Do you believe that IQ tests are a proper measurement of intelligence?

No.

Jordan (B)eterson as meme'd as he's been said it best and that's that if you reject IQ as a measure of intelligence then you reject all of modern psychology. Investigations into intelligence have used IQ going back to the 1920s.

The US Army uses IQ scores to place people properly in combat roles and excludes people that score below an 83. In war the quick assignment of roles is critical; that they found IQ useful speaks to its preeminence as a measure of intelligence.

Edited 4/27/2018 13:49:56

Wulfhere, I don't think the poster is "reject[ing] IQ [tests] as a measure" but is rather asking if they are a "proper measurement of intelligence. To this, I agree with Cata and say no they aren't. Like a lot of things, there are inherent flaws and biases. Because of this, it's very difficult to assign a number to the entirety of someone's intellect. For instance, a person could be very intelligent in the arts, athletics, theories on the existence of man, etc. Where on an IQ test are those graded? I've never taken one so honestly don't know but I imagine they ain't there, mate.

By the way, we did a lot of messed up and incorrect things back in the 20's. That piece doesn't help your argument at all.
Also, the US Army doesn't give a traditional IQ test. They use what's called an ASVAB which is closer to your Prairie State Achievement Exam (I use that because WZ says you are in Illinois and that's your high school proficiency test). An ASVAB score is a percentile with a max of 99%. One could score much lower than an 83 and be perfectly capable to perform their duties.

"Just my 2 cents"

>One could score lower than 83 and be perfectly capable to perform their duties
I do not know how well the ASVAB correlates with IQ, but you mixed up IQ and percentile. IQ is a normal distribution (basically a bell curve) with a mean of 100 and 15 or 16 point standard deviations. Percentile is just a measurement of how something ranks out of a total where the total is divided into 100 equal groups. Just assuming that ASVAB correlates perfectly with IQ, a score of 83 on the ASVAB would correlate with a 115 or 116 IQ. That's about the average intelligence of a graduate student. An 83 IQ would correlate with an ASVAB score of 12-14.

The absolute minimum score to get into the Air Force and Navy is 36 and 35 respectively. Applicants scoring below 50 are rejected if they don't have a GED. You most likely cannot join the military if you have an IQ of 83. That is assuming ASVAB and IQ are directly correlated, which is probably not true. But, since IQ correlates with academic success and the ASVAB correlates with academic success, there is undoubtedly a moderate correlation sufficient enough for this undertaking.
https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx

The Army found there is NOTHING you can do with an 83 IQ that is more productive than unproductive.
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Ur71ZnNVk

>inherent flaws and biases
there are always flaws and biases in science. those few instances don't invalidate the entire metric which is accepted as accurate by psychologists. the perfect measure does not exist.

>we did a lot of messed up and incorrect things back in the 20's
non-sequitur

>For instance, a person could be very intelligent in the arts, athletics, theories on the existence of man, etc. Where on an IQ test are those graded?

All of the multiple intelligence abilities correlate with IQ; that is to say that IQ correlates with artistic ability, musical ability, and what is classically regarded as intelligence - crystallized and fluid intelligence. What presupposes intelligence is controversial but we generally see intelligence as a single measurement - and it would be most useful to regard it as such. JPB supposes intelligence is "that which gets you far in life" or "that which predicts for success in everything in life from middle school, high school, university, and job success". IQ is the single best determining factor for all of those things. It's unlikely that someone would be competent in the arts yet possess a weak philosophical mind. And it's unlikely that someone who is extremely successful in life also possesses a weak mind for the arts and philosophy. Indeed some people are better in technical fields but the single greatest predicting factor for what is generally regarded as intelligence - that which gets you far, essentially - is IQ. A high IQ implies great potential in all or most academic fields and job success.

Athletic ability and personality type (such as "emotional intelligence" i.e. extroversion and agreeableness) cannot be regarded as manifestations of intelligence. Then you would have to say that someone who is physically weak or introverted yet has an IQ of 145 is not intelligent.

Source on IQ being a greater predictor for overall success than any single component:
https://youtu.be/jSo5v5t4OQM?t=9m57s

Edited 4/30/2018 05:38:45

Most IQ tests on the internet are not a proper measurement of intelligence, but I think some test can be a proper measurement of intelligence when interpreted well.

When I was 11 years old I had to make the WISC III IQ scan to determine my school. It has 13 subtests and takes 3-4 hours. The 13 subtests: 1. Incomplete Drawings, 2. Information, 3. Substitution, 4. Agreements, 5. Picture Organizing, 6. Arithmetic, 7. Block Patterns, 8. Word Skill, 9. Figure Laying, 10. Understanding, 11. Comparing Symbols, 12. Digit series 13. Mazes.

It test mainly your insights and understanding ability, so I got a pretty good score of 126, even while my ability at learning as in memorising literal content is very bad. Sad enough for me, getting a high IQ score meant that I received less/no help even though I have trouble with learning.

There is no single score that predicts for all things regarded as manifestations of intelligence better than IQ. If you believe that intelligence is something that can be measured then you accept IQ as being on the cutting edge or you have a radical definition of intelligence.

Edited 4/30/2018 05:45:33

For instance, a person could be very intelligent in the arts, athletics, theories on the existence of man, etc.

Thats education, not intelligence. A proper IQ-test gives accurate results no matter what education, or upbringing the tested person has. This is where most tests flaw.

The ACT and especially the SAT are intelligence tests that are correlated with IQ given the sample population went through the US school system. They mostly test for crystallized intelligence - the ability to solve non-abstract problems by drawing from accumulated knowledge. Though questions on the SAT especially can be solved in multiple ways thus drawing on a more fluid ability. Fluid intelligence is the ability to solve new and abstract problems; it's correlated with crystallized intelligence. That is to say that the ability to draw from memory AND the ability to solve totally new problems can be combined into one factor (IQ).
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/greiq.aspx

The preeminent IQ tests top out at about 160. Scores beyond 160 have a wide variability so someone who scores a 200 could very well be as intelligent as someone who scores 160. It's not that intelligence can't be measured using IQ at this point, it's that the entire human population would have to be tested - you would need billions in the sample - to find the few individuals with 6 or 7 standard deviations above the mean. Furthermore IQ is hard to test below 55 since people who could possibly score lower are literally not intelligent enough to take the test. Low, low IQ indicates a deep unconsciousness and vegetative existence. It would be useless to measure IQ at the low end since severe mental disability is already apparent at this level - IQ is useful for finding children who are moderately impaired - not so impaired that it's obvious (children with normal IQs could just be getting bad grades because they're lazy and children with low IQs could be trying their best to get decent grades - this is an important distinction because normal IQ children could use additional stimuli to help them while low IQ children need to be put in a setting where there isn't so much pressure to compete with children with whom they can't really compete.)

Multiple intelligence theory really crumbles apart when you look at the actual geniuses. Newton's IQ can't be measured but since the standard of intelligence is essentially "that which gets you far in life" - and psychometricians have created tests to predict for this - it must be the case that Newton was intelligent. Newton wasn't just a mathematician, he was apparently also an economist and a good writer. John von Neumann who was an absolute maths genius possessed godly intellect for everything. He masted the Ancient Greek language at 6 and would hold conversations in it. Nietzsche was an artist and scientist in addition to being a philosopher. Francis Parker Yockey was a lawyer, philosopher, and also a concert pianist and economist. etc. etc.

Even at lower levels - not in the 160+ range but at the "gifted" range - you find people that are generally good at everything. Jordan B Peterson is a university professor yet also manages a career in clinical therapy and writing. Stefan Molyneux wrote novels and acted but also built a software company and of course has a philosophy show. The Enron guys who weren't geniuses by any measure but still above average were able to pull off their financial scheme because they were maths/economic guys and also bullshit artists who knew how to sweet tongue people - verbally competent.

In school the dumb kids were always just bad at everything. How many mentally handicapped people can you point to that had one special mental ability that no smart person could compete with if they applied themselves? When I was in 4th grade I had a friend who was passionate about military stuff and military history and he got me into it. This guy had been obsessed for years but after a few weeks of research I was more competent on the subject, especially at explaining the "big concepts." The only points where his knowledge exceeded mine was when he had memorized specific things like obscure tanks, guns, planes etc. and I could have mastered these things if I wanted to.

Multiple intelligence is not accurate for any IQ range basically. There are polymaths and idiots and everyone in between. People push multiple intelligence because they're optimistic and not realistic. They want a world in which people with generally poor skills have one special skill that they can use to achieve social mobility.

The US education system doesn't handle gifted kids properly. To be in the program, I had to request to be given an IQ test which I passed and got in - but there are gifted kids who just get bad grades because they're lazy or have attention problems or simply resent school and actively reject learning who don't get in the program because there's no standardized IQ testing, just standardized testing over course material. The math and reading standard tests are pretty good indicators of IQ but like I said some kids simply reject all course material because they are resentful but they still have the capacity to think.

The worst thing about the gifted program is its focus on academia. There are actually two components of the program - teaching and coordinating course material at the gifted level, and providing a stimulating environment where the intelligence is brought to its full creative potential. The latter component is pitifully under-stressed even though it's more important for building a society. Children who test for high IQs should be rounded up and put in a room together just to talk, play, etc. gifted kids are worn down in the normal classroom environment.

It doesn't help that left wing politics is inserted into school. The academics are defenseless against it since they can comprehend the material and have already reached an understanding that the road to success is paved by academic access i.e. mastering course material. Gifted IQ doesn't necessarily imply a possession of the critical thinking skills sufficient to reject mainstream narratives though it does increase the likelihood that one will possess critical thinking skills. Actually, you typically see the gifted academic leftists possessing the rudiments of critical thinking. They're the Bernie Sanders people for the most part. They support organic movements, but only those which still conform to the guiding concepts of the curriculum such as the liberation of women, the civil rights movement etc.

The animosity created by postmodernism and feminism in the gifted program would be the undoing of any hope for creating a cohesive society. The females in the program are the hit the hardest by the whole career over children idea and the males are at risk for becoming soyboys or nazi weebs - hopeless. The people who should be raising the next generation tend to get psychologically sterilized.

I typed out a long comment defending the Gifted program, but then I refreshed the page and saw Wulfy's second post. No way to debate it now- something definitely went wrong.

I'll share my experience with the gifted program. One that has infuriated me was when the school fucked me over with a summer class program.
So it's the end of the year, I'm worrying about being a freshman and my classes and the clubs and my friends. I wanted to be a physicist or some shit (now I realize physics is not my strong suit). I decided to aim for the higher mathematics and science classes. Honors, AP, etc. In 8th grade they separated the students by their math ***skills*** in 6th grade. One group took algebra I, the other took geometry. 9th grade would be split between geometry and algebra II. So there I was, wanting to utilize the summer class program to learn geometry over the summer and learn algebra II in 9th grade. I look through the school site, trying to find it. I can't. I tell my math teacher, who is quite fond of me, and she calls (the school?) to ask about the program. She hangs up. She informs me that they aren't doing it anymore. Oh well I guess, there goes my opportunity.
>Ask the h0t rich indian chick who I've been autistically trying to be friends with
>She is in gifted for some reason
>Tell her about the summer program thing
>She tells me that she has to do that over the summer and that she is pissed because of it
S E E T H I N G
This cunt got an automatic free pass to learning algebra II in her freshman year just because she is in gifted.
All because I screwed up my 6th grade math grade.

Edited 4/30/2018 19:34:11

when I rant like that it means I am on amphetamines

knyte will regret backing down

One problem in IQ is that it favors generalists over specialists. For example, someone might be able to compute the higher homotopy groups of some insane spaces, but they might still be ranked low on IQ simply because they havent given the thought to the things which are considered "common sense". Believe me.. this person is extremely intelligent, irrespective of the results of the IQ test.. he just thinks about different things than normal people which is why he scores less.

90

Edited 5/1/2018 23:40:07

I've seen very smart people simply give up because they were considered "slow" by their teachers. I almost did, but then I realized that I wasn't the only one; that I could amount to something. Daily reminder that Einstein, Edison, and Newton were total spergs. Edison had serious anger issues. Newton died a virgin. Einstein was seen as cruel to his wife and kids, though his mind, he was being caring. I've also seen normies give up simply because they think that "smart people win, dumb people lose."

Also, you can often find multiple patterns to solve the same problem, which makes the test annoying.

Fun exercise: Find 2 different patterns that complete this "IQ" question https://cdn.123test.com/iq-test/screenshots/2.png.. there is incomplete information here.. so such questions seem foolish to me.

For example, one way to proceed to find an unconventional answer is to find a polynomial that interpolates the first so many numbers at integer intervals, and let the next number be the y coordinate of the polynomial at time n+1

90

Fun fact: Poincare was so annoyed at such questions in his entrance exam to university that for each question he wrote the same answer: "this question has no unique solution". He was denied admission.

Edited 5/2/2018 00:10:35

My school has me do the most trivial shit, it's really stupid.

given that the main reason for schools are learning