The IQ end to end IQ threads

t. brainlet compensating by dismissing a valid scientific measure of intelligence because it hurts his feelings

I guess you didn't even read the article. Literal fucking reddit tier poster. IQ is good for measuring intelligence in big groups, but it's not a good metric for individual measure.

>read a dumbed down anti-science op ed blog written by a crackpot psychiattist
Lmfao, the only redditor here is you kiddo

I fucking love you user

is "hh" handholding or hugless and handhold-less

heil hitler

He is a psychiatrist, he already surpasses a dumb nigga like you in credentials.

handholdless
i.e. never had a gf
so 9x6 bbc is a waste
justl ike my 141 iq and my 3.96 undergrad gpa

where are you i want it daddy :p

tell me plsssss

>but there were many obvious ways the test was flawed and it didn't make much sense
god damnit, why did you have to go and fuck up a good analogy. People not knowing what IQ measures/means isn't a "flaw" with the test itself ffs.

>projecting

Many IQ tests are different and flawed. I knew a guy who could score 150 on a pattern based one and 100 on a different one that was based on math problems and verbal skills. Both the tests were considered "Official". I'm not saying no IQ test can ever have any ability to measure anything in any way, I'm saying the way its generally conducted, created and viewed is such an extreme joke the entire concept may as well be forgotten.

If you've only taken reasonable consistent IQ tests with people who don't get extremely retarded or elitist about them, I understand you would probably have a different view on IQ. If you've met many of the "Hello normie, I'm a 160" people along with other kinds of IQ retards you're more likely to have a view similar to mine.

nothing in this response tells me you even know what an IQ test is supposed to measure, much less that there's any legitimate """flaws""" with the tests. Like what are you even considering as a "flaw"? what objective metric are you using to compare tests against that magically makes them valid/invalid?

Also, you're not being clear with what you mean by "different IQ tests". Are you comparing the same kinds of tests, or different ones like a Stanford-Binet vs a Raven's? Not that it matters much, because if you knew what IQ is, you'd know it's not measured like temperature which can have a single value given for it a certain temperature scale. Each different kind of test is effectively based on a it's own scale, leading to different "score" numbers, and you have to convert between them. This happens because there's no direct way to measure g (the general intelligence factor), and the best we can do is approximate it using different methods. However, all the validated academic methods still produce consistent results within their own scales, and the scores across scales are highly correlated with each other.

Additionally, you have to remember that IQ is a statistical measure of you against a certain population, meaning that your score depends on the population you're graded against. Different test types may do this differently, but that is not a flaw, that is literally what IQ was designed to measure in the first place. It's an aggregate rating system, not an individualized score where you're the only factor.

This. It's pretty hilarious watching Veeky Forums wallow in its own mediocrity, while choosing the IQ hill to die on. Some people would rather challenge the entire concept of the psychometric tool known as IQ than accept the genetic role in intelligence, its correlation with wealth, crime, ect. Their small minds can't handle the social implications, so they have an emotional response, and they need pop-sci platitudes like OP's article to satiate themselves.

B R A I N L E T S
&
W E A K L I N G S

wanna know how i know you didnt read the article?

--> The Article
Your Head.

Neck yourself my nigga. The articles acknowledges everything you just said.

People worry about it because they assume an indicator of success is the end of their career.

If you read the article IQ only correlates .66.

This is great if you're a sociologist, but for an individual it's almost worthless.

The most valuable predictor is grit.

Defined as the ability to stick to something even if it displeases you.

Genius is usually defined by accomplishments, not psychometrics.

Welp, that's fucked up. I actually thought it was a different article about the comprehensive findings of studying a genius' diary/journal entries. MB. lol

Guess I should have clicked it instead of assuming it was the one I had in mind, for some reason.

Yeah, it's kind of depressing he had to break down the reasoning behind the use of statistics and the phrase "correlation." Ignore my last post then.

>I knew a guy who could score 150 on a pattern based one and 100 on a different one that was based on math problems and verbal skills
That is quite normal. The further from the average you are, the higher the variance between the scores on the different subtypes on whatever measure of cognitive ability you're using. Remember it like this: exceptional people tend to be exceptional in one way, while average tend to be average all around.

>The most valuable predictor is grit.
Every article I've ever read on this subjcet shows quite clearly that grit is an inferior predictor of success than IQ.
Not that it's useless, but it's clearly inferior.

Jesus, It's Like I Can't Kill These IQ Threads Permanently Dead Just By Posting (In) Them.

>the thing that is just a proxy for BIG5 conscientiousness
>the most valuable predictor of anything
Who lied to you chump?

Grit is BIG5 conscientiousness.

>If you read the article IQ only correlates .66.
>only
>The most valuable predictor is grit.

I read the article and it pretty much denies IQ as a predictor of anything on a personal level, so he was right.
>The second problem is that even if you avoid the problems mentioned above and measure IQ 100% correctly, it’s just not that usefully predictive.
Which obviously most research disagrees with.

at least they got it right at the end
>And then you can either resist that with every breath you have – deny all the data, picket the labs where it’s studied, make up silly theories about “emotional intelligence” and “grit” and what have you. Or you can surrender to the darkness, at least have the comfort of knowing that you accept the grim reality as it is.

An IQ test is by definition a test which measures intelligence, but just because some retard calls something an IQ test doesn't make it true, Its quite clear that the purpose of an IQ test is to measure intelligence though.

One hypothetical and obvious flaw with an IQ test. The test you're taking was created by an illogical retard who is terrible at creating pattern recognition tests or tests assessing other skills.

Hopefully I don't have to reply to this again. I'm not saying IQ has no merit under any circumstances, I'm saying everything together in regards to peoples interaction with this concept, is enough to throw it away, its like how communism should hypothetically work but is near to impossible to work due to human nature.

Why the fuck would I want believe I was average when I can take some test you can practice for and believe I'm a super genius without doing jack shit to actually prove it. I need to feel superior to people everyone else to compensate for my dick size.

What is the correlation between different IQ testing methods?

...

Supposedly by most "reputable" IQ testing organisations they're considered equally as valid despite it being common to have significant differences in scores.

these

When you say scores are you referring to the ranking on an IQ scale.

I would imagine any new IQ test would have to be applied to a large group of people before it can be validated.

>An IQ test is by definition a test which measures intelligence
and tell me, how exactly are you defining "intelligence" here? How do you propose actual researchers define "intelligence"? and how can that definition be quantified?

The issue here is that you're approaching the subject backwards. It doesn't matter what the originators intended to measure, because it's an abstract concept that was never rigorously defined until these tests came along as a proxy to explore that concept quantifiably. The only thing that mattered was what the tests *did* measure, and whether or not those measurements were useful for anything. And it turned out that they *were* useful for predicting a lot of things, that we had no better way of predicting quantitatively. And we still don't have many better indicators than IQ for predicting a really large spectrum of social outcomes.

>The test you're taking was created by an illogical retard who is terrible at creating pattern recognition tests or tests assessing other skills.
Academic psychometric tests don't just pop up out of this air with weak randomly chosen questions. They're rigorously tested to make sure they have self-consistent and reproducible results. And even then, they're only given any real consideration if they legitimately provide some kind of predictive power that can't be provided in other ways. It's not nearly as easy as you're making it sound to just randomly throw a valid psychometric test together; just look at MBTI.

>I'm saying everything together in regards to peoples interaction with this concept, is enough to throw it away
Yes, the *concept* of "intelligence", not the measurement of IQ. Those are two very distinct things, and it would be backwards to suggest that research stop in that area just because the average person might conflate it with the questionable concept that spawned it. We didn't have problems moving from Astrology to Astronomy, so why is it a problem here?

that's how it works. Each test variant is graded relative to it's own scoring scale over some population, and no two different test variants are guaranteed to be using the same population data, unless there's a reliable way to convert the scores between them. The methods are considered equally valid because the scoring scales have been shown to move in tandem with each other when tested against the same populations, even if each test gives out a different set of scores.

>they're only given any real consideration if they legitimately provide some kind of predictive power

This may be true but needs a citation. I also agreed they may have some predictive power my issue is that they're no where near accurate enough to have any kind of strong belief in them but retards do strongly believe in them and you end up with bullshit like this As for the other things you wrote, I'm not even sure you've been properly reading or understanding my posts, it seems like you're just quoting sentences and saying things vaguely related to my posts.

>my issue is that they're no where near accurate enough
Accurate to what though? We have no objective measurement to compare these scores against, that's the whole problem. We can only say whether something is accurate or not when we have the 'real' answer to compare our results against. And even if we did have such an answer, it'd still be a population statistic and not an individual's objective score, because that's just how the test works. A big misunderstanding about IQ is that it assigns you some magic number, when in reality what it does, is just place you in a certain position relative to some group of people.

>I'm not even sure you've been properly reading or understanding my posts
Then please elaborate what point you're trying to express, because it sounds like you're arguing a totally orthogonal point to what IQ research is actually about, and then trying to use that to somehow make a point about IQ. My only point in return has been to explain how the IQ research *does in fact work* in real world academia, to clear up any misconceptions, because IQ as it currently stands, is very divorced from the colloquial concept of "intelligence", and that's the case for a good reason (i.e. because "intelligence" is hard to define rigorously).

So the issue is, that you have to either be talking about the very specific definition of "intelligence" that IQ defines, or be taking about a totally unrelated concept that can't be used to say anything about IQ. There's simply no productive way of discussing the validity of the IQ model, without first accepting the definition of "intelligence" it lays out. Even if you were to present an viable alternative definition of "intelligence", you'd still have to figure out a way to compare it's results to the current IQ model before we can even begin to talk about validity.

Here's how IQ defines "intelligence":
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

>you end up with bullshit like this
for the record, I agree that such groups are silly, but not because the tests are flawed, but rather because they perpetuate a misrepresentation of what the tests actually measure.
Using IQ as a means to analyze a portion of a population distribution is fine, but using it as the criterion for some group membership doesn't seem like it'd provide much value to the individual members involved. But whatever, people base groups/communities around all kinds of silly things, so it's not surprising that would happen, and getting annoyed at IQ for that would be like getting annoyed at Harley Davidson for biker gangs.

Hm, now im intrested in the definition of success? Say, I have an IQ of 135 and I want to win a Nobel price (for the sake of argument that would mean for me be successful). Now I don't achieve that, but I discover some interesting and usefull stuff. Am I successful now? Is that just based on me saying, this is pretty good anyway, I consider myself successful.

Maybe its like you ask people how succesful are they (in their opinion) on the 0-1 scale and if you say >0.75, thats considered succesful, and from that you construct this correlation.

Or maybe its just some IQ - income correlation which is not bad for statistical assesment.

I agree with the individual-global view on this, just not sure what is success here.

>brainlets are mad that you can make orders of magnitude more than them with little effort

oh im laffin