Is IQ an actual good measurement of intelligence?

[Cherry Eyed Hamster]

I’m curious to hear other Kiwi’s thoughts on this.

I’m not quite sure where I stand regarding IQ. Part of me thinks it’s a good indicator of a person’s intelligence, whilst I recognize that there are a lot of people who are smart but are not good at mathematical reasoning or pattern recognition.

 

[rel=alternate]

It depends on what you mean by intelligence I guess.

Imo, IQ is a good indicator of one's potential for success in various domains. But that in itself does not mean much.

You can be smart and yet lack emotional intelligence. You can be average IQ and be really great at what you do and how you do it, master a topic.

Imo, IQ is more useful when it comes to judging limitations rather than pure intelligence. If you are not at least scoring average, it's fair to say that you have limited intelligence. And that does not mean you can't learn or function well, but adapting to changing circumstances will be harder than it would be for someone else, concepts will be harder to grasp etc...

Then again, to come back to my first point, I am not sure that intelligence matters at all in a vacuum. It's a vanity metric more than anything if you don't do anything worthwhile with it.

 

[Lurker Child]

One time I heard someone say "IQ tests are better at detecting idiots than geniuses." which is a sentiment I agree with. Synthetically it's easier to catch the negative than the positive, so to speak. Personally, I'd say intelligence is more credibly measured, and made meaningful, by deeds and results. Like solving a difficult mathematical research problem or producing a technically sophisticated piece of art, for example. It's something that's better demonstrated in life's tests you can say. That's my sense of it.

 

[peachlover669]

No, but if people find out that its just bullshit then I wouldnt be able to lampoon people for being sub 90 iq

 

[Osama Bin Laden]

no it’s fuckin racist against marginalized people because niggers can’t take tests

ugh

kiwibigots

 

[MadStan]

Yes. That’s why they are called intelligence tests.

It’s Intelligence Quotient ergo by definition ability, not actual deployed.

 

[WeWuzFinns]

Point me some individuals who can't predict patterns for shit but are smart.

 

[Shig O'nella]

Depends what you're looking for, and more importantly why you are looking for it.

 

[JohnnyG]

Of course it's not deterministic, and you can have high-IQ spergs who never accomplish anything etc, but this is true of nearly every other measurable trait.

It remains true that when you run correlations with success across a large number of traits, IQ outstrips nearly all of them, which is why it was used as a hiring filter until Griggs v. Duke invented "muh disparate impact". So companies switched to the next closest proxy they could think of, college degree, which they could defend against disparate impact claims by saying you need an education related to the job or whatever.

And of course as we've watered down university degrees via fake majors and lowered standards, they've become a worse filter for intelligence and ability, hence requiring advanced degrees for ones that a smart high school grad could do.

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

No. A genius is just an idiot, except regarding one or two subjects.

 

[Shig O'nella]

No. A genius is just an idiot, except regarding one or two subjects.

I always preferred "A genius is the person who knows just how little he knows."

 

[JohnnyG]

No. A genius is just an idiot, except regarding one or two subjects.

I always preferred "A genius is the person who knows just how little he knows."

I think the "master of one topic" thing is much more common on the knowledge side than the intelligence side. As in, every midwit "Cultural historian here! [gay Regime-approved opinion]" poster who wasn't that bright to begin with but memorized every minute bit of establishment trivia around a topic to become "educated".

Actually intelligent people tend to be able to pick up most topics easily, so if they've been exposed to it in school etc they probably understand it pretty well (and hopefully have the self awareness to recognize topics where they haven't had exposure and don't know the subject matter).

So for a cognitively demanding job you could use IQ to filter for those who'd be able to learn what they needed to succeed. And once that was outlawed, you switch to requiring a degree in that field, which for a time also meant generally higher IQ, but now may just get you an obnoxious midwit who's been indoctrinated with lots of facts but may be no better at absorbing new info.

 

[God of Nothing]

I don't think it can be measured in problem tests. Physical factors are far more definite and something to go off of. Even personal or societal accomplishments aren't that good. People think doctors, scientists, and CEOs are geniuses. The reality is they just know how to do those things or got lucky by knowing someone, which happens all too much these days. Intellect isn't some kind of fucking super power: it's the ability to understand and learn.

 

[Idiotron]

It's better than nothing althoug like with everything, you can cheat the system.
A lot of these IQ tests are standardized so, if you do them 100 times, the 101st one will have no surprises for you and you will score way higher than someone who is doing their 1st test.
Another thing is that, and you might not subscribe to this theory, there are different types of intelligence.

Personally, I think a good way to measure how intelligent someone is is to give them a problem they never encountered and ask for a solution without giving any hints.
An intelligent person will eventually figure things out.
Stupid people will give up and ask for help.

 

[John R. Brown M.D.]

yes

 

[The Ugly One]

there are a lot of people who are smart but are not good at mathematical reasoning or pattern recognition.

No, there aren't. Being able to navigate logic and recognize patterns is what being smart is. That's why a simple pattern-matching test has turned out to be a remarkably good predictor of how well someone will perform at a wide array of cognitive tasks, from doing math to diagnosing diseases to being a good musician.

The reason the IQ test gained widespread use is because it worked incredibly well at sorting applicants of all kinds, particularly in WW2, where the dumb-dumbs got to hold a spatula and work as chow hall assistants, while the smart guys went to work the radio or become bomber pilots. My grandpa went straight into signals, came back from the war and aced his calculus courses.

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

No.
Happiness is.

 

[Yeeted Teet]

What you're looking for is called the g factor. IQ tends to focus heavily on logical reasoning, so it's a bit one dimensional and tend to miss people who may be far above average in terms of creativity or interpersonal skills or wit. The g factor measures the correlation between different types of cognitive tasks so it's more reflective of a person's general mental ability.

 

[JohnnyG]

in terms of creativity or interpersonal skills

While these are important, they don't have the same predictive powers as intelligence. In the 90s and 00s, there was a big push to expand the definitions for "gifted" programs and other accelerated paths, and of course a lot of parents wanted their kid who was artistic or good at violin or whatever to be considered gifted, even if they were average academically.

So you had the same result as all the subsequent #inclusion programs: those admitted under lower standards couldn't keep up, and constant pressure to dilute the programs to make them more accessible, until they didn't really signify much.

 

[Otterly]

People think doctors, scientists, and CEOs are geniuses

People who think this don’t know or work with any… the vast majority of scientists and doctors are in that ‘slightly smarter than the average’ bracket but certainly not genius level. True genius is very rare and it’s strange when you meet it - you just sometimes meet people with that extra mental spark.
CEOs again in general are smarter than average but with very specific personality traits plus drive.
IQ is an Ok measure. It’s not perfect but it’s not bad. Broad intelligence IS at its heart the ability to connect the dots with information and recognise patterns. It’s not the entirety of it but it’s the basics.
Savant skills are somewhat different and people with very low IQ on regular tests can show savant like skills.