develop it further or consider other ideas more seriously, leading to entire generations worth of research papers and education techniques being themselves closely intertwined with this concept.

2) Mongoloids of all avenues put too much stock on it, therefore creating more demand for I.Q testing, not unlike fortune telling in a lot of ways.

None of it is helped by the fact that it is also very easy to cheat on these tests, even on printed ones, since most test sheets will resemble each other with minor variations sprinkled here and there.* The only reason that I.Q is still considered relevant I have found so far is that the majority of times (say, about 55% of the time) pepole find it accurate in it's context and/or selectively start considering it irrelevant the moment it doesn't suit them even though it is in fact linked to their situation.

*: Some would say cheating in this situation would be a sign of higher intelligence, and this isn't completely unlikely, but regardless of how smart you are, anyone can learn by heart how to deal with raw logic tests, it will just take a bit longer.
It's most likely whoever did that never understood the ideas and logic behind the questions.

 

[DDBCAE CBAADCBE]

Doesn't Elon Musk have like a super high IQ or something even though he's a total slobbering retard?

 

[break these cuffs]

No, they are inherently racist because white people developed them.

 

[some Sketchy dude]

I believe they exist, yes

 

[SIGSEGV]

I don't believe that they exist.

 

[kūhaku]

They exist and are somewhat accurate but a single number is never going to be able to define a person enough. Being 150 IQ because you have a high score in one skill vs a high score in another is a big difference especially in the practicality of said skill. It works as a general guideline but doesn’t tell you much else. Well, unless you’re <83

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

I think their value is a bit questionable. People are smart about different things. You can be a quantum physicist and have no idea how to change your own oil. You can be a world renowned artist and not know how to do long division. A genius is just an idiot, except regarding one or two topics.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Intelligence comprises many talents like being able to create new things, be creative, memorize facts and solve problems (not to mention having the drive to do any of them). You need to be retarded to believe a single test somehow grades your ability on all those aspects.

 

[murdered meat bag]

high iq means you can recognize patterns and solve problems quickly.

doesnt mean you wont smoke crack and then turn into a junkie.

arthur jensen wasnt wrong.

 

[Thumb Butler]

I'm retarded but still don't crap my pants every day. Only every other day. I guess I'm smart.

 

[Distant Stare]

Show me STEM professor or researcher with an 65 IQ and I will stop believing.

 

[LatinasAreTheFuture]

For our day to day interactions it seems negligible, but there is one field where it is supremely important: the military. Those with higher iq’s are more easily able to hit targets, to operate complicated machinery and are more able to make on the fly decisions. Ya other than that, pretty useless

 

[Kosher Dill]

By all indications the tests do measure a factor that is real, or "real" enough. But society currently assigns far too much weight to that factor (either directly or by proxies) when allocating resources and opportunity.

 

[Dialtone]

I took an I.Q test and they gave me a low score, so I put a 1 in front of it...
now I have a 120 I.Q

 

[Prophetic Spirit]

Probably it's a 50/50 since "high iq" people like Elon Musk are literally a joke but can be a nice information if you don't understand some things. Anyway, in my deep opinion:
Even the dumbest one can learn... you need only time.

 

[JamusActimus]

I.Q is overrated.
You can be moderately succesfull with a low/average I.Q.
Relationships and jobs/school are not that demanding I.Q wise

 

[Banworld]

IQ is real, and it matters pretty immensely on a group level. The issue is when you look at it individually, it's not such a huge issue.

Someone with a low IQ isn't doomed, they can learn about relatively complex things, and how to understand relatively complex things as well - it usually just takes longer. So it's not like you're a mongoloid for life if you have a low IQ, if you find something you can just do hours of, you will have a career and be fine.

Issue is, when groups differ in IQ, that additional time it takes low IQ people to get acquainted with something is time the high IQ people spend moving onto more advanced parts of that subject. Hence why IQ is correlated with both job performance and socio-economic outcome.

IQ is pretty poorly named, it's a descriptor of pattern recognition and general aptitude than 'intelligence', which is already a rather abstract concept. Think of it like this; if I measured how fast you could run, how high you could jump and how far you could swim, I could create a Fitness Quotient. Would it perfectly describe how fit you were? No. But would you expect to see people with a high FQ at places of extreme fitness? Absolutely. The same is true for IQ.

 

[DuckSucker]

No, I do believe there are people smarter than others or quicker on the uptake (but you also have to account for environment too) but I always fall back on that saying about hard work beating talent when talent doesnt work hard.

I think IQ is capacity based (Einstein's kid wont necessarily be as smart or smarter then Einstein was, especially if he wasnt raised in a way that capitalized on his 'potential' intelligence, or IQ), but when you get down to genetics, it doesnt matter since some things are passive, and youre mixing genes anyway. Similarly, there are people who probably could otherwise have shown potential who never had that environment.

I also remember some story, a parable, of some famous pianist or something, who was world renowned and in the story a bunch of people wanted to have him donate sperm so "future generations could have the genes of some great pianist", and the guy refuses and says "If you want the genes of a great pianist, take sperm from plumbers." because his father was a plumber who people had looked down on.

Shit like that, the way people use IQ as a measure, its kind of foolishly deterministic, I think.

 

[Getting tard comed]

Yes, I.Q as a measurement is the best approximation of intelligence we have but people apply way to much importance to it. Theres also a huge misunderstanding that people with high IQs are always going to be succesful when we already know people have trouble communicating with others when a 20point IQ gap exists. It's why, generally speaking, the most succesful people in most fields tend to measure around the 115-130 IQ range due to them being able to communicate with the average which is around 100.

It matters more so on a group scale than individually. That being said a person who has a 100 IQ is probably going to have a harder time being a lawyer than a person with a 125 IQ. Doesn't mean person A can't be succesful in life though.

Recently Nassim Talib has made a case against I.Q. that while compelling, I haven't personally looked into all of the details of his claim. My opinion may change after I do.

 

[TFT-A9]

Short answer: I do not give a fuck about someone's results on an IQ test. A somewhat-dim but otherwise personable and agreeable person will be able to navigate society well enough to not fuck shit up too badly.