Unlike you, I got bumped a grade ahead due to high iq (and general academic performance). Worse thing that could have happened to me. I think evaluating people in different functional areas in order to provide feedback for remediation makes more sense than trying to assign a number to intelligence.

I have an iq of 93. Am I dumb? Meh. Depends.

I likely have a negative IQ. Cant count for shit, nor spel neither.

At best, such things can probably indicate that you are good in very specific situations of abstract reasonings. Maybe you have a larger vocabulary than other people and you can do some difficult math problems.

But to equate these two to something as complex as multi-faceted as intelligence is a stretch.

I'm curious to hear what people think are the actual and meaningful limitations of the metric, and what benefits or value (personal or social) it provides. — Reformed Nihilist

I think, that there are two types of IQ tests. One where g is measured due to knowledge and memory abilities (non-culture fair tests) and the other where g isn't as heavily measured as in Ravens matrices tests and culturally fair IQ tests.

In the latter case I believe that academic success, associated with IQ testing isn't as heavily measured; but, the culturally fair tests that I have taken indicate greater fluid intelligence, which didn't do anything meaningful for academic achievement in my opinion. There's a caveat to culturally-fair testing in my opinion, where you can learn to do better on the test, and hence we have a tendency to measure g more heavily on tests like Binet or others.

I scored high on tests that don't measure g as heavily as on other tests. What the implications of that mean is that you can carry on a conversation pretty well for intellectual stimulation, as a form of pragmatic utility derived from such a high number.

For those interested:


An Intelligence Quotient indicates a person’s mental abilities relative to others. Everyone has numerous specific mental abilities, some of which can be measured accurately and are reliable predictors of academic and financial success.

You must work mentally. Do not use pencil and paper or a calculator during this test.

Be ready to determine whether the statements that follow are true or false. You will have to click either a true or a false button to indicate your response.

Time is a factor in the scoring of the test, so work quickly, but take enough time to consider each question seriously. Correct answers are more important than the time.

During the test, you must read and respond to a total of 38 true/false questions.
The test is timed, and the average test taker completes the test in about thirteen minutes.
Completing the test in less than thirteen minutes will raise your score.
Taking longer will lower your score.
Correct answers are more important than the time.

 So, be ready to concentrate and think fast!



1The word, "mineral," can be spelled using only the letters found in the word, "parliament."

 True

 False


2This sequence of four words, "triangle, glove, clock, bicycle," corresponds to this sequence of numbers "3, 5, 12, 2."

 True

 False


3 27 minutes before 7 o'clock is 33 minutes past 5 o'clock.

 True

 False


4The word "because" can be spelled by using the first letters of the words in the following sentence: Big Elephants Can Always Understand Small Elephants.

 True

 False


5If written backwards, the number, "one thousand, one hundred twenty-five," would be written "five thousand, two hundred eleven."

 True

 False


6Gary has only forty-eight dollars. If he borrows fifty-seven dollars from Jane and fifteen dollars from Jill, he can buy a bicycle that costs one hundred twenty dollars, (disregarding tax.)

 True

 False


7If a round analog clock featuring numbers 1-12 is hung on the wall upside down, the minute hand will point to the right of the viewer when the clock reads two forty-five.

 True

 False


8If the word, "quane," is understood to mean the same as the word, "den," then the following sentence is grammatically correct: "Looking out from my quane, I could see a wolf enter quane."

 True

 False


9If Richard looks into a mirror and touches his left ear with his right hand, Richard's image seems to touch its right ear with its left hand.

 True

 False


10If you leave the letters in the same order, but rearrange the spaces in the phrase, "Them eats on," it can be read as, "Theme at son."

 True

 False


11Each of the words, "auctioned, education, and cautioned," uses the same letters.

 True

 False


12John weighs 85 pounds. Jeff weighs 105 pounds. Jake weighs 115 pounds. Two of them standing together on the same scale could weigh 200 pounds.

 True

 False


13The seventh vowel appearing in this sentence is the letter "a."

 True

 False


14Nine chickens, two dogs, and three cats have a total of forty legs.

 True

 False


15Sixteen hours are to one day as twenty days are to June's length.

 True

 False


16In the English alphabet, there are exactly four letters between the letter "M" and the letter "G."

 True

 False


17If the word, "TAN," is written under the word, "SLY," and the word, "TOT," is written under "TAN," then the word, "SAT," is formed diagonally.

 True

 False


18By removing seven letters from the word, "motherhood," the word, "home," can be formed.

 True

 False


19If a thumb is a finger, then three gloves and three shoes normally hold thirty-five fingers and toes.

 True

 False


20The words, "every, how, hand, ever," can form common compound words using, respectively, "one, ever, finger, more."

 True

 False


21If Monday is the first day of the month, the very next Saturday is the fifth day of the month.

 True

 False


22Three of the following numbers add up to the number 31: 17, 3, 2, 19, 5.

 True

 False


23Fred will be four blocks from his starting place if he travels two blocks north, then three blocks east, and then two blocks south.

 True

 False


24The following words are the opposites of words that begin with the letter R: unreal, street, grasp, unwind, wrong.

 True

 False


25The following, disregarding punctuation, is spelled the same forwards as it is backwards: "Todd erases a red dot."

 True

 False


26The letters of the word, "sponged," appear in reverse alphabetical order.

 True

 False


27The numbers, 3-7-2-4-8-1-5, are read backwards as 5-1-8-4-2-7-3.

 True

 False


28The odd numbers in this group add up to an even number:  15, 32, 5, 13, 82, 7, 1.

 True

 False


29Without breaking or bending a toothpick, you can spell the word, "FIN," with exactly seven toothpicks, with no letter sharing a toothpick used by another letter.

 True

 False


30This sentence has thirty-five letters.

 True

 False


31A square whose sides each measure ten centimeters can completely fit inside of a regular hexagon whose sides each measure ten centimeters.

 True

 False


32Six identical triangles can be formed by drawing two straight lines through an octagon's center point.

 True

 False


33The number 64 is the next logical number in the following sequence of numbers: 2, 6, 14, 30...

 True

 False


34Robert is taller than John. Charlie is taller than Robert. Therefore, John is the shortest of the three.

 True

 False


35The sum of all the odd numbers from zero to 16 is an even number.

 True

 False


36If each of seven persons in a group shakes hands with each of the other six persons, then a total of forty-two handshakes occurs.

 True

 False


37Three congruent regular hexagons can be drawn in such a way that all of them overlap each other and create more than 6 distinct areas or compartments.

 True

 False


38If a doughnut shaped house has two doors to the outside and three doors to the inner courtyard, then it's possible to end up back at your starting place by walking through all five doors of the house without ever walking through the same door twice.

 True

 False

Take the test and discover if you can walk the path to success, happiness, and a material wealth! If your score is below 87, you're fucked. To receive the test result, donate 14,95 to our society of the enlightened mind, Altruiq SEM.

But to equate these two to something as complex as multi-faceted as intelligence is a stretch. — Manuel

This is an example of one of the myths I mentioned. Why is it that you think this is the case? Are you sure you aren't mistaken?

I assume I am mistaken in many things, this included. It's always a possibility.

There's no certainty in the empirical world.

I base my conclusion on the observation of what the test does. It asks questions pertaining to two domain within belong to what we tend to call "intelligence": verbal and mathematical.

Perhaps they've expanded recently and put in reading comprehension and some other things.

But I think it is evident that such a constraining circumstance can only account for a small fragment of what is called "intelligence". Street smarts, intuition, psychological acuity, insight, novelty, depth and a bunch of other factors are excluded.

Unless you are of the opinion that intelligence is that which the IQ test measures.

If the latter is your view, then it's no surprise you think IQ tests say much of substance.

I base my conclusion on the observation of what the test does. It asks questions pertaining to two domain within belong to what we tend to call "intelligence": verbal and mathematical.

Perhaps they've expanded recently and put in reading comprehension and some other things. — Manuel

You are factually mistaken. The most commonly used IQ test (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale) measures aptitude in four domains:

• Verbal Comprehension
• Perceptual Reasoning
• Working Memory
• Processing Speed

With each of these having multiple subcategories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale

But I think it is evident that such a constraining circumstance can only account for a small fragment of what is called "intelligence". Street smarts, intuition, psychological acuity, insight, novelty, depth and a bunch of other factors are excluded. — Manuel

To the degree that these are notions that can be formalized, and when formalized actually reflect what we normally mean when talking about intelligence, I think that they can absolutely be generalized from IQ tests. Those caveats matter though. If you can tell me what intuition is and how it can be recognized, it should be testable. Same goes for "street smarts" . I'm not sure that novelty by itself is something we usually associate with intelligence (any idiot can make a tuna fish and pineapple sandwich, that doesn't require intelligence, but it is novel).

The thing that responses like this seem to fail to consider is that the world's best educated experts have spent entire careers on the subject of functional intelligence and over generations have crafted these tests to do exactly what you seem to think they can't - and your view appears to be based on a very passing familiarity with the subject. Why wouldn't someone who's spent their whole life on this subject have considered the objections you bring up?

Edit: Consider this analogy. If I were to say that you could test hockey players in the following areas:

• Skating
• Shooting
• Passing
• Checking

If I told you that you could get a very accurate reflection of a hockey player's ability by measuring these foundational categories of skills, would that seem reasonable? The list certainly doesn't describe the intricacies of what hockey is, or even what it is to be good at hockey, but I don't see (at least for the sake of argument, I'm not a hockey expert) why it wouldn't be a decent measure of hockey acuity without having to measure every conceivable element or situation that could occur during a hockey game. That's the value of tests. They let us generalize bigger things from smaller amounts of data.

Verbal Comprehension
Perceptual Reasoning
Working Memory
Processing Speed — Reformed Nihilist

Thanks for the clarification.

If you can tell me what intuition is and how it can be recognized, it should be testable. Same goes for "street smarts" . I'm not sure that novelty by itself is something we usually associate with intelligence (any idiot can make a tuna fish and pineapple sandwich, that doesn't require intelligence, but it is novel). — Reformed Nihilist

Curious that you mention an "idiot" instead of a "person."

The thing that responses like this seem to fail to consider is that the world's best educated experts have spent entire careers on the subject of functional intelligence have over generations have crafted these tests to do exactly what you seem to think they can't, and your view appears to be based on a very passing familiarity with the subject. Why wouldn't someone who's spent their whole life on this subject have considered the objections you bring up? — Reformed Nihilist

The world's most educated experts have serious trouble accounting for the behavior of a single particle when it interacts with a receptor and a screen, in a field which is significantly more developed than psychology.

Perhaps intelligence is a bit more complex than a particle.

Curious that you mention an "idiot" instead of a "person." — Manuel

I was using it as a rhetorical device to note that it isn't a task that requires any special cognitive ability. I'm pretty sure it's a common figure of speech. Are you really not familiar with it? Maybe it's a generational thing.

The world's most educated experts have serious trouble accounting for the behavior of a single particle when it interacts with a receptor and a screen, in a field which is significantly more developed than psychology.

Perhaps intelligence is a bit more complex than a particle. — Manuel

Things are exactly as simple or complicated as we choose them to be. Carl Sagan had a great quote:

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch you must first invent the universe

The point being that we can use an appeal to complexity to muddy any subject, but it doesn't really answer any questions or offer much value. Making an apple pie from scratch is infinitely complex (if we choose to look at it that way), yet people manage to do it all the time. So what value is there to concerning yourself with how allegedly complex intelligence is, if it isn't just to "win a point" in this "argument"? Following that line of reasoning, we might as well all throw up our hands and say that there's no point in acquiring knowledge or figuring things out, because it will always be more complicated than we can grasp. Do you see the problem with that approach?

I'm going to start with the fair, I think, if somewhat sycophantic assumption that the average IQ of posters here is noticeably higher than the general population. — Reformed Nihilist

What on earth would make you think that?

We do things all the time that we don't understand. We don't understand art too well, yet we do it, we don't understand human psychology too well, yet we deal with people all the time. We don't understand how particles could combine to create colour experience, yet we see colour all the time.

We don't know what life is, yet we do biology. We don't know what mathematics is, yet we do extremely complicated theorems - at least some people do.

So yes, we proceed to work with what we're given and construct theories. The simpler the phenomena, the more developed the science is, hence physics is considered the star of the sciences. That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of important things to work on in chemistry or biology or all the other fields.

I don't see the problem.

The point about the "idiot", though rhetorical as you well point out, is that people who are fascinated by IQ tend to make these distinctions with more frequency than others.

We do things all the time that we don't understand. We don't understand art too well, yet we do it, we don't understand human psychology too well, yet we deal with people all the time. We don't understand how particles could combine to create colour experience, yet we see colour all the time.

We don't know what life is, yet we do biology. We don't know what mathematics is, yet we do extremely complicated theorems - at least some people do.

So yes, we proceed to work with what we're given and construct theories. The simpler the phenomena, the more developed the science is, hence physics is considered the star of the sciences. That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of important things to work on in chemistry or biology or all the other fields.

I don't see the problem. — Manuel

The problem is that if you aren't talking about a specific deficit in our understanding, there is no apparent value in pointing to the complexity of the subject, unless you count "not loosing an argument" as value. It's just a rhetorical dodge. If you want to talk about a specific deficit that you think you can identify that the experts in the field have missed, I'm willing to hear it, as I'm sure the experts would be. Remember what this was in answer to? You said

The world's most educated experts have serious trouble accounting for the behavior of a single particle when it interacts with a receptor and a screen, in a field which is significantly more developed than psychology.

Perhaps intelligence is a bit more complex than a particle. — Manuel

The implication, if I understand you correctly, is that different subjects sit on a hierarchy of complexity, with intelligence being more complex than particle physics, and that because we have deficits in our understanding of particle physics, our understanding of intelligence must therefore have greater deficits, therefore IQ tests can't measure intelligence very accurately. Isn't that roughly the argument?

My response was made to point out that no subject has an inherent level of complexity, and any subject can be understood and dealt with at differing levels of complexity, so that your argument just doesn't fly. That's the problem. An unspoken premise was false, if you want to get clinical.

The point about the "idiot", though rhetorical as you well point out, is that people who are fascinated by IQ tend to make these distinctions with more frequency than others. — Manuel

Are you sure about this? Or could this be your own bias? This doesn't reflect my own experience beyond the fact that sometimes people are assholes, and generally "idiot" is a derisive term.

I haven't heard Russell or Chomsky speak well of IQ tests, if that counts for anything. I consider both of them to be among the most intelligent of people in terms of scope and depth of knowledge and understanding.

My response was made to point out that no subject has an inherent level of complexity, and any subject can be understood and dealt with at differing levels of complexity, so that your argument just doesn't fly. That's the problem. An unspoken premise was false, if you want to get clinical. — Reformed Nihilist

I disagree.

I think topics that are up to empirical research definitely have an inherent complexity. When things get too complicated to a physicist, he gives the topic to the chemists, when the problem becomes too complex for the chemists they turn to the biologists, then the biologists turn to the psychologist, the psychologist to the sociologist, ending in the cultural critic or novelist.

It's because physics deals with simple structures that it is so advanced. They abstract away almost everything from the world.

But if you think that intelligence is inherently no more difficult than physics, then I think we're stuck.

Suppose I'm wrong and that IQ does measure intelligence. What good could it do, absent understanding aspects of intelligence for its own sake?

It could help organize schools in a different manner, thus helping some people, as happens in college with sports to an extent.

It might help recruiters in certain fields hire people more easily.

That might well be of some benefit to society.

Suppose I'm wrong and that IQ does measure intelligence. What good could it do, absent understanding aspects of intelligence for its own sake? — Manuel

I thought I explained a very personal example of what it can do. In the case of my personal history, it altered the trajectory of my education, and in doing so might have arguably altered the trajectory of my life. Interestingly, you're asking the primary question I asked.

I'm not sure that there's much point in trying to disabuse you of the apparently negative attitude you have about this subject. I took a simple shot, and you don't seem receptive. I made this post, not to disabuse people about what IQ tests were, but in hopes that people who know more about the subject than I do could give me a better understanding. Being disabused of the myths is a necessary starting point for the discussion, just as being disabused about the earth being flat is a necessary starting point for discussing astronomy in any meaningful way.

What on earth would make you think that? — Bitter Crank

An over-active sense of nostalgia?

As the saying goes, just Shut up and calculate. Do what you can with what you have.

the IQ test was made by a man and a human with a limited intelligence just like all other humans and so this limited man created a test based off of his opinion /understanding/knowledge and then according to his opinion and style of listening and problem solving he made a way to judge other people's ability to emulate the way his mind works and if they can't then, well they're stupid

and to be honest it is a sign of low intelligence to create the IQ test

it's an ignorant thing to make and believe in

now does it correspond with the ability to be successful in society? yes
but does that mean that fundamentally a person that scores high on said IQ test is fundamentally smart/highly intelligent?
no not in the slightest bit.

I've met people with 160 IQ's that I had to change a flat tire for so that they could make it home and not freeze on the side of the road at night despite the fact they were working on top secret engineering jobs that only the elite in their field qualified for. IQ is not very useful when not within the parameters and social constructs of society so in other words IQ is of no fundamental value

Between book smart (rationalist) & street smart (empiricist), IQ, since it tests children too, is biased in favor of the latter.

I recall an article on MENSA (high IQ society) which said something to the effect that membership could be gained by praxis (exposure to the kinds of questions MENSA asks in its IQ tests) much to the chagrin of elite MENSA members. That is to say, again, rationalists are preferred over empiricists. A paradox unfolds: scientists have IQ (they're bona fide rationalists, deduction being their forte) but they vigorously claim to be empiricists. The best rationalist is an empiricist!

Mayael, that bloke with the high IQ and secret engineering job; maybe you changed his tire because he wanted you to, not because he was incapable. I mean, who wants to kneel in the slush and snow, handling sub-zero freezing iron tools and nuts that your bear skin gets stuck to if you don't wear gloves? Isn't it better to get someone else to do the job for you?

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that he saw you coming. "Now, here's a bloke who will change my tires for free," he said to himself.

And by George he was right.

I've met people with 160 IQ's that I had to change a flat tire for so that they could make it home and not freeze on the side of the road at night despite the fact they were working on top secret engineering jobs that only the elite in their field qualified for. IQ is not very useful when not within the parameters and social constructs of society so in other words IQ is of no fundamental value — MAYAEL

Tell me more about this story. How do you know this person had a 160 IQ? I don't actually know the IQ of anyone I have ever met in my life, and I'm in my 50's and have met plenty of people. Also, was this person not capable of learning how to change a tire, or had they just not done it before? Was this a true story in every detail, or embellished to make a point?

I don't really understand what you mean with this discussion where the subject concerns factual matters that anyone interested can learn simply by perusing widely available sources. Instead you are soliciting and receiving uninformed opinions, prejudices, grudges and personal anecdotes.

I don't really understand what you mean with this discussion where the subject concerns factual matters that anyone interested can learn simply by perusing widely available sources. Instead you are soliciting and receiving uninformed opinions, prejudices, grudges and personal anecdotes. — SophistiCat

:up:

I don't really understand what you mean with this discussion where the subject concerns factual matters that anyone interested can learn simply by perusing widely available sources. Instead you are soliciting and receiving uninformed opinions, prejudices, grudges and personal anecdotes. — SophistiCat

Well hindsight is 20/20 isn't it? Obviously I overestimated the literacy of the community on the facts surrounding IQ. I'm surprised and disappointed. Having said that, I think my intent should have been pretty explicit in the last line of text:

I'm curious to hear what people think are the actual and meaningful limitations of the metric, and what benefits or value (personal or social) it provides.

Am i asking for factual information that is easily available here? If so, I'm not aware of where to find it, or I would have done so. Rather than pointing out my failure, would you be so kind as to point me to a source that will answer my request?

surprised — Reformed Nihilist

:smile:

disappointed — Reformed Nihilist

:sad:

I'm curious to hear what people think are the actual and meaningful limitations of the metric, and what benefits or value (personal or social) it provides.

Am i asking for factual information that is easily available here? If so, I'm not aware of where to find it, or I would have done so. Rather than pointing out my failure, would you be so kind as to point me to a source that will answer my request? — Reformed Nihilist

OK, sorry, I wasn't being fair in putting the blame on you. The questions that you ask are substantive, and the answers are not straightforward, not exactly settled facts either. However, these questions are addressed in psychology and social sciences - they aren't simply matters of opinion or contextless philosophizing.

I am not putting myself forward as an expert. I have read something, heard a talk with a specialist, but this isn't a particular interest of mine. The most I can say for myself is that I know better than to jump to conclusions based on scant knowledge of the subject. Anyone who wants to know more should do their own research. There are books, articles, even the wikipedia will do for a start.

Well if this is the level that conversation is going to be, then let's just not, ok?

I agree because I foresee that no matter what I say your not going to actually have a receiving mind and well I've got better things to do so ✌️

However, these questions are addressed in psychology and social sciences - they aren't simply matters of opinion or contextless philosophizing. — SophistiCat

:up: