So I've seen "IQ is a meme" here fairly often

So I've seen "IQ is a meme" here fairly often.

But does Veeky Forums have any solid critique of it? It seems to be quite solid actually.
(With solid critique I do not mean talking out of your ass)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_by_Design
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>It seems to be quite solid actually.
I mean it seems valid. With the whole "g" thing and so on.

IQ scores are a fine thing
the issue is that people use them as a measurement of overall intelligence and likelihood to succeed in life
but it only measures a couple of aspects of intelligence

Thanks for the reply.
>but it only measures a couple of aspects of intelligence
Well IQ is supposed to measure general intelligence, called "g", right? So they sort of do claim that it is overall intelligence.

>But does Veeky Forums have any solid critique of it?
yes. if we talk about IQ then someone will point out that the current IQ of israel is 90.
then someone else will pull a very old study that say Israeli is actually 6 gorillion points and has all the nobel prizes
thats a good as critique as any

this is where it gets stupid i think. We don't have a real scientific definition of intelligence so how can you criticise it in saying "well it doesn't measure intelligence" you dont even have a coherent predictable concept of it. Why even need it at all. IQ is most used because it has good predictive validity. The g thing is something too which most people don't even know about and no it doesn't necessarily mean it measures your whole "mental capacity" (which im not sure is even possible or meaningful) but again predictive validity in things like school performance, occupational success etc etc. g is seen as a measure shared variance in different tasks. Looking at its history, im not sure it was devised in exactly the best way or with reliable and valid constructs in mind (but nothing really is in the beginning in psychology) and when i've read about "shared variance between tasks" i still ask (well what tasks and what do they measure) but it does seem to have some predictive validity. I dont doubt though that we are more than capable of better measures of IQ and better tests. I also doubt that there are potentially factors which impinge on and affect IQ scores when you measure it in a certain context. IQ is messy if you want to be really scientific about it but it is quite predictive and thats its main utility. IQ also doesn't necessarily include executive function or many of its aspects and that is also a powerful predictor of performance.

I'm don't want to say that if you do well on an IQ test it means you're smart, what I will say is that if you're smart you'll do well on an IQ test.

IQ measure one and only thing, your ability to solve logical problems at a given time.

It's flawed to use it to compare populations, because it varies extremely from people to people and time to time.

It's flawed to use it to compare intelligences, because it doesn't cover the full spectrum of human intellect. It's also heavily affected by your health ; an undernourished mom sees her children IQ scores dropping by as much as 25 points. Most disadvantaged people (poor, uneducated, victim of prejudices) have about the same IQ as advantaged ones at childhood, but lose a lot of points in puberty and adulthood.

Also, most IQ score used in world maps are at different times, different tests, different methodologies. They can also have an inherently racist agenda behind them ; the most common IQ score portrays the Irish as the brainlets of Europe. But it was done by an Orangist Northern Irish who thought he and his kind were a lost tribe of Israel, and harboured racist prejudice against the native Irish.

Make what you wish of that.

there hasn't been a single iq test that showed white and black groups achieving parity when controlling for socioeconomic factors

Ashkenazi Jews consistently score the highest mean iq regardless of socioeconomic factors

make of that what you wish

>Ashkenazi Jews consistently score the highest mean iq regardless of socioeconomic factors
No

>Notable examples of such groups include Koreans in Japan compared with Koreans in the United States, and the supposed change in perception of Jews in the United States from being regarded as "dull" in the early twentieth century to being regarded as part of a "cognitive elite" now.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_by_Design

>there hasn't been a single iq test that showed white and black groups achieving parity when controlling for socioeconomic factors
Probably because there's more to it than just wealth.

You wanna know how I know you're talking out your ass?

Because if you bother to do even the simplest of research you find out that the mean IQ in Ashkenazi Jews isn't consistent and differences can be found by geographical region which by proxy includes a gradient in socioeconomic factors.

For example Ashkenazi Jews in Israel do not score the same level as Ashkenazi Jews in Europe or America so it isn't a consistent mean.

Um, thanks again for the comments but so far I've seen no sources for the claims.
(Note I've only read what Wikipedia has to say about it lel)

but that's wrong

Ashkenazi are intellectual juggernauts wherever they go.

Deal with it goyim.

Hehe, you almost fooled me there Satan. Nice try.

The only thing IQ tests measure objectively is how good someone is at taking an IQ test.

The fact is that intelligence is a vague and multifaceted term. Would you call a demagogue unintelligent just because he sucks at obscure pattern recognition? Would you call an autist unintelligent because he can't gauge the reactions of people he talks to?

Apparently in Israel they aren't, maybe there's something in the water (inb4 fluoride conspiracies).

wtf are you on about

Ashkenazi Jews are the jews of Israel

you know how stormniggers make conspiracies about "da jooos" running everything well?

well mizrai and Sephardi jews in israel replace "da joooooooos" with "the Ashkenazi"

>The only thing IQ tests measure objectively is how good someone is at taking an IQ test.
So what is general intelligence then? I mean I thought just like you, but am pursuaded by the notion of general intelligence i.e. "g", which so far still stands strong.

I mean it does make no sense to me at all that IQ is the only intelligence there is. But "g" claims to be about intelligence in general.

It's stupid. If success in business or life was entirely dependent on visual pattern recognition, then sure IQ would be a decent measure.

But with such a complex social system.. it means basically fuck all as long as you're nominal (i.e. your IQ is high enough to learn the concepts required to be "successful" in your given field in a normal time frame)

IQ doesn't take into account environment personality differences, memory, learning techniques, empathy, etc. all just as important to potential.

Not him but "g" is traditionally based on intelligence via academic battery testing in major subjects within schools.

While "IQ" is based on intelligence via logic testing using mathematical and scientific concepts embedded in the questions themselves.

The "correlation" between doing good in one and thus doing good in the other is there but people mistake IQ in and of itself as a sign of high general intelligence when in fact it's not.

"intelligence in general" is meaningless unless you're constantly in a specific system of chaos where short term working memory is the dominant variable in success well above all others.

Ok fair enough critique.
Do you mean knowledge vs. figuring things out?

IQ doesnt matter as long as you're smart enough to learn how to use a computer.

not my parents then