Is IQ an accurate and predictive measure of intelligence?

Not everyone is equal

we should be helping the best, most capable ones

What, were you a high IQ kid who fell through the cracks because nobody taught you enough when you were younger?

High IQ doesn't mean enough that you can just say "Okay let's just put all our eggs in this basket and hope we make some supermen out of this batch to solve all problems, who cares if the rest can't even function in society". High scores means there's a capacity for learning. and maybe special kids should have a Gifted & Talented program to explore greater things, but really that should be available to anyone who has interest because desire to pursue knowledge is almost universally good and useful to society. so in a nutshell high IQ is just take off your training wheels and stop whining

Trying to quantify something such as intelligence is an impossiblity.

It's like trying to quantify what the fastest computer is - is it clock speed, floating point operations or whatnot.

It's similar to math - it's trying to recreate something from something that's already and only been created from within the self.

IQ in particularly is a sore spot, "intelligence quotient" on its own should give a clue to what I'm trying to say here.

As it goes on there are other measures of intelligence, which can be quantified as clock speed, flops etc etc by the speed at which someone types or talks or communicates with themselves or others.

People are only quantifiable to themselves and the ones that know them, and trying to quantify sentience as a base is something difficult to comprehend and understand from where we stand.

You are correct but if we had to ATTEMPT to quantify intelligence, IQ tests are the best system we have created in this point in history.

true but also false. there are better methods but it's my measuring through a neural algorith someones speed

chess is a good indicator and they generally give a score similar to ELO

Maybe for a very narrow and specific view of IQ.

>i haven't achieved anything in my life
>b-but i got 190 on an IQ test please hire me

why the need to have iq test when if you are so smart prove it by showing results instead of jerking off to how smart a person is. If that person haven't achieved shit he's as useful as a burger flipper.

Sure. But it only measures one faculty of your overall ability. But usually, those aren't too far apart to begin with.

Jesus fuck, am I the only one getting tired of this obsession with IQ? Encourage effort instead of overemphasis on what is supposedly inherent.

I have seen only one Iq tes, and it ask me to find the next number in the series, I mean, really?, WTF? You can make any series you want for any of the next possible answer!!

Really, people who make those test has never heard of oeis.org, nor how to use polynomial to fit data...

IQ test cannot be reliable

>time constraint

Researchers have never considered this before...

You are certainly the first to consider this

>data is difficult to interpret therefore it's useless

Damn... this really made me think...

>inb4 "work smarter not harder"

You're not alone. But, I don't think this kind of discussion is evaporating anytime soon; I think even enlightenment philosophers were groaning about how young idiots thought intelligence was the equivalent of knowledge, and they just deserve everything because they're smarter than the people who have actually spent the time to develop real skills.

IQ scores are basically useless once you've graduated HS because barring some extremes, choice is what defines existence in a free society. What you're born with doesn't.

It favors groups that use pattern recognition or memorize numbers in their daily lives. Chess players, for instance, invariably score higher, as did phone operators, back in the day. Basically, the more you practice an activity, that may or may not actually have much to do with actual intelligence, the more you will accel at the test. Similarly, the more often you take IQ tests, the better you do at them. For any remotely objective test, the results of repeated testing should be flat.

It also doesn't test for creativity in any way, shape, or form.

...and it doesn't work with young children, as they don't have certain spacial concepts the test relies on.

It should really be renamed from IQ test to "short term pattern recognition and memory test", as that's all it really does, and it doesn't do that very comprehensively or reliably, and really, only at all assuming certain life styles.

Any real, objective, IQ test would have to be neurology based, not activity based. How many potential neural connections do you have, and how efficient is the plasticity of those connections?

Sadly, that test is difficult to do without killing the subject, even with an FMRI.

Predictive, yes.
Accurate, no.

Not really. There are many aspects that go into intelligence as well as different factors can cause an IQ test to shift it up or down by a lot.

>Take IQ test
>Whatever
>Don't pay attention or really try
>Get ok score

vs

>Take IQ test
>Time to show what I got!
>Try really hard
>Score higher

vs

>Do things IQ tests favor
>Take test
>Score really high because I practiced

I have a 130 IQ yet can't be fucked to try to my max potential. I do well in school and mental activities but at some point I say "fuck it, not worth it, rather fuck off and play shitty video games." Yet my friend with a 100 IQ does a lot better than me because he studies more and tries harder than I do. He'd rather study hard enough to get an A where as I'll take my B and go home.

It does characterize ones book-learning capacity.

Its neither accrurate nor is it predictive.

For something to be accurate it must be scientific. Psychology as whole is arbitrary and the study makes up explanations based off tests THEY MAKE UP. This for obvious reasons has near no level of scientific quality.

It's proven useful as an indicator for mental disability. It does seem to have some degree of accuracy/predictive measure, but If you brag about a number you score on a test, you're probably still an idiot.

It isn't, you're all retards.

There are have been like twenty different theories of intelligence. The very concept of "intelligence" is hard to define and measure, and thus you have to limit it if you want to measure it (like in all science).

if you define intelligence as "has verbal procedural (forgot the name, don't wanna check notes right now, give me a break) abilities" then yeah, IQ will give you an APPROACH to that.

Psychometric tests are iffy by themselves, though. You always need other forms of evaluation to make a proper diagnosis. NEVER trust a diagnosis made only by a test, it's bullshit and/or lazy.

However there are a ton of ways to define or measure "intelligence", IQ won't measure the genius of Mozart, for example.

Modern WISC/WAIS however don't even give you hard numbers only anymore, rather they give you "indexes" and IIRC just one general IQ.

tl;dr There are a lot of things to consider, rule of thumb is never trust a test by itself.

t. pscych. undergrad, you guys should sat at hard science where you belong.

Yes.

However, having a high IQ does not make you a genius. Intelligence without wisdom is just high functioning autism then.

It correlates positively with pretty much every indicator of success.

Muahahahahaa!

You'd be surprised how many homeless folks are out there with IQ's over 170.

Pattern recognition and number memory, and very specific forms of said at that, are no indicator of success at all.

your inability to understand what correlate means paints a pretty grim picture of your intellectual capabilities

The execs of the Fortune 500 average about 120, and given that most of them are wealthy Jews, that's about average IQ for that group.

If anything, an abnormally high IQ is an indicator of being destined for failure, suggestive of an imbalance or overspecialization in the brain's task configuration, as IQ tests cover an extremely narrow range of factors.

But given the last IQ test I was given spotted me at 174, and everyone I know with a 7+ figure income seems like a moron to me, I may just be bitter.

Personally I don't think so.

It's measured on a relative scale so like all shit measured like that it's good for statistical comparatives with quantitative data but that's pretty much when it stops being useful at telling us anything about the intelligence of someone.

Accurate measure of a very narrow range of brain function that was very important during the 19th and 20th centuries.

Decent predictor of aptitude for some things. Spotty for predicting actual success in life. A sub-110 IQ will definitely limit a person's career potential. Anything over that, and success is dependent on other factors or types of intelligence not quantified by standard IQ methodology.

IQ tests can miss things like full-blown Asperger's Syndrome or other disorders that can severely limit a person's ability to function outside the testing environment.

IQ is not an accurate intelligence measurement and that has nothing to do with my small IQ.

Bingo
/thread

If IQ was in any way relevant, it would be used as an admissions tool for more then a "hurr look at me im so smart xD mensa" organizations.

>Implying correlation means causation

It could very well mean something, but the schools can't use it because "hurr durr muh elitism in higher education"

How would "IQ elitism" be any different from "SAT elitism" or "LSAT elitism" or "MCAT elitism"?

The SAT is a college test, which reflects your knowledge. The idea is that it's not branded as your intellegence, so it doesn't seem discriminatory. The SAT says that you're not ready for college. The IQ test says that your not ready for thinking. Even though they both test logical analysis over facts, it's all about sensationalized media

Thats is what the AFQT is. The military has found it as a statistical phenomenon to be relevant to them.

To my understanding, nobody in any professional field relies very heavily on an IQ test score when hiring a person. It's pretty commonly understood that a high IQ only speaks about a person's logical capabilities. If you get hired for a job its because you seem useful overall, not just because of your IQ.

Define "measure"

IQ does not really measure intelligence. It measures your ability to recognize patterns. There is a strong correlation of intelligence and IQ, which is why it is used.

thats a fucking dumb statement. how can there be a correlation between iq and intelligence when we dont have an operational test of intelligence. otherwise we wouldnt be having this debate.

when people say "oh but it doesnt reflect intelligence" think about what youre comparing it to. the intelligence you are talking about is far less of a scientific concept than iq and none of you can probably agree to.

whatever iq does measure, it does it well developed through statistics though like anything in psychology there are always confounds in testing and iq will only be valid within a given context.

iq has nothing to do with memory you pig fuck

prediction yes accuracy no; wat?

If you can improve your test score with practice, how its it a good measure of intelligence?

Maybe it implies that by practicing you can increase your intelligence?

there is not one test, let alone cognitive test, that can't be improved with practise.

the same goes for physical tests too. what's going to happen if you keep testing how strong someone is?

for the millionth time, no.

Well, that kind of is my point, on some level "intelligence" should be static, but IQ tests can be improved over time. So how are IQ test correlative with intelligence, which should be static?

But I would think that something like intelligence is static, is this simply not true? Because when people talk about intelligence they generally make it sound like it doesn't really change not matter what you do.

theres lots of studies on improving intelligence; some mixed results. nothing in cognition is thought to be completely stable i think.

I am talking about self worth in general. I dont get the idea of even talking about what IQ a person has because I think its completely pointless. People who out their self worth in IQ tests are pathetic to me si much thst it triggers me whenever people claim they have such and such IQ.

Here's an idea. If training makes athletes better, but that there is a limit to how much better one can be and that a part of what makes an athlete good is simply genetics, could we say:

That besides the IQ being measured, there's also a potential IQ, which is still limited by genes.

Agree or disagree?
You are not wrong.