At what point did you realize IQ is 3 dimensional instead of 2 dimensional?

It's actually [math]\displaystyle \sqrt{\pi}[/math] dimensional.

How much IQ matters, but usually that axis is left out because it has a maximum feasible value of 0.

[math]\text{IQ} \in \mathbb{R}[/math], so it at most 1D.

Then is it possible to have an IQ of -1/12?

IQ was initially developed by Piaget and other French psychologists in order to identify children who would struggle with schooling later on as early as possible.

These days people still research it for several reasons:
It's the best predictor of academic success

It's an excellent predictor of various life "successes" such as wealh, jobs etc...

And trying to mechanistically understand what is behind the g value in a factor analysis.

I forgot his name, but there's one guy at harvard or Yale working on a different measure which was called rationality or something. The main anecdote he likes to give in his presentations explaining the purpose of his work is that Bush Jr. would be considered a high IQ individual by his life successes, yet, the general consensus is that he is an idiot. I'm sure he has switched to Trump now for his anecdotes as I haven't looked at his work in a 3-5 years.

Yes, but only in the Wildberger-Barnett IQ test which drops the use of a distribution in favor of a score system. One correct answer = 1 point. So if you get 1 correct answer, then 2 correct answers, then 3 correct answers, then 4 correct answers ,... then in the end you had -1/12 correct answers, so your IQ is -1/12

Kek.

There are way more factors of intelligence than 3.

But I doubt any of you humans would be aware of such a thing.

I believe you're thinking of Keith Stanovich. I read his book (What Intelligence Tests Miss) and thought it was quite reasonable and interesting. His work is along the same lines as Kahneman and Tversky.

It's not IQ denialism at all, for the record. He also takes jabs at people who promote phrases like "emotional intelligence".

Stanovich differentiates between intuitive, fast processing and reflective thought. Pretty much System 1 vs 2 for those familiar with Kahneman.

He claims that although IQ tests are great at measuring raw processing ability (fluid intelligence), they don't measure the propensity to engage in reflective thought, which is just as important. And the correlation between IQ and rationality is not always very high. Although I think if you google you can find a review of Stanovich's newest book by Stuart Richie that shows the correlation is actually higher than Stanovich originally claimed, which slightly diminishes the original argument. But I'd still highly recommend Stanovich's book if you're interested in this kind of thing.

does this Prove that africans are dumb?

That is who I was thinking of.

Not my particular field or interest, but I'll remember to keep his name saved. Didn't intend to imply that he rejected IQ, whoops.

Not really, although he does discuss racial differences in cognitive performance. Stanovich seems to agree with the idea that IQ is fixed, or at least very difficult to improve, and is mostly genetic. But he claims that the propensity to engage in rational thought can be significantly improved with training. By the end of the book, he develops an entire taxonomy of different sources of irrationality and congitive bias. One of them is the 'mindware problem', which basically refers to incorrect or faulty knowledge about rationality. This is divided into 'mindware gaps', which is missing mindware, and 'contaminated mindware', such as pseudoscientific beliefs, cults, and pyramid schemes. He cites some studies that show improvement on cognitive reflection tests after learning about logic, probability rules, or concepts like the sunk cost fallacy.

Of course, someone with a higher IQ (fluid intelligence) will always be better/faster at reflective thought, *when they choose to engage in it*. But his central claim is that 'dysrationalia' - high IQ but low 'RQ' - is a condition that exists and has been largely ignored until now.

To specifically address your question, if I remember correctly, he either hypothesized or showed some evidence that racial RQ differences are not as wide as racial IQ differences. But I can't remember the details.

>smart but lazy

Yes, that would be considered a form of 'dysrationalia'. He essentially divides rationality into epistemic rationality (having accurate beliefs, calibrated to the evidence) and instrumental rationality (achieving your goals). Someone who is lazy would be be lacking in instrumental rationality. So would someone who is not 'lazy' per se but still makes consistently poor decisions.

OP here. This started as a joke more or less, so thanks for that book. I already found it several times but when searching which kind of people read it and so at first was put off.
But seems interesting to read nonetheless.