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.
Obsession with IQ is meaningless in a market economy, people usefulness should be determined by productivity.
 
Average white American IQ in the 1900s was 70 compared to today's population. I don't think that 90% of the population was unfit for military service in the 1900s. IQ is bullshit.
 
The questions. Some of the things that are asked are not known to all cultures. Try giving the same test we use here in America to villagers in poor African countries.
 
What aspect of it do you think was controversial?

That he was able to admit IQ is a real thing and a good measure of intelligence.

He even said the he doesn't believe the tests are racially or culturally biased in nature. I was genuinely surprised and impressed because his side and some of his friends would never say that.
 
Really, you just need to have an average IQ. For success, more important than IQ is having common sense, having a good head on your shoulders, calm and steady under stress, having a skill that people need, giving your best effort on every job you do, treating other people the right way, and confidence that God made you to do what you do. If you have all that, people will want to do business with you, cause they know that you deliver and they trust you.
 
IQ is definitely the best measure of overall intelligence. However, early childhood development is critical in maximizing your intelligence. Environment, nutrition, etc. are critical in realization of potential.

You can make up for it later to some degree, but there is no replacing a proper environment from the formative years(0-6).

Some tests are better than others at measuring it, but I don't buy the idea that they are racially, or culturally biased(excluding language barriers of course).

frederick-douglass-quotes-10.jpg
 
Any facts or studies to support this?

first highlight - no, just my opinion based on observation.
second - there are studies showing correlation of child's IQ with that of the mother's.
nurture matters of course, brain needs food and exercise to develop, but you cant leap over what's been doled out to you, just like you cant run faster than Usain Bolt no matter how much you train. no sources on that, just my opinion.
 
That he was able to admit IQ is a real thing and a good measure of intelligence.

He even said the he doesn't believe the tests are racially or culturally biased in nature. I was genuinely surprised and impressed because his side and some of his friends would never say that.

I think you have a cartoonishly inaccurate view of what normal people think.
 
I would bet there are more than 10 posters here north of 145.
I would bet there are 10x more posters who believe they are north of 145 than are actually north of 145. I also bet that post rate would correlate with believed-to-actual-IQ ratio.
 
I would bet there are 10x more posters who believe they are north of 145 than are actually north of 145. I also bet that post rate would correlate with believed-to-actual-IQ ratio.
Going by just daily posters I would agree, but there are lots of extremely smarty pantses that drop in here time to time, or who haven't posted in a year or two.
 
Going by just daily posters I would agree, but there are lots of extremely smarty pantses that drop in here time to time, or who haven't posted in a year or two.
I do agree that for a non-academic forum, this place does have a critical mass of intelligent or otherwise sensible people. It's not mathoverflow.net, but it's not bad.
 
Going by just daily posters I would agree, but there are lots of extremely smarty pantses that drop in here time to time, or who haven't posted in a year or two.

Who are we talking about? Maybe the guy you're talking to and Zank? Just wondering if I'm missing some good stuff.
 
Well we can't all have 60k posts.

I dedicate more time to sexually satisfying my wife so she doesn't leave me for her high school crush.

You have more posts per month than Homer does.
2500/6 = 417
40000/156 = 256


Also, regardless of post count, you're just a loser. You got unreasonably angry because Homer pointed out that you've amassed 2,500 posts without ever actually expressing any kind of intelligent thought beyond "lol liberals r triggered itt" and the like. You're like if a toddler could be indoctrinated to be a worthless partisan.

Props for this post. It might cost you in your circle but you spoke the rational truth here.

Nothing he said would be controversial among his "circle," unless he was meaning to expressly preempt any methodological criticism of any intelligence metric on the basis of race, history, culture, etc., as opposed to stating where the burden should be shifted in such arguments.
 
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.

Pretty much this . I'd bet the house that really intelligent people can and do underachieve far more often than middling or dumb people overachieve .
 
Is an IQ test unable to be prepped for? If you can prep for that test, and the test does measure how successful in life limitations you have, then surely you can prep yourself to have most success in life as you possibly can.

If people can certainly improve their scores on the same test over several tries, then surely they can also increase how much success they have in life.

Voila

<JonesDXSuckIt> <JonesDXSuckIt> <JonesDXSuckIt>

<Goldie11> <Goldie11> <Goldie11>

<28> <28> <28>
 
Back
Top