IQ: Yea or Nay?

How do you view IQ tests?

  • They are accurately measuring something enough to be a predictor of success.

  • They are culturally and educationally biased bullshit.

  • IQ more or less measures intelligence (which is greatly influenced by early environment).


Results are only viewable after voting.
1 and 3 aren't mutually exclusive, as many imperfect metrics can be said to effectively predict success. I went with 3, though, since it's a bit more comprehensive.

EDIT: But, to be sure, unless you're meaning to imply in option one that it is a measure of an innate characteristic regardless of environment, the correct answer is a combination of all three options. Of course any metric is arguably "biased" by nature of how we have historically perceived, methodologically approached, and socially utilized intelligence.

My long standing criticism of the "bias" theory is that Europeans originated IQ but east asians from another culture score highest. So I just don't by the bias argument.
 
I spent a good bit of time investigating it in the past.

There probably is some value to getting a general idea of intelligence from a test, but putting numbers on things that people use to value themselves never works out well.

The top level of the IQ tests is also extremely inaccurate, and the system of scoring is horribly inaccurate. There's one scale that has a Standard Deviation of 24, and another scale with a standard deviation of 16. But yet both can be reported as "IQ."

The difference there is the equivalent of having one ruler say you're 6'5" and the other say you're 6'2". (the standard deviation on male height is 3").

There's also "ratio score" and "deviation score." Meaning one reports how far ahead of your mental age you were at a certain point, where you can score up to 200+, and another that reporters how far above other people you score on that test. Which is WAY lower.

So for a quick example, Marilyn Vos Savant who was in the Guinness Book of World Records for "Highest IQ" had a "228" ratio IQ, but actually took a deviation IQ test in the 1980's and scored 186 (on the normal 16 standard deviation scale and not he asinine 24-point one). Converting that to height again, that's the equivalent of the tallest person in the world being measured at 7'9" then having them use another ruler later and coming up at 7'1".

And there is of course the additional problem of IQ supposedly being unimprovable but people scoring better after they practice and a whole lot of other stuff. Like the limitations caused by the intelligence of the test designers, where very smart people see possibilities than the test-takers intend, obvious geniuses who were Nobel Prize winners in the past who have had mediocre IQ results and people who were pretty obvious morons who boast high IQ scores etc.

Ultimately, everyone has the same IQ result...not as high as you think it should be. And it's probably more trouble than it's worth.
 
Last edited:
no option for what I think. IQ is not a measure of success. isnt there a guy with one of the highest IQs and he is a bouncer or something? you need the drive to apply what you got in order to succeed.
I disagree that it is strongly influenced by early environment, I think more nature, than nurture, but not too askew.
 
The first half of that video was Peterson at his best, in his field of expertise. I actually agreed with almost everything he said, and what he said reflected the literature in a fair way. The study he was privy to on cognitive ability and success sounded interesting. Second half of the video was a bit iffy and he again shows his biases when he goes off the rails and fails to take context into consideration, and is very loose with his definitions and stats.

I think we can investigate the topic, including the video, by going through the points you listed.

  • IQ is the best measurement in social sciences.
A very good case could be made for this, but it depends on which parametres we use. Social sciences and qualitative reserach are generally harder to quantify in a valid way because they deal with the human psyche, subjective measures and sociological issues. In relations to other psychometric tests, IQ testing is certainly one the more valid and proven ones. There are a few other standardised questionnaires like The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) (1), which most agree is reliable, especially after a few revisitions (2), and the quality of life questionnaire; Short Form 36 (SF-36), which have shown a high validity and reliability across the board (3, 4, 5). They aren't perfect though, none of the tests are.

There is a lot of debate about what constitutes IQ, the reliability of IQ tests, which factors contribute to IQ and how much it itself contributes to performance, although there is no doubt that it does. The problem with psychometric testing for cognitive ability is that cognition, and even problem solving, is not necessarily always the same as what you can test for on an IQ test. As Peterson himself says at 6:43; "Then we didn't know that the factor that we had found, was the same factor as IQ. And we still haven't figured out if that was the case". There's also standard deviations, which can scew results, and that one IQ test might slightly differ from another. This is not to mention that they only test a certain parts of intelligence, mainly problem solving, math, puzzles, memory and vocabulary, but excludes emotional/social, musical, motoric and spatial intelligence.

The argument that IQ is purely genetic is highly disputed, and does not seem to be the case. Before we go into a few smaller examples, let's talk about the Flynn Effect which is widely recognised as a legitimate phenomenon (6). Psychologists James Flynn, based on emperical data, showed that from 1932 to 1978 the average IQ rose almost 14 points, meaning approximately 3 points per decade. Flynn concluded that this change was due to societal changes, meaning that IQ has epigenetic components. Other studies examining IQ changes over a few years on the same person, especially in children and adolescence, has shown that IQ can change over time, and that environmental factors can impact that change (7, 8). There is no doubt that genetics matter in regards to your IQ, but it doesn't seem to be the only factor.

Interestingly a new study this year from PNAS, which is one of the most respected journals in the world, showed that the Flynn Effect is reversing and presents evidence that this is caused by changes in our environment and society (9). People are getting "dumber" (at least IQ wise).

  • IQ is the greatest predictor of success.
Well, it is definitely one of them, but it's not exactly clear if it is the most important (10). Most of the literature puts the factors for succes down into three categories.
  1. Cognitive ability and IQ
  2. Personality and social skills
  3. Drive
Most points to IQ/cognitive ability having an influence on whether or not someone is successful, but it being the most important factor is not exactly known. It is commonly said that that the higher skill job, the more IQ matters, but this again is debateable (10). A lot of research seems to suggest that personality, especially traits like conscientiousness, extraversion and openmindedness, are more important for overall success in the workplace and personal life. This is in regards to grades and achievements (11), lifetime earnings (12) and various other outcomes of success (13). Some evidence has suggested that, when coming from a lower socioeconomical status (SES), intelligence might be the more important equalizer, but this is incredibly complex (14).

So no, It doesn't seem like it's fair to conclude that IQ is the most important predictor, based on the evidence avaliable.

  • The military says that people with an IQ under 83 are ineligible (i.e. useless).
I tried to look for the source of this claim and all I could find was an article on wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient, which links to this article by a single author: https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences.pdf. There's no citations, or sources for the claim.

The military doesn't use standard IQ tests, they use the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test and the requirements vary (15). I did however find this written in the US military code (16);

"10 USC §520:
(a)
The number of persons originally enlisted or inducted to serve on active duty (other than active duty for training) in any armed force during any fiscal year whose score on the Armed Forces Qualification Test is at or above the tenth percentile and below the thirty-first percentile may not exceed 20 percent of the total number of persons originally enlisted or inducted to serve on active duty (other than active duty for training) in such armed force during such fiscal year."


Turns out that in 1997, 12.000 individuals from age 16-23 was given the ASVAB test and their results set the standard for the population average (17). This means that new recruits have to be at or above 10% of that set average. So, depending on how well the ASVAB correlates to other IQ tests, and what their inclusion criteria were in 1997, I'd say that the claim is somewhat factual. I think that if you are going to be handling firearms and be responsible for other peoples lives It's probably a good thing that you are at least somewhat smarter than the bottom 10% of the population. Being in the military and holding a regular job is two distinctive things though, with different responsibilities.

I wont address the point about unruly children correlating to criminal behavior later in life, because I simply don't have time right now (I might come back and edit it in), but as far as I know that statement is largely supported by data, although I'm sure some context is being left out if I know Jordan Peterson. Especially the claim that "we can't do anything" is something that needs to be researched. My bullshit meter is going off a tiny bit.

Now addressing the larger points in the video, that Peterson feels like we should all be extremely scared of the fact that 10% of the population has an IQ of less than 85, because the military wont take in people with in IQ under 85. We've already examined how the military argumentation is a bit shaky, and the claim fails to take other things into consideration. It is definitely true that in the context of a society that is growing rapidly in the evolution of technology, innovation and high skill jobs, some people will have a harder time adjusting. However, the current unemployment numbers doesn't show a trend in that direction. Rather it shows that what really dictated job affluence are politics and economics, with the financial crash being the single most important factor in unemployment during the last 10 years (18). The other part of the coin is that technology is being "dumbed down" so it is easier to implement for workers in manual labor jobs, and consumers as a whole. I suspect that in part this has something to do with the reverse Flynn Effect mentioned earlier.
 
Last edited:
Surely you've already made up your minds about IQ and here's a video anyway.



  • IQ is the best measurement in social sciences.
  • IQ is the greatest predictor of success.
  • The military says that people with an IQ under 83 are ineligible (i.e. useless).
  • 10% of people are under 83.
  • Unruly behavior at age four correlates highly with criminal behavior at 15-20.
  • Interviewer gives a speech as a question.

This all got me thinking about both the morality and public necessity of taking care of people who sincerely can't contribute in a capitalist society. It also got me thinking that effective state intervention is going to require getting involved far earlier than the age when antisocial behavior turns to criminal activity.

This topic can go any number of ways, including the morality of a punitive legal system, so feel free to spitball thoughts.

*no fact-checking took place prior to the posting of this thread. :eek:


Of course, a society should take care of people that can't contribute. Otherwise, there is no point in being a society IMO.
Also, I get the point you are making with not being able to join the Army. But just because you have a low IQ under 83 doesn't mean you can't still be a contributing member.
I mean your education will probably cost more and you are only able to do manual or easy jobs.

I look at our capitalist societies like this. I am not saying rich people give to the poor or smart people give to the dumb. No, I am saying German people help yourself.
Everyone has to help if smart or dumb, rich or poor, everyone has to have the mindset that there is someone that is even worse of than me.
And that person I want to help as a "Volksgenosse".

For the actual question about IQ. Yeah, I think its more or less a good indicator.
 
Ow isn’t everything but it damn sure correlates with success
 
Breaking my heart here.

On a serious note, IQ tests measure how well you can fill out IQ tests. It's a cliché, but it's true. Take for example, language skills. It does not measure if someone knows 3 or more languages fluently, which I would say is a sign of intelligence. It's also very culturally relative, since you know, if you don't speak the language the test is made in you really won't score well.

If for some reason you missed out on general math in elementary school, or it has been a while since you've last done some roots and multiplications, you'll score less. Obviously!

To make it more extreme, you take a child with high-IQ parents, you have him raised by bears, he'll have a very low IQ just because he hasn't ever performed any of the skills needed to complete an IQ test. Does this mean that he's naturally less intelligent? The science of herditary traits would disagree, but the IQ test will clearly label him stupid.

It's an extreme example but I do think it illustrates the relativity of IQ tests and the ability to improve your IQ test scores just by doing more IQ tests, or improving an area of the IQ test in which you score poorly.

Increasing your vocabulary and elementary math will certainly improve it.

It's my personal opinion that it's very relative. I think it should include memory as I feel it is an important factor in intelligence. A lot of tribal people would score much higher since they have exceptional memory due to living in an oral culture. One of the downsides of the alphabet.

I do not think IQ tests are completely bogus, but they're not the holy grail of intelligence either in my opinion. Take a science nerd with an IQ of 150 and put him in the wild. Make him compete with a hunter gatherer and see how far his IQ takes him.

People here are really confusing specialization in knowledge with intelligence. Do you think it was some Joe Schmoe who figured out fire, farming, or any number of natural remedies? You drop that science nerd in a different environment and he likely will figure out how to solve a problem faster and better than his peers with a similar knowledge base. Read up on the biographies of explorers. Most are definitely above average in intelligence and often come after having a distinguished military background. Go read up on Shackleton, Mallory, Lewis and Clark.
 
I'm undecided. On the one hand people who score well on IQ tests have at least shown the ability to answer those questions better than the average person. If the only point of comparison between two people is an IQ test, I would always put more trust in the person with the higher score.

On the other hand, IQ comes up pretty short even just predicting academic success. I've had gifted students on all ends of the spectrum in terms of how well they do in class. Although on average they almost certainly do better than students who aren't labeled gifted.
 
I think he’s advocating eugenetics based on puzzle solving abilities
Could you define eugenics in this scenario? I think the severely retarded should be sterilized, does that count?
 
For the poll the answer is both A and C and environment is only a partial contributor. Genetics is obviously the other.
 
This all got me thinking about both the morality and public necessity of taking care of people who sincerely can't contribute in a capitalist society. It also got me thinking that effective state intervention is going to require getting involved far earlier than the age when antisocial behavior turns to criminal activity.

This topic can go any number of ways, including the morality of a punitive legal system, so feel free to spitball thoughts.

*no fact-checking took place prior to the posting of this thread. :eek:

If for nothing and no one else, I want the society I live in to have supports for those who simply will not be able to compete. The only other options are a) abandoning them to their fate and b) preventing their existence, and while b) is likely more humane than a), both of those seem atrocious to me.

The idea that everyone can just try harder, or pull themselves up, or that problems or difficulties are solely the result of personal failings just does not seem reasonable if we believe our current evidence in regards to intelligence.

most importantly, there is no reason that I can see to assume that effective participation in the economy in a meaningful way is going to require anything other than higher ability and intelligence in the future. We are not going to find more work for those who are more or less limited to unskilled work, which means we need to seriously decide on one of the theee options above as a society.
 
I'm undecided. On the one hand people who score well on IQ tests have at least shown the ability to answer those questions better than the average person. If the only point of comparison between two people is an IQ test, I would always put more trust in the person with the higher score.

On the other hand, IQ comes up pretty short even just predicting academic success. I've had gifted students on all ends of the spectrum in terms of how well they do in class. Although on average they almost certainly do better than students who aren't labeled gifted.

Yeah, IQ without motivation or will or direction leads to wasted potential. Having a high IQ is certainly no guarantee of success. Just one factor among many.

I think the idea though, is that if you can pull out the top factors in predicting success, then IQ is near the top in that basket. Work ethic of course is right up there too (could be higher). People with both are at a big advantage.
 
Yeah, IQ without motivation or will or direction leads to wasted potential. Having a high IQ is certainly no guarantee of success. Just one factor among many.

I think the idea though, is that if you can pull out the top factors in predicting success, then IQ is near the top in that basket. Work ethic of course is right up there too (could be higher)
Something to look at might be the lower end of the IQ range for people who are considered successful. If that's considerably higher than average, even if it's significantly short of genius, I think that pretty much answers the question.
 
Something to look at might be the lower end of the IQ range for people who are considered successful. If that's considerably higher than average, even if it's significantly short of genius, I think that pretty much answers the question.

What question would that answer?

If it is if there are other significant factors that lead to success I don't think that is even in question.
 
Well let's see... I hit 140+ on my IQ test in 3rd grade (sentencing me to the gifted program) and I ended up scoring in the 94th percentile on the LSAT. You do the math
 
What question would that answer?

If it is if there are other significant factors that lead to success I don't think that is even in question.
If the lower end is 115, it would suggest that one needs a minimum amount of intelligence to be successful. If the lower end is 100 or 90, it suggests that the other factors you're talking about are a lot more important.
 
That would fall under the umbrella, yes.
So how would you deal with the dysgenic effects of enabling the breeding of groups who can't functionally sustain themselves? This is something I have struggled with myself actually. Successful populations pay for their success with genetic currency to a large extent. I believe in a strong social support system but looking into the long term effects of this kind of social structure suggests to me that it is unsustainable even in the middle term.
 
Everyone i know IRL feels stupid to me, most of them are more succesful than i am though.

Most of my "IQ" is wasted arguing in Sherdog or comments sections of newsmedia.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,251
Messages
55,267,698
Members
174,714
Latest member
cartoonq123
Back
Top