You see, the blatant ignorance here is had by assuming that there is no way to possibly measure intelligence. And yet who would argue that a slug is as intelligent as a cat, or that there's no way to effectively determine any difference, and more importantly on precisely what basis would one argue such things? — creativesoul

Certainly people who are sceptical about IQ tests will not want to say that a slug is as intelligent as a cat. Neither would they want to say that a cat is more intelligent than a slug. What kind of circumstance would elicit that kind of comparison between cats and slugs in the first place? I cannot think of any (beyond a desperate and question begging attempt to show that cats and slugs share something in common called intelligence that comes in amounts and can be measured).

There was a prior and more sophisticated exchange earlier in this thread on the idea of oneperson being more or less intelligent than anotherperson, but as far as I recall, that certainly did not end in it being agreed that to talk in this way committed one to a metaphysically dubious position that intelligence is a thing that comes in amounts and can be measured

Nobody unconsciously ascertains anything — jkg20

You can state this, but you didn't demonstrate it to be truth, nor do I agree with this assumption. I did attempt to demonstrate the contrary with an example. Since when I play the guitar I can unconciously ascertain where my finger needs to press the string to get the right sound out of my guitar when I stroke the string with my other hand. The same as when someone walks through a doorway, that person ascertains wether he/she would fit through before walking through it, most people don't require a tape measure to make this measurement, especially the more the size of the doorway differs from the size one would just be able to fit through. And the same kind of unconcious ascertaining is required to drive any vehicle with a steering wheel. Well practiced bikeriders don't consciously think when riding a bike,"ooh im steering 2 inch to far to the right, time to start steering to the left by x degrees", they practiced so they can unconsiously steer the right way in order to stay on the right side of the road as well as to stay on top of the bike and not fall off.

What might get you out of the hole you have dug for yourself is if you could present us with some cogent non-question begging examples of somebody unconsciously ascertatining something. I wish you luck with that. — jkg20

I don't think I was ever in that hole to begin with, since I already gave some examples of that, but you didn't seem to recognize them as such. So perhaps I should elaborate. If you learned to play an instrument like the guitar the example should be familiar, since while you start practicing the guitar, you will have to think consciously about where to place your fingers with one hand and when to stroke the strings with the other hand. However, this proces takes so long, that even if you try to play the music at half the speed, you are still often way too late in placing your fingers. Once you at least partly automized the proces, you willl be able to play the music at its correct speed without missing a note. But once you are there, you trained your body to unconsciously measure where to place your fingers.
The same principal goes for learning to type on a querty keyboard (with the exeption that there is no time limit for typing as there is in music, untill you want to become a professional typist, in wich case you must be able to accurately type an x number of characters a minute, wich most people don't reach after their first five minutes of practice) and learning to ride a bicycle.

Tomseltje

You sound alot like someone acknowledging that he/she can move his/her arm, but denies the chemical reactions taking place within your muscle tissue.

Exactly what I have I said that entails skepticism about the science of human physiology? Plenty of what I have said manifests skepticism about what the IQ industry is messed up in, but nothing I have said undermines the work of physiologists. — MetaphysicsNow

You seemed to do so when you stated:

Well acts and processes are distinct things — MetaphysicsNow

My example clearly demonstrates that the act and the proces can be undistinguisable, hence they are not by definition distinct things, at best you could argue they can be distinct ways of adressing what happened. How can the act of making milk into butter take place without the process of making milk into butter taking place? You seem to suggest they can.
It seems simular to me like making the error of stating "miles and meters measure different things" in stead of stating "miles and meters are different ways to measure the same thing (in this case the length of something)".

See my example of a violin player who at the beginning has to concentrate very hard on the exact positioning of fingers on the fingerboard, but who - when fully proficient - no longer needs to concentrate on the exact positioning of his or her fingers, they just hit the right spot. — MetaphysicsNow

I used a simular example to attempt to explain differences in ways to measure something (since I do play guitar and not the violin I opted for a first hand experienced example). The flaw here is in the assumption that the violin player who is fully proficient is no longer measuring. This is not the case, this violin player learned a way to measure the same thing by other means than when he started to learn how to play wich is way quicker than would be possible compared to having to measure everything required to play the piece consciously.

Does measured intelligence predict behaviour, abilities at certain tasks and how well someone function under certain set of parameters? Yes, numerous tests have shown correlation.

Has placements of people, with different IQs, to areas of work that doesn't fit the required intelligence level or being far under their level shown a negative effect on their well being, their ability to function well in that line of work and social interaction? Yes.

Can intelligence be trained to increase? Or if not trained, fall? Yes, but studies show that only within a a small range around the baseline you exist under. The base IQ range level is pretty much set for each person.

Is there a lot of stigma around intelligence based on the fact, as the OP posted, that intelligence is talked about in the same way as money? People that do not have a lot of money often despise those who are rich, while those who are rich look down upon those who are poor.

Does the stigma affect how we view and value IQ for it's purpose as a measurement? Do we either view it as a measurement of the value of people or on the other end do we see it as as measurement that is too morally cold and doesn't care about other aspects of human nature that should be taken into account more than IQ for the evaluation of a person? Yes.

What is the value of IQ without the stigma attached to it?

I see these points and I try to deduct the value of IQ. If we take away the stigma in which we value people's worth according to IQ or ignore IQ in order to not do it, then we can get closer to what IQ can be used for as a measurement. If researchers have found both that IQ is predicting how we behave and function in face of the world around us and if we function best in places that fit the level of IQ we have, also with respect to how much we can increase our IQ within our range, then it's a measurement of the optimal function of our mental well being. Someone who is too intelligent for the tasks they do get depressed by it, isolate themselves compared to colleges that are better matched, while those with less intelligence than what is required gets stressed and suffers health issues connected to that stress, while socially ends up isolated as well.

Now, this is a bit coldly calculated, since it's also not a good thing to just divide people into different levels of intelligence as well-being is also generally linked to diversity within the social group. But the stigma gets in the way of what IQ can guide us to when it comes to what we are best fit to be doing. It's a value that shows us a starting point for what we will be best at doing. Aiming for anything else will probably lead to health issues, both mentally and physically.

If we could let go of the stigma, let go of valuing worth of a person based on the IQ and instead value the well being of that person according to IQ, we have a good function for IQ as a measurement. IQ is not a measurement of a persons value, but a measurement of a persons optimal functionality. Put a Ferrari engine inside a small car and the entire thing will collapse under those horsepowers and wind pressure; put a small car engine in a Ferrari and it will slowly roll down the street without utilizing any of the the streamline design for wind pressure at high speeds. But both have a purpose if they utilize their purpose and not what purpose they don't have.

We have an ideology popularized today about how the individual can become whatever they want. It's Sartre's "essence after existence" on crack in which anyone believe they can do anything with their life. It's also why we see increases of mental health issues as the pressure on people not fit for what they do, try all their efforts to do them anyway. There are other aspects of course, like how introverts and extroverts do not fit in each others line of work very well but try to do the tasks anyway. This delusion of how people can be molded into the perfection of their decided essence, has little to no basis in psychology and sociology. While I agree that our essence comes after existence, we have a basic set of stats that we are born with and only those with dark agendas use the stigmatic aspects of our relationship with concepts like IQ to fit their world view and decisions. However, if we see the true value of IQ, it can be utilized for the good of humanity if people who understands it and who are free of the personal emotional evaluation of a person's IQ, decide on it's use for humanity.

(This is more a response to the topic and original post than the pages of debate that followed)

Not a particularly good analogy - driving tests are also a measure of your ability to manipulate a car - if you can do that in the context of a test you are likely to perform well with a car in other contexts (although not necessarily, bad drivers pass their driving tests). This is a key disanalogy with the IQ test: there is no device/tool being used to take an IQ test, except perhaps a pen (but then there are better ways to test penmanship than an IQ test). — jkg20

If you have problem with this example because it involves a device like a car, then just think about the theoretical exam for the driving test, wich merely requires the idea of a car, but not an actual car to take the test. At least where I live passing such an exam is required to even start the practical lessons driving a car. And the critisism stays the same, It doesn't merely measure how good you are at taking that kind of tests, it also tells something about how aquinted the person taking the test is with traffic rules. So it also has a predictive value on how well the person will perform when starting practical driving lessons. The reason we don't allow people who fail this test to start practical driving lessons is because it would increase the number of traffic accidents if we did.

Iq tests are similar in that regard, they just test a persons on more general knowledge and ability to reason, and hence they also have a predictive value on how that person taking the test will perform in the future in situations that require skills associated with what the test measures.

Can intelligence be trained to increase? Or if not trained, fall? Yes, but studies show that only within a a small range around the baseline you exist under. The base IQ range level is pretty much set for each person. — Christoffer

It is hard to raise intelligence, however there are numerous quite easy ways to drasticly lower intelligence. Hence the base IQ range level isn't that much set for each person, the max iq range is, but there are no tests to determine someones maximum iq, we only have tests that can measure someones current iq (wich could be temporarily lowered by sleep deprivation, or permanently lowerd by lack of nutricion in early development).

Is there a lot of stigma around intelligence based on the fact, as the OP posted, that intelligence is talked about in the same way as money? People that do not have a lot of money often despise those who are rich, while those who are rich look down upon those who are poor. — Christoffer

Many people tend to confuse monetary worth (the amount of money someone has) and/or intellectual worth (how intelligent someone is) with intrinsic worth (the actual worth of a person). Some people even go as far as to conflate correlation with causation. Since there is a correlation between intelligence and monetary wealth, some people even go as far as to assume that poor people can't be intelligent, or that rich people always are intelligent. Especially among wealthy less intelligent people.

Most people who do so seem to have forgotten that our intrinsic worth is not determined by our intelligence or monetary wealth, but rather by how we choose to use the intelligence and monetary wealth we posess.

however there are numerous quite easy ways to drasticly lower intelligence. — Tomseltje

If talking about physical brain damage, then yes. But it's hard to not use the brain to such a level that your IQ drops so low that you almost simulate brain damage.

Most people who do so seem to have forgotten that our intrinsic worth is not determined by our intelligence or monetary wealth, but rather by how we choose to use the intelligence and monetary wealth we posess. — Tomseltje

My point as well. But my comparison between money and intelligence has more to do with how people talk and reason around IQ. It's a value of the person rather than value of the optimal function of the person. The optimal function of a person does not equal value of that person, but works as a guideline to what that person can function optimally around. To function optimally is to find tranquility in our existence, if we push ourself beyond what we are capable of, or if we are capable of more and limit ourselves, it's downhill into mental health problems.

However, the actual worth of a person is another philosophical question entirely, but I agree to some degree that the worth has much to do with how we use what we have and how we act according to it against other people and ourselves.

If talking about physical brain damage, then yes. But it's hard to not use the brain to such a level that your IQ drops so low that you almost simulate brain damage. — Christoffer

Not even so drastic, just some sleep deprivation or malnourisment is enough to perform significantly lower on iq score tests.

The optimal function of a person does not equal value of that person — Christoffer

Indeed, hardly any one if any achieves functioning optimal all the time. Actual functioning is all we can measure, and then we only do it for the parts we are interested in, not the total picture.

Glad we can agree on the main issue.

Since when I play the guitar I can unconciously ascertain where my finger needs to press the string to get the right sound out of my guitar when I stroke the string with my other hand.

You are riding rough shod over numerous subtle distinctions and probably also misusing the word "ascertain". To ascertain means, in the most general sense, to find something out. How do you unconsciously find out where your fingers need to press the string? Does it involve looking at the score, does it involve looking at where your fingers are actually placed? If so, looking here is intentional, conscious activity. A master of the guitar may indeed know exactly where his fingers need to be on the fingerboard, and may know without having to engage in any reflection or looking at all, but that is precisely the kind of case where there is no finding out going on at all, even if there is knowledge. It's not the case that every display of knowledge or know how is the immediate outcome of actually ascertaining anything, although certainly gaining that knowledge or know how may have involved ascertaining things at some stage. I know that I am going to enjoy the cup of coffee steaming beside me. I certainly at some point in my life found out (ascertained) that I like coffee, but that's not what I am doing now: I'm just looking forward to drinking the coffee.

Consider this question:
How did you ascertain where your fingers needed to be on the fingerboard?
And consider in what circumstances that question would actually make sense when:
a) Asked of someone who is learning to play the guitar.
b) Asked of someone who has mastered the guitar.

Now think about the following question:
How did you know where your fingers needed to be on the fingerboard?
And consider in what circumstances that question would make sense when:
a) Asked of somseone who is learning to play the guitar
b) Asked of someone who has masterd the guitar.

There will be differences and similarities between all the circumstances that you can imagine, and its the differences that tell as much as the similarities.

I know that I am going to enjoy the cup of coffee steaming beside me. I certainly at some point in my life found out (ascertained) that I like coffee, but that's not what I am doing now: I'm just looking forward to drinking the coffee. — jkg20

No you don't know, you may believe so, but you don't know. If a meteorite falls through your roof and kills you before you can take a sip you don't. You can't prematurely exclude that possibility. Once you had you first sip you might know you are enjoying that sip, but you can't predict the future, nor can I or any of us.

How did you ascertain where your fingers needed to be on the fingerboard?
And consider in what circumstances that question would actually make sense when:
a) Asked of someone who is learning to play the guitar.
b) Asked of someone who has mastered the guitar. — jkg20

a) by following the intstuctions for the musical piece conciously
b) no idea, that part has become unconcious, my fingers know more about how to play it than my head.

i don't see how the distinqtion between knowing and ascertaining is relevant here.

b) no idea, that part has become unconcious, my fingers know more about how to play it than my head.

If you have no idea, then how do you know that it has become something unconscious, rather than just something that is entirely there for everyone to see when you play the guitar? It's you that know how to play the guitar, not your fingers nor your head.

i don't see how the distinqtion between knowing and ascertaining is relevant here.

Then I can only advise you to read over the thread more carefully.

how do you know that it has become something unconscious — jkg20

Because it's the same unconscious mechanism that causes someone to lift ones foot before becoming aware of the pain when that someone steps into something sharp. It's basic neurology; reflexes are unconscious.

Perhaps you should elaborate first on why you think

You are riding rough shod over numerous subtle distinctions and probably also misusing the word "ascertain". — jkg20

Demonstrate where I rode shod over sublte distinctions, being blunt and direct is no evidence of riding roughshot over anything or anyone by itself.

Quote me where you consider i was misusing the word 'ascertain'. Vague accusations of incompetence are not helpfull in a discussion, either be precise in your critique (at the risk of being proven wrong) or leave your feelings of distrust out of the conversation, since without being precise in your critique best you can establish is just rabble rousing.

If you feel something is probably the case, find out by asking for elaboration, don't make vague accusations. The fact that you dodged me asking for elaboration on this vague accusation with

Then I can only advise you to read over the thread more carefully. — jkg20

is indicative for you just having an uncomfortable feeling about it, by no means does it mean I was misusing the word. Though such feelings can be indicative for you not agreeing with what you think I meant by it, don't prematurely exclude the possibility that you just misunderstood me by going in offence mode.

How do you unconsciously find out where your fingers need to press the string? Does it involve looking at the score, does it involve looking at where your fingers are actually placed? If so, looking here is intentional, conscious activity — jkg20

It doesn't involve looking at the score or looking at where my fingers are actually placed, that is only needed when learning to play, once learned there is no more need for looking then I can play blindfolded. Perhaps a more common example would be riding a bike, once learned, you don't have to consciously steer towards the side you are falling off.

The idea that a single timed test can measure the entirety of a person's intellectual range is a very stupid idea.

This is nor the goal nor the interpretation of iq test results. Yes what you suggest is a stupid idea, but I know of none who actually knows enough about iq tests in order to legally test them to uphold this idea.

Don't hate it, I just think we haven't done a very good job figuring out how to measure it, and the entire prospect of being able to measure it in any manner, aside from the most broad strokes on the extremes, might be dubious. Intelligence isn't just one thing or a small set of things, and it may not make much sense to suppose that it can somehow be removed from particular contexts/contextual applications (so that we can create abstract scenarios in a very different environment/context for meaningful measurement).