I've seen many threads on Sup Forums talking about IQ and considering it as a relevant number. Many people here likes to brag about their IQ.
I work in an orientational center in France (we're supposed to help kids figure out what they want to do later) and let me tell you: IQ is bullshit.
I've seen many kids pass various versions of IQ tests and after several years on the job, my only conclusion is that IQ test measure your ability to pass IQ tests and nothing else.
It's a meaningless number and it changes everytime you pass one anyway (the "specialist" who makes you pass the test is supposed to factor the previous tests so we don't look stupid but we know what's up).
Honestly, IQ tests only exist to flatter the ego of upper-middle class mothers who want to hear us say their spawn are geniuses.
People will high IQ are successful in school and do end up having high paid salaries. How can you dispute that?
Asher Edwards
Because people with "High IQ" are almost always people who passed the test because their family cares about intellectual stuff, studying and having a future for their kids. And having that kind of family is the best way to be successful in school.
IQ is often use for banter on Sup Forums too but before judging a "race" IQ, just take a look on who pass those tests exactly.
Caleb Powell
My IQ is 135 btw.
Hunter Allen
Good for you, have a cookie.
Gabriel Jenkins
This website in general has become cancer. There are so many people here who are eager, anxious, desperate to jump on any discussion in which they can humble-brag. This is the same reason why I stopped using facebook. I was tired of every other post being "look at me im super rich and smart and conventionally successful give me attention please" This place has become the same thing. I just need to stop going here for good, the community has long since died.
Charles Myers
Only people who understand IQ tests think this.
Dominic Price
It correlates with many real-life outcomes, why are you not mentioning this very relevant fact?
Aaron Baker
Ubermensch detected. You've really slain that golden dragon, Child.
Logan Morales
That's not just circular logic--it's a mobius strip.
Alexander Jackson
Your conclusion is wrong.
Check your conformation bias.
The Bell Curve read it and understand.
Samuel Sanchez
For the same reason global warming and the number of pirates are linked.
It's really not. Good households create good students, there's no weird magic science to find around that. We just give a number to people we already know are going to succeed just because they have all the conditions gathered for them. And if they don't it's just a statistical error.
Asher Phillips
It correlates to
>education level >education level of parents/guardians >some types of malnutrition (thiamine)/environmental exposure to toxins (lead)
Dominic Cooper
The U.S. Military uses it to figure out what tasks people are actually capable, and it's proved pretty accurate. The higher up the scale, the less it means, but from 135 down, it's pretty useful. If what it measures is predictive, it doesn't matter if what it measures isn't intelligence exactly, especially when intelligence is yet to be fully defined.
Robert King
What's wrong is the common vision of what IQ is. People think humans are born with a fixed IQ number and it won't change at all during life.
That's bullshit.
Asher Perry
>believe my discredited bunk, moron!
Cameron Torres
What about trying directly a skill test ? Why trying to figure a random number that will somehow indicate they could be fit for this task or that task.
Again, the IQ is useless, it's just trying to put a number on what we already know.
Owen Butler
>people who are measured as smart and do intelligent things aren't actually intelligent and the measurement is useless, because it's actually just that their families do things and value things we associate with intelligence and correlate with success in more intellectually demanding areas. And growing up in one of these families means you're more likely to be like your family. It's not a matter of genetics, it's a matter of upbringing. These tests are useless, because we can just see who is going to be smart by looking at how smart these parents are. But they're not actually smart--they just have behaviors that are strongly associated with intelligence. Where did these families come from?
Daniel Peterson
Well, of course it would. Are you saying those are the only factors in IQ?
Directly testing skill might be better, if you have a certain skill in mind. But IQ should predict success across most things. There's certainly use for a general intelligence test.
Benjamin Murphy
Being "smart" in a IQ test definition is being well adjusted to the society and understanding codes and proper behavior. It becomes automatic when you have a stable family with enough money and time to educate you properly.
Liam Hall
>What about doing a skill test instead of an IQ test? IQ is a skill test. It measures pattern recognition skills with varying levels of complexity and abstraction. Scoring high on an IQ test literally means that you are highly skilled at noting multiple kinds of patterns relative to the people around you who have taken the test. Because all skills require learning, and learning is pattern recognition, being highly skilled at pattern recognition tends to correlate well with being good at learning, as well as how many other skills you will be able to develop, which other skill you will be able to develop, and how well you will be able to develop them. If you actually work in an orientational center, you need to be fired immediately.
Luke Jones
>But IQ should predict success across most things Definatly not. I remember a bunch of kids getting high IQ and having their mother having multiple orgasms when hearing the results, and when those kids get their first jobs they suck at it and become a burden for their boss.
Leo Richardson
This is true.
Philosphy, morals, resilience, network, social skills
All more important than "IQ".
Daniel Nguyen
god bless you.
Gabriel White
Funny how those "skills" often comes out as completly useless for real jobs.
Joshua Baker
That's ridiculous. Most questions on a legitimate IQ test are stripped of any cultural meaning. Furthermore, it is widely accepted that IQ tests are more valid the younger they are taken. The SAT is an example of a test that has a mix of intelligence questions and education questions. But a true IQ test measures abstract pattern recognition as much as possible. It is not measuring how well one has learned social codes, but how well one will be able to recognize social codes as such.
Jaxon Wilson
no, its a measure of your potential ability to succeed academically in areas such as language comprehension, mathematical fluency, logical ability, pattern recognition etc
these things do correlate with intelligence
but it doesn't take into account desire, interpersonal skills work ethic, morality, practical ability, athletic ability, speculative intelligence and all of the other part of life that take place outside of a scholastic setting.
it was orignally devised, i think by binet and simon to help streamline schools , its important to never forget that..
furthermore a persons i.q can go up quite a bit and people who do a lot of i.q tests tend to benefit quite a lot from practice, the current highest iq is a guy who got around 200. but he did the test many many times and practiced etc... his first result was around 140
iq doesnt usually go down
i have 140 iq.. its not that big a deal. im far smarter than that really
Ayden White
Is that why people who have high IQ's have a higher average salary, especially when corrected for anti-social disorders?
Christopher Howard
>Most questions on a legitimate IQ test are stripped of any cultural meaning Allow me to laugh. Just the test of associating words is incredibly biaised and culturaly oriented.
Lincoln Adams
>some frog that helps young isis choose which trucks to target >studies and practical application
Im not sure which to trust here
William Baker
No, it's because they come from higher upbringing and start at higher salaries. Network is everything.
Easton Ortiz
They are the only factors strongly correlated enough to suggest any causative relationship, yes. Surely you aren't one of those "smoking causes car wrecks" types.
The consensus of scientists studying neurology is overwhelmingly "there is no such thing as general intelligence." The general intelligence hypothesis has been a minority viewpoint for decades now and is getting fringe-y.
Linguists are the exception, but they're talking about sonething else.
Michael Baker
Frog-san are you seriously going to throw away almost a century worth of research based on your anecdote?
>Now let’s turn to IQ. The most popular IQ tests include items which test mathematical ability, pattern recognition, short-term memory, verbal comprehension, and vocabulary. They are not perfect measures of intelligence, but they predict how smart a person’s peers say they are as well as how well people do in school and on the job (Denissen et al., 2011; Palhusand and Morgan, 1997; Bailey and Hatch, 1979; Bailey and Mattetal, 1977). In fact, IQ is a better predictor of income and educational attainment than parental socio-economic status is (Strenze, 2006).
Andrew Carter
this is a lie. i was born and raised hispanic where my family didnt appreciate or didnt even know what it meant to get an "A" in a class. my parents always imagined me as a blue collar worker, and here i am in graduate school. Your logic doesnt account for the countless stories of intellectuals who were raised in an environment that wanted to hold them back.
John Wilson
Frog is dumb, but I'm not sure you just made the case for IQ tests are practically useless.
Carson Stewart
>Frog-san are you seriously going to throw away almost a century worth of research based on your anecdote? Well, we also have almost half a century of researchs on how the shapes of your skull can reveal if you're criminal.
Pseudo-sciences are everywhere.
Grayson Clark
Have you actually read the criticisms of the book?
Adam Howard
Malnutrition and things like lead do matter, but these kinds of things are negligible in first world societies, where we still have massive IQ differences.
I'm not sure you can say that education level predicts IQ, and exclude the possibility that it's the other way around, especially when you can test kids at a young age and their IQ remains stable.
Lucas Cook
>Passing an IQ test t. have never taken an IQ test
Grayson Williams
*sure you know that
Mason Bennett
Then congratulations, you might be smart for real. Other factors can make you smart of course or life really would be hell.
Now you can appreciate the fact your miniroty of exceptions have to share the podium with the legions of kids who just have mothers with large egos.
Grayson Turner
If you disregard IQ as a valid measurement tool, then you'll have to disagree with everything related to human sciences since the 20th century. IQ researchers have been using statistical regression as methodology, which is shared by all serious researchers in the humanities department. Also, If you disagree with IQ, what would you propose as replacement?. Emotional intelligence is bullshit. Multiple intelligence types are irelevant once pesonnality is factored. You can't just say "X" is bullshit and provide no alternative, because you just look like a douche. I do agree with you that people who brag about their IQ are obnoxious and annoying, but it's the case for any kind of bragging.
Isaiah Cooper
>one thing was wrong therefore another thing is wrong That's not an argument, and unlike that thing, IQ has predictive validity
>Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability.[9][55] A high reliability implies that – although test-takers may have varying scores when taking the same test on differing occasions, and although they may have varying scores when taking different IQ tests at the same age – the scores generally agree with one another and across time. Like all statistical quantities, any particular estimate of IQ has an associated standard error that measures uncertainty about the estimate. For modern tests, the standard error of measurement is about three points. Clinical psychologists generally regard IQ scores as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes.[22][56][57] In a survey of 661 randomly sampled psychologists and educational researchers, published in 1988, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman reported a general consensus supporting the validity of IQ testing. "On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy." Almost all respondents picked out abstract reasoning, ability to solve problems and ability to acquire knowledge as the most important elements.[58]
Evan Myers
Only to an extent. But that's also why they don't make up the bulk of actual IQ test questions. Still, to the extent someone has the adequate reading ability for such a test, questions of word associate and logic are excellent. While it's true someone might not have had the same education, our lives are permeated with language. You cannot think outside of language or object. You will still see plenty of people with limited education testing highly on verbal tests. You will also see plenty testing above their level of education on verbal tests, showing that verbal understanding is not a matter of pure education. That these results follow the general IQ distributions strengthens the claims of both. Additionally, even tests (like the SAT) that are not pure intelligence tests will typically spread their focus across multiple subjects, which will reveal how someone might be limited by their education. For example, someone who scores an 800 Math SAT, but 500 Reading is clearly smart, but has had something interrupt their language learning. Likewise, an 800 Reading but 500 Math would show the opposite. If you take a Stanford-Binet, though, you'll find few language questions, and few formal math questions; instead you'll find complex logic puzzles using simple language, and visual pattern puzzles that rely on no math or language skills. These visual puzzles will test multiple dimensions of spacial reasoning as well as understanding of sequences and causality.
Caleb Powell
It's very simple
IQ is real and valid when bashing on blacks IQ isn't real or valid when it gets pointed out Jews and Asians have higher ones than whites
Thomas Long
>IQ has predictive validity Hey, I predict those kids with solid education, good parenting, wealth and who managed to not behave like psychopaths during a random test are going to succeed in life !
I'm right ? I CAN PREDICT THINGS !
Cameron Gomez
Why do those good households exist in the first place? The parents has High IQ and passed it on to their children
You make it sound like IQ is entirely from environment but Twin studies show that is not the case.
Mason Roberts
That's the most Sup Forums answer I have ever heard and therefore the only valid one.
Liam Baker
>being well adjusted to the society and understanding codes and proper behavior. so if we want to save society, we should not murder people based on ethnicity, we should murder them based on low IQ? i'm amenable to that.
John Reyes
Can you predict what "reading comprehension" means?
>In fact, IQ is a better predictor of income and educational attainment than parental socio-economic status is (Strenze, 2006).
Josiah Baker
The very first IQ test was designed to identify special needs students. It had questions like "point to your nose" and is the origin of the "intelligence of an x-year old" idea.
The prototype of all subsequent IQ tests was developed in the US to test general intelligence of adults. It had questions like "who are the New York nationals?" The author used the result to conclude that the Mediterranean and Slavic races were retarded. He later spent decades trying to repudiate IQ testing without success. You can't make this shit up.
Lucas King
See--circular logic. If upbringing is everything, then how does anyone escape their upbringing, and why does this correlate strongly with IQ? Why is it that everyone who tests lower than 85 on an IQ test struggles with the same tasks that no one above that intelligence struggles with? Why are there no theoretical physicists with low IQs?
Camden Young
>Actually thinking IQ has no correlation to intelligence. >70 IQ subhumans exist >The same 70 IQs in all likelihood end up in prison.
How can you deny obvious facts?
Asher Howard
Because IQ increases with access to better schooling and nutrition, you retard. Hence more money + better living standard + more stable home = correlation to higher IQ.
Julian Cooper
>passed the test because their family cares about intellectual stuff omg what a retard, this is in no way a casuality, being this stupid you probably scored a 80 iq
Alexander Garcia
You obviously know very little about IQ experiments.
Look up the Minnesota trans-racial adoption study. Black children adopted as babies by high IQ white families still had an IQ of ~85.
They tried to explain it with the Flynn effect(which has already stopped) despite not having an understanding of the mechanisms behind the Flynn effect.
Chase Sullivan
theres only been 4 people I have who have a high iq and show it they had 2 things in common all of them
None of those people were poor they were upper class as fuck (which was expected since more money gives more educational opportunities) but they showed somethng else they also have a shit ton of potential they rarely spent their time studying they did a shit ton of sports ,social activities and they were always the ones outstanding at them etc
high iq does show something it might be exaggerated at some points but there is something there
Kayden Kelly
No, because if you wait for intelligence to reveal itself over the course of time, it will largely be too late for it to matter. An IQ test tells you things you could mostly know without it, but it will tell you much quick and with more precision. If it weren't useful, it wouldn't be used.
Ryder Perez
Let me guess : you didn't study at X/ENS did you ?
Jace Gray
Thinking rich people = born smart is really huge with burgers I see... You don't need to be smart to be rich. But you need to be rich to give your kids a superior education.
> muh twin studies Twins DON'T have the same IQ, that's proof it's not genetical.
Noah Price
>look up this long-since debunked and faulty study
Jacob Hall
>>Honestly, IQ tests only exist to flatter the ego of upper-middle class mothers who want to hear us say their spawn are geniuses. Holy shit this was EXACTLY my mother. She made all our family pass IQ tests, we had good scores and so did she. She then always found a way to bring IQ into a conversation and bought a shit ton of IQ related books for every and any thing in her life. She was a single mother and a crappy mom. I still love her since she's my mom but still, she did fuck a good part of my childhood with her shitty ideas and irresponsible ways of life. Only good thing is she always had a job and didn't actively look for a guy to fuck/be with.
Benjamin Lee
>Because IQ increases with access to better schooling and nutrition Except it doesn't Heritability is around 0.75
>The general figure for the heritability of IQ, according to an authoritative American Psychological Association report, is 0.45 for children, and rises to around 0.75 for late adolescents and adults.[74][75] Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.9 in adulthood.[76][77] One proposed explanation is that people with different genes tend to reinforce the effects of those genes, for example by seeking out different environments.[9]
Angel Jones
Yes, it's barely more precise because the "test" can rules out the mentally damaged kids who can accure in good households too.
That's still a useless tool because you can just look at school grades...
Jeremiah Johnson
That's because Africans are inherently retarded. How you can live in mud huts for 10k years and think you are in any way above retarded is a joke.
James Jenkins
>But you need to be rich to give your kids a superior education. Not in western countries
Logan Rodriguez
Do you know how huge a .75 heritability is?....
Oliver Hughes
That there are things that affect IQ doesn't mean that IQ has no effect. Of people with the same IQ and different standards of living, the one with a higher standard of living will typically do better. Of people with the same standard of living, the one with the higher IQ will do better. No one is arguing against the importance of family stability. But you're an idiot if you think IQ is useless.
Mason Green
Better wording* .75 heritability shows there's still a shit ton else that goes into it. Of course it's heritbale, nutritional adequacy is a huge factor...
Cooper Myers
>I'm not sure you can say that education level predicts IQ, and exclude the possibility that it's the other way around, especially when you can test kids at a young age and their IQ remains stable.
Education level of the parents, user. Good students start as good students and almost always have highly educated parents or parents who instilled strong study skills.
Also, people's IQ scores can and do fluctuate. Anyone can improve their score by studying IQ tests. Try it.
Jacob Brooks
>Yes, it's barely more precise because the "test" can rules out the mentally damaged kids who can accure in good households too. >That's still a useless tool because you can just look at school grades... You're literally just going to stick your fingers into your ears and shoot shit out of your ass?
>Do you know how huge a .75 heritability is? Yes, I daresay I know this stuff better than you do
Carson Anderson
>Minnesota trans-racial adoption study Oh boy, here comes the stormfront squads
Carson Smith
>Frog is presented with cited research and seemingly unbiased information >Frog doesn't bother to refute anything, or provide any research of his own, more anecdotal opinions
This is how you spot shit posting, everyone. This has been asked and amswered.
Pierre just wants to argue
Ryder James
I got a 133 percentile. Others wich give ranks, gave me a 125+. I think it is accurate, i was allways the most intelligent in my school class, who were bugmen/roasties (normal people sample), but that is not hard to acomplish nowadays Comparing to my college mates, i am far superior than the media considering they are a lot of non whites, but i am average among whites (only the smart ones chose eng.). So yes, i trust this, i mean the evaluation method is super objective and besides what you studied, you can answer anyways.
Blake Evans
Who said it's useless? It's blatantly flawed, though. It's a pattern recognition and problem solving score. Doesn't mean much past that. In my med school (inb4 hurr durr lying), the top of the class was a simple dude. 105 IQ or something like that. He was still the best in class by a long-shot and does Ortho now.
Jayden Gonzalez
IQ has better predictive power for success in life than any other psychometric measure. This is validated by nearly 100 years of IQ research. Your anecdotal experience is nothing in the face of the enormous amount of data in favor of the opposite conclusion.
Brayden Smith
>science is valid until it no longer conforms to my beliefs
Samuel Davis
Just trying giving the real test to someone who believes in it and tell me you don't feel like a fraud afterward.
Austin Torres
>thinks the study was good science Always so easy to spot the people without any understanding of study methodology
Ethan Mitchell
>the world must be absolute or I lack the mental capaciry to understand anything. Agree with me!
Poor man! Has no one told him God is dead?
Hunter Gonzalez
No, science is valid until it no longer follow the scientifical method.
Jace Diaz
Go ahead and critique the methodology.
>crickets incoming
Juan Wright
Sure, you can study for IQ tests and get a better score. But try this experiment--take the LSAT without studying. Study hard for six months and take it again. Then stop studying for six months and take it a third time. Your score will go up with the second test, but your third test will look like your first. Many studies on brain training show that it has no long term or crossover effect. It only helps you with the specific type of test you practice, and goes away quickly with lack of continual practice.
Kevin Richardson
>Better wording* .75 heritability shows there's still a shit ton else that goes into it. Of course it's heritbale, nutritional adequacy is a huge factor... Do you understand what "heritability" means? If genetics explain 75% of the variance, then no, not a lot of other shit goes into it.
>Who said it's useless? It's blatantly flawed, though. It's a pattern recognition and problem solving score. Doesn't mean much past that. In my med school (inb4 hurr durr lying), the top of the class was a simple dude. 105 IQ or something like that. He was still the best in class by a long-shot and does Ortho now. >muh anecdote Obviously IQ isn't all you need to succeed, conscientiousness plays a huge part too
Lincoln Ramirez
i dont care if IQ tests are real or not Im a loser NEET with an IQ of 127 and it makes me feel good
Dylan Williams
Wow, would you look at that. >IQ tests aren't predictive >IQ tests correlate strongly with grades >Proper IQ tests are taken before anyone has any grades It's almost like IQ tests are predictive.
Jackson White
>you need to be rich to give your kids a superior education. That's stupid coming from a French
Elijah Price
Find me a link to the actual study. I won't go searching for it.
Yes. I do, you pedantic twat. .75 correlation doesn't mean it explains 75% of the variance. Don't go puffing out your chest before you learn what you're saying....
Nathaniel Kelly
>Just trying giving the real test to someone who believes in it and tell me you don't feel like a fraud afterward Right, this one anecdote is going to refute 100 years of research? Also frenchbro if you're going to make claims, then please, do give your sources too. Let's see the studies your opinions are based on
Brody Harris
Read the fucking thread: >Honestly, IQ tests only exist to flatter the ego of upper-middle class mothers who want to hear us say their spawn are geniuses.
Nathan Evans
Well if even in France it's true, it must be true everywhere.
Michael Price
People don't seem to understand that IQ measures raw general intelligence. It does not measure the strength of their desire to apply that intelligence to things. It's why people with lower IQs can outperform people with higher IQs if they work harder.
So you called out the study's methodology without knowing anything about it? Brainlet detected
Nathaniel Rivera
>Yes. I do, you pedantic twat. .75 correlation doesn't mean it explains 75% of the variance. Don't go puffing out your chest before you learn what you're saying....
>Heritability is a statistic used in the fields of breeding and genetics that estimates the degree of variation in a phenotypic trait in a population that is due to genetic variation between individuals in that population.[1] In other words, the concept of heritability can alternately be expressed in the form of the following question: "What is the proportion of the variation in a given trait within a population that is not explained by the environment of random chance?"[2]
Lincoln Miller
>I got a decent score so it must be true, also argentina is white kek'd
Zachary Morales
>If it weren't useful, it wouldn't be used
Our fate is in the stars. Summon my horospex!
Ethan Roberts
I'm not insisting the world must be any way. I'm asking how IQ can be meaningless when it is clearly predictive. Guess you're one of the people who only got a 600 on SAT Reading.
Carter Williams
iq is an imperfect unimportant measurement what it DOES unequivocally show is genetic differences between different races, which has huge ramifications for everything and is subsequently denied and covered up by the jewish society
