Do IQ tests really determine ones intelligence? Or do you guys think there is more to it then a test?

Do IQ tests really determine ones intelligence? Or do you guys think there is more to it then a test?

Intelligence is relative.

IQ only kinda of shows how much 'Proccesing power' a person has.
But not if they are making intelligent choices, getting original ideas, doing stuff that will benefit them in life, erc.

There was this "genious' kid that killed himself because he wanted to donate his organs or something.
Is that smart? He had a very high IQ.

Intelligence is how you use your brain.

IQ is inherent, and cannot be changed in a significant amount. However, a persons level of achievement can overcome their average or below average IQ, they merely have to spend more time studying the given material. IMHO, achievement is more important than IQ. Your IQ won't help you if you're a lazy fuck who gives up after being wrong once.

With all that being said, IQ =/= Worldly knowledge. There's different types of intelligence, I believe.

Very true, interesting about that kid

IQ is a quantification of intelligence, not a determiner of it.

Is it far from perfect, but the idea that it is of zero value or meaning is wrong.

IQ measures cognitive ability, which is mostly genetic. You could make the argument that it doesn't measure something like wisdom, though, which is entirely based on experience.

In theory, you could isolate someone with a predisposition for high IQ from the world for their whole life and they probably wouldn't appear as intelligent as an average person with a mediocre IQ. Of course, this also depends on what degree of isolation you are subjecting them to (teaching them a language, giving them internet access, etc.).

Still, a higher IQ person would be better able to learn from their mistakes and acquire a higher degree of wisdom than the average person. The point is that IQ seems to measure potential more than anything else.

Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan Press On! has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race. -Coolage

Is IQ anyway not only an indicator and nothing else? And everything over 120 is not accurate in the tests?

Do you mean accurately measure? As close as we can get. If we could get closer, we would. The thing is. all tests-of-smarts are correlated, and they call this correlation 'g'.

Sup Forums users boast about their iq all the time

But this breddy accurate pic from goodly says we're really stupid. Really makes you think

Ability to reason.
I don't know of a way you can comprehensively test that, but if people have trouble understanding basic arguments in premise -> conclusion form I wouldn't be inclined to refer to them as being an "intelligent person".

Shit it's the wrong pic where pol is on the smart end

"IQ" is a way to messure your abilities to think logical, see patterns and so on. This is one side of what we call "intelligence."

The problem is to define intelligence, for example just because I am able so solve complex mathematical problems doesnt mean that I have the ability to play an instrument or sucessfully interact with other humans.

Is one person smarter than an other just because he is better with numbers?

Everyone is intelligent in their own way, for instance, a mouse or a cat would not seem to intelligent to us, but they would last a lot longer than us in the wild.

> There's different types of intelligence, I believe.

There arent tho. Thats the fundamental finding of intelligence research.

For any two measurable forms of intelligence, scores between those two forms of intelligence will be positively correlated. Basically, if someone is good at one type of mental task, say reading, then they are good at all mental tasks, including math. Thats part of why the critical reaction of 'there are many types of intelligence' is bogus. Any type of intelligence can be measured and then correlated with IQ, and it just so happens, that every time weve done this, IQ is extremely well correlated with that other type of intelligence. So well correlated, to presume they are the samething. Indeed, IQ is just a huge statistical nexus of extremely well correlated things.

Okay, what if intelligence had a strong association with 'persistancy'? Then how meaningful is it to say 'its not intelligence that determines success, just persistancy'.

^ This guy knows whats up.

> just because I am able so solve complex mathematical problems doesnt mean that I have the ability to play an instrument or sucessfully interact with other humans.

The ability to play a musical instrument, is strongly correlated to being able to socialize. Being able to socialize, is pretty well correlated with math skill. Math skill, is correlated with the ability to play a musical instrument. They are all very strongly correlated with each other, so we say that there is a general intelligence which determines ones ability to do all these tasks. This is how IQ research works.

>Math skill, is correlated with the ability to play a musical instrument.

Then explain why people with aspergers are extraordinary good with math, science and computers while having next to no social skills.

To get an accurate reading of your IQ do you need to take the in person ones? are there any online that are suitable?

If someone who was great at reading was also great at math why am I great at reading but bad at math?

Oh hell, I'm only good with two of those things.
I'm a fucking liability in labs.

Because I took the first one that pops up online and it was comical.

>Then explain why people with aspergers are extraordinary good with math, science and computers while having next to no social skills.

Because those are anecdotes?

Here are two points

0 While different capacities, like being social, and being good at math, are very well correlated, there is still individual variance. In a huge body of data, the correlation arises when looking at the population as a whole. Of course you can cherry pick a few exceptionally antisocial individuals given there intelligence. If you just looked at the population of intelligent people you would have a very exaggerated sense of variance. You wouldnt notice that even if some smart people are social and others arent, that over all the population of smart people are on average much more social than dumber people. Ive known some really antisocial computer people, but then, look at just normal people on the street. Are they really that much more social? You have to look at the whole populations average.

1 Personality and motivations are important. Take someone like Obama, who is a very successful politician, which requires a high degree of social skill. Obama is certainly very intelligent. Now, because Obama is very intelligent, we can conclude that hes probably also very good at math and computer programming. So why dont we see him proving theorems? Well, because he just doesnt do that with his time. For whatever reason, Obamas not the type to do computer stuff, but he is the type to be a president. The same goes the other way for these asbergery computer types. Yeah, they are intelligent, so if they wanted to they could become a politician and have a successful dating life. Why dont they? Probably because they are miserable cunts, I dont know. But just because we dont see them doing these things, doesnt mean they cant. Its not like they couldnt figure it out.

>why am I great at reading but bad at math?

0 Because you are an anecdote

1 Because you, like most people, probably arent very good at self assessment. People with English PhDs, for example, often rate themselves as below average at math, when in fact, they are far above average.

Interesting

I see your point, and I guess I agree. But what bothers me is how do we define intelligence? Is it how big your brain is, your enviroment/education or is it purley biological?

> Is it how big your brain is, your enviroment/education or is it purley biological?

Its just how well you can perform mental tasks, which the IQ test was developed to measure generally. Thats how intelligence is defined. If the ability to perform mental tasks of different variety wasnt well correlated, the whole field of research would fall apart.

Seeing how brain size relates to IQ scores is something one could study, but in no way is it the foundation of intelligence research.

How biological is intelligence? Well, IQ has somewhere between a 0.4 and 0.9 heritable (meaning, around 0.4 and 0.9 correlated with ones genes). Heredity isnt exactly the same as biology (image that you suffered a disease that made you dumb, thats certainly biological, but not related to your genes), but I think thats the root of what you were asking