Is IQ the worst thing ever conceived? Instead of ranking people based on what they've contributed or accomplished...

Is IQ the worst thing ever conceived? Instead of ranking people based on what they've contributed or accomplished, people rate themselves based on some "potential" that never means anything in the long run.

>"Oh, well, I have a higher IQ than you, so it doesn't matter if you cured cancer, I am smarter"

Uh, no, sweetie, you aren't. We can't just rank people based on a stupid broken and inconsistent test score. It just makes people feel smart, and it makes people rank each other based on some arbitrary number, that's right, you are putting a number to someone's intelligence. I mean, the only worthy rank is to rate people based on how much they have actually contributed, and what they have actually done. Judge the quality and quantity of their engineering rather than ability to recognize a stupid pattern.

>"Lol, I can think good lol, but I can't do math or create anything, but I'm still useful and smart lol! I understand science conceptually but I can't actually do anything worthwhile or contribute but who cares!?"

Also, my IQ is higher than all of yours LOL!

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Q-HXSHXUtFw
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>Uh, no, sweetie
b8

>b8
bait.

IQ is just easy and fast to measure, it's not the be all end all of personality or "potential"
people who think it is don't know shit

>iq
We all know it's full of shit. Pseudoscience supporters cannot prove iq is science.

youtube.com/watch?v=Q-HXSHXUtFw

This guy has the highest IQ in the world, and he's an authoritarian technocrat.

If you want to use IQ to see where your students are at and identify who could possible require additional tutoring/assistance in order to become a successful and productive member of society, I'm all for IQ. I get the impression this is part of its history.

People pat themselves on the back and grasp for rankings because it validates their feelings of superiority and alienation from others. They look at it as though it's some precise tool that accurately measures the exact number of brain cells you have working, not realizing that we don't fully understand intelligence and farting out 100 quick logic questions isn't anything other than a crude diagnostic for exceptionally high or low performance.

You know what else acts as a diagnostic for performance? GRE, GPA, salary. At the end of the day you can make correlations, even between categories, but correlations are not explanations. Being born into a richer family can get you higher IQ, GRE, GPA, and salary, for example. And it goes the other way, too; having a high IQ, GRE, GPA and salary can correlate with you having been born into a richer family. How'd the family get rich? Probably by hard work.

And that's what matters. As long as people are working hard towards goals they care about, it doesn't matter what IQ you have. I chose science because I care about it. If you told me I need a higher IQ, the correct response isn't "Oh well I guess you're right I'll go into Businesss Admin.", it's "Go fuck yourself, I decide my own limits."

...

...

It's meant to be useful recruiting tool you nignog

iq is all that matters
i don't give a fuck what your achievements are
if you have a lower IQ than me, I am quite literally superior to you

get over it

>Instead of ranking people based on what they've contributed or accomplished, people rate themselves based on some "potential" that never means anything in the long run.
You couldn´t be further from the truth. Potential is required to succeed; if one is not talented, one will not reach the very top. If we were arguing about athletics, you would probably wholeheartedly agree with me - short people rarely become basketball stars, for example - but for some reason your cognitive dissonance steps in when the subject switches over to success in pursuits of an intellectual nature.
>Judge the quality and quantity of their engineering rather than ability to recognize a stupid pattern.
Ability to recognize patterns predicts capacity to engineer applications of high quality and quantity. You would know this if only you weren´t such a brainlet who has never set foot in a competitive STEM-oriented university.

It's a very good indicator of what someone is likely to achieve. No-one uses it above someone's actual achievement.

>They look at it as though it's some precise tool that accurately measures the exact number of brain cells you have working, not realizing that we don't fully understand intelligence and farting out 100 quick logic questions isn't anything other than a crude diagnostic for exceptionally high or low performance.
Research proves it to be more than a crude diagnostic.

>You know what else acts as a diagnostic for performance? GRE, GPA, salary.
The GRE corraltes highly with IQ; GPA less so, due to the non-standardized nature of university course grading. Salary correlates highly with IQ in fields that value talented hand-shaking and small-talk over intellectual rigor.

>. Being born into a richer family can get you higher IQ, GRE, GPA, and salary, for example.
It´s not the money you inherit, but your parents´ superior intelligence.
>How'd the family get rich? Probably by hard work.
Most people work hard and diligently, but tradescraft and mimicing what everyone else is doing rarely results in fame and fortune. To become rich, one must stand out in an intellectual manner, and be capable of original, creative thought - something most "hard workers" can only dream of.

>And that's what matters. As long as people are working hard towards goals they care about, it doesn't matter what IQ you have.
I´d love to see you teach calculus to a special needs child.
>If you told me I need a higher IQ, the correct response isn't "Oh well I guess you're right I'll go into Businesss Admin.", it's "Go fuck yourself, I decide my own limits."
My guess is you´ve already chosen to study something you can comprehend with reasonable effort. That, or stupidity, is the only explanation behind your ridiculous claims.

You're missing one core assumption: whether IQ actually measures what it claims to measure.
You can recognize puzzle-like patterns well, but fail when it comes recognizing patterns related to engineering.

IQ is a big assumption. The question is whether it's useful. And the answer is that it isn't. IQ only has a 0.4 correlation with academic achievement, which is a weak one. Working memory score, on the other hand, has a 0.9 correlation with academic achievement.

If something is both unfalsifiable and not scientifically useful, it's fair to say that it's a pseudoscience.

I scored gifted on an IQ test in the middle school and was placed in the gifted group. I, and other group members, had mediocre or outright shitty grades relative to other students. I'm now a university student, and this is still the case.

>You're missing one core assumption: whether IQ actually measures what it claims to measure.
It is used to pick the best and brightest police and army cadets for top brass positions. So far, it has produced exceptional results.
>You can recognize puzzle-like patterns well, but fail when it comes recognizing patterns related to engineering.
Patterns are the same everywhere. I don´t quite understand why you would reason the opposite viewpoint.
>IQ only has a 0.4 correlation with academic achievement, which is a weak one.
That´s largely caused by an inflation in the amount of "academic" degrees. If you drop the social science bachelors and economics bachelors, IQ suddenly correlates very strongly with achieving a bachelors, even more strongly with achieving a masters, and incredibly strongly with achieving a PhD. In short: stem requires brains from the start, while social sciences only become difficult at the masters or PhD level, depending on the field.

>Working memory score, on the other hand, has a 0.9 correlation with academic achievement.
As I´ve already pointed out, the "education" (read: indoctrination) of the population is a political goal at the centre of most wealthy countries. As a result, medicore people attain degrees in "academic" fields, thus skewing the statistics proving the high correlation between IQ and academic achievement.
>If something is both unfalsifiable and not scientifically useful, it's fair to say that it's a pseudoscience.
IQ tests are extremely useful to anyone who understands what they measure.

>I scored gifted on an IQ test in the middle school and was placed in the gifted group. I, and other group members, had mediocre or outright shitty grades relative to other students. I'm now a university student, and this is still the case.
IQ does not measure ambition, doofus.

...

I agree with you with all my soul.

>It is used to pick the best and brightest police and army cadets for top brass positions. So far, it has produced exceptional results.

Appeal to authority. Not to mention, I'd say the results were something between very poor to outright horrible.

>Patterns are the same everywhere.

It isnt. Pattern recognition also depends highly on sensory gating, and there are far more scientific tests to estimate it (EEGs).

>That´s largely caused by an inflation in the amount of "academic" degrees

Even if it was the case, IQ is still a poor estimate. There are far more scientific and reliable tests which correlate and estimate academic achievement better (central executive tests, working memory tests, sensory gating tests).

>IQ tests are extremely useful to anyone who understands what they measure.

They don't measure what they claim to measure.
Intelligence should be tested using physiological correlates - MRI scans, PET scans, EEGs. In the 21st century we have enough computational power to process those and get an estimate of cortical thickness, information about the sulci and gyri, and the degree of synaptic connectivity, as well as the degree of frontal and limbic connectivity and sensory gating abilities.

I can say that your engineering are as stupid as my patterns. Does that make them stupid? Not at all. OP, I hate to break it to you but that fat NEET neckbeard with an IQ of 140 will always be smarter than the cancer researcher having an IQ of 115-- the latter is a better person and contributes more to society, yes, but definitively they are less intelligent than the loser with a high IQ. You haven't given me any reason to believe that IQ tests don't measure intelligence accurately, other than your opinions of the tests being broken and stupid.

>Appeal to authority.
Have you ever spoken to a Colonel or General? Have you read reports written by such top brass? If not, I suggest you do and then draw the appropriate conclusions.
>It isnt.
They are.
> There are far more scientific and reliable tests which correlate and estimate academic achievement better (central executive tests, working memory tests, sensory gating tests).
In other words: you don´t like IQ-tests, even though they measure the exact same things as whatever thinly-veiled sub-tests in an IQ-test battery you´ve just mentioned?
>They don't measure what they claim to measure.
They provide a good estimate of a persons spatial, logical and verbal cognitive ability. Whether or not they are fully accurate is not a point of contention.

Agreed. The IQ tests are even worse. Each one made by a different person is just a different question or one word that you might understand or not understand.

>Have you read reports written by such top brass?

Yes. Subjective opinion and an a priori assumption, mixed with some appeal to authority is not science.

>They are.

No.

>In other words: you don´t like IQ-tests, even though they measure the exact same things as whatever thinly-veiled sub-tests in an IQ-test battery you´ve just mentioned?

I also dislike alternative medicine, because it isn't evidence based. However, due to the stopped clock phenomena, some very small parts of alternative medicine might have a small effect, albeit not even in the areas they claim their medicine has an effect. For example, zinc and lithium have evidence-based effects of increasing the BDNF protein expression in the brain, which leads to neurogenesis and synaptogenesis. This is not what the woo promoters claim such interventions lead to (they make claims of it restoring some balance or whatever their shitty cllaims say).

This is a good analogy. Accept everything
evidence based (no matter where it comes from), reject everything which is not evidence based. That's what science is about. Sadly, excessive dogmatic thinking hinders science. (For example, even the scientific establishment remains dogmatic about human cloning and sees it as a taboo,neven though it should be allowed.)

>Bait.
Baitzinga.

>Yes. Subjective opinion and an a priori assumption, mixed with some appeal to authority is not science.
The point of the excercise was for you to notice the obvious link between rank meritocratic systems (law enforcement and the military) and intelligence.
>I also dislike alternative medicine, because it isn't evidence based.
There is a plethora of evidence suggesting that IQ is the most valid indicator of intelligence we can muster to create.

Did you by any chance score below your expectations on an IQ-test and proceed to use this failure as a stepping-stone to a full-blown misguided crusade against those superior in matters of thought?

Your arguments are about as convincing as those made by a phrenologist, or someone who'd claim intelligence could be measured via measuring the head circumference (yes, this was the case in the 20th century, and everyone agreed with barring people with smaller head circumpherence from higher education).

>Did you by any chance score below your expectations on an IQ-test and proceed to use this failure as a stepping-stone to a full-blown misguided crusade against those superior in matters of thought?

Ok, this is it.

Do you, by any chance, aggressively project your primitive, non-elaborated lebidinal urges onto the posters of the thread? If so, I'd suggest mild chemical castration. It'd make you rely on logic more than on the lebidinally produced aggression.

...

I actually think no, its not the worst thing ever conceived. But you're completely right about everything else.

Its like people using science for weapons to destroy the planet and exploit its resources. It originally started out an okay idea, until the many people who aggressively insisted it was genetic, that it was completely accurate, that it proved races were superior to others, that it proved people were superior to others, and it gets worse.

For the people who can behave like sensible fuckers around an IQ test, ITS FINE, for people who can't, it looks like the worst thing ever created on the planet. Many IQ tests are also designed extremely poorly.

>For the people who can behave like sensible fuckers around an IQ test
So you're talking about like the 0.0001% of people who can? Because almost nobody who scores high on an IQ test will say its bullshit and nobody who scores low will say its not.

But intelligence does have a connection to the density of the neocortex.

In my experience the opposite is true. Those who score higher will claim it's bullshit and not that important. Probably because they think it makes them sound humble, when in reality they're just bragging that their success was down to hard work and not a massive genetic advantage.

>Uh, no, sweetie, you aren't.
>sweetie
r u a faggot?
u sure sound like one.

I teach calculus to special needs children in my spare time

I do medical research

>It´s not the money you inherit, but your parents´ superior intelligence.

prove it's inherited and not cultivated

IQ, hard work and creativity are the 3 main components of success at all levels where there is any to be had. Hard work and IQ is important for high levels of success and creativity is required for extreme and success. IQ is just one piece of the puzzle. You like puzzles right user?

Don't worry guys, if we keep trying maybe one day we'll make it.

>Uh, no, sweetie

no he doesn't, his IQ test was some random magazine quiz, he was the first to 100% it and media like to make things loud

>man is 7 feet tall
>b-b-but height is meaningless! you're not an accomplished NBA center, so you're not really 7 feet tall!

Abysmal argument. Height is extremely measurable and physical, IQ is based off a fucking inconsistent test which has repeatedly shown to be inaccurate. Height also has absolute consistency besides with growth, IQ doesn't. Also you could be 7 ft and a horrible NBA center. Would actually make a difference though and would be a far greater indicator of basketball performance as opposed to IQ in academia.

>Someone writes in a way most people on Veeky Forums don't
>Therefore its a troll and their opinion is invalid

You're a moron.

It would be more like expecting all 7' tall people to be amazing at basketball and assuming anyone under 7' would inherently be worse at it. It's reducing things to a single variable that matters to some extent but isn't the only thing at play.

If you are born to be 7 foot and develop your basketball skills and have no severe health issues/obesity issues. You will be in the NBA.

The curve shaped by the CDC’s available statistics, however, does allow one to estimate the number of American men between the ages of 20 and 40 who are 7 feet or taller: fewer than 70 in all. Which indicates, by further extrapolation, that while the probability of, say, an American between 6’6 and 6’8 being an NBA player today stands at a mere 0.07%, it’s a staggering 17% for someone 7 feet or taller.

IQ isn't false because you're a complete and utter faggot afraid of genetic explanation even with the evidence is piling up.

You're the problem.

evidence isn't piling up, you're taking garbage and treating it like gold because it supports your worldview

kind of like how the dude with the highest IQ alive right now hasn't done anything

I don´t need to prove it, when the scientific consensus - grounded in studies on the subject - says it is mostly heritable.

>creativity
>not a part of IQ
Creative pursuits require capacity for abstraction, i.e. IQ.

>decades of empirical research grounded in the scientific method
>garbage
I think you´re posting on the wrong board.

/tv/ is that way ---->

IQ is dumb, yes

>Is IQ the worst thing ever conceived?

No, but considering it's origin is literal a couple of burgers stealing from an introverted frenchman's work on psychometric tests for elementary school kids and jerryrigging it for adults. It's hard to really have respect for it especially when it was pushed hard until it showed Jews and East Asians were at the top. Suddenly muh creativity started to matter and East Asians were nothing but drones/ cheaters while Jews were utilizing nepotism to get all the academic jobs.

Now all it's good for is meme internet tests, attempts by economists to be ""scientific"" in measuring economic potential of a population and race bait.

>people rate themselves based on some "potential" that never means anything in the long run.

because war these days is conducted directly against the citizens... targeting those with political or financial power, and those with high IQ's.

well creativity does generally require IQ. most measurements of trait creativity are correlated with IQ up to an IQ of 120, but above this they become more independent traits. What im talking about is the creativity required to for repeated original contributions. the kind that would lead someone in a given field to be seen as particularly prolific. People with high IQs are easy to train and can master a large number of complex tasks. There are vastly more people with IQs of 160 and above than there are that would be considered geniuses. This difference is one of creativity and hard work. Though one might not consider Euler writing a paper every single day in a wide array of areas as a matter of hard work and more one of obsession and vivid passion. Could he have really settled for anything else?

I wonder if IQ correlates directly with SAT Math score.

I had a hard time wanting to learn the mathematics on that test, so I bombed it.

Okay support it's the consensus

>iq
>empirical
Except iq is not science and cannot even describe what it claims to measure.

>It´s not the money you inherit, but your parents´ superior intelligence
Money can buy a better education, nutrition, health care, and a better lifestyle in general. All those factors are essential for the development of your brain.

IQ tests are not benchmark tests like for a computer, but the ability to regurgitate irrational semantics.

>until it showed Jews and East Asians were at the top.
An average IQ a few points above 100 does not make a lick of a difference in any context whatsoever.

>Money can buy a better education, nutrition, health care, and a better lifestyle in general.
It doesn´t seem to matter past a low-end middle-class income though, considering that most highly gifted members of academia came from humble beginnings.
>All those factors are essential for the development of your brain.
Most people enjoy everything you mentioned, but usually still fail to elevate themselves above their parents at an economic and intellectual level.

grug wanna be mathematical physicist.
mom say grug is special

special grug knot strings
grug string expert
grug dunno string purpose

grug study at meme state uni
grug aim GREG exam good grade
grug virgin

IQ is the worst AI test ever conceived.

America Promotes Personality Disruption via IQ tests
美國促進通過智商測試個性中斷
美国促进通过智商测试个性中断

Where can I take this survey/question?

It's a measurement of cognitive ability. Are pulmonary function tests evil too? What about height measurements?

>not realizing that we don't fully understand intelligence and farting out 100 quick logic questions isn't anything other than a crude diagnostic for exceptionally high or low performance.

That's not an IQ test.

>And that's what matters. As long as people are working hard towards goals they care about, it doesn't matter what IQ you have.

Objectively wrong.

>IQ doesn't matter because I got a low score

> conceived
so
> is used for
what?

> AREN'T WHEELS STUPID? THEY ARE USED TO RUN OVER PUPPIES
this is literally what you've posted
nobody uses IQ to "rank" people
and what do we do with the millions of snot nosed faggot 16-26 year old do nothing morons?
we need a way of picking out the very few that can actually do something since marxism... your very post... has made it impossible to discern

...

No, it tells us who understands things better and more intuitively and who doesn't. Grades/skills, social impetus, achievements, aren't nearly as descriptive as a silly little number is. I'm sorry, OP.

> it validates their feelings of superiority and alienation from others

I'd go further and say that the feelings of superiority are a reaction to the alienation, to make it more palatable to them.

This is the exact same pattern that crops up across Veeky Forums:
1. be isolated, alienated
2. obtain "extreme" views compared to wider society
3. use "extreme" views to
- justify alienation > become a martyr of sorts, a social outcast morally outraged at the rest of the world
- gain a sense of worth from a just cause > comment impotently on news stories
- gain a sense of worth from inventing "inferior" subpopulations & targeting all your anger at them (rather than the rigid bars of our economy, say)
- gain a sense of community by coming to a place where you can air these opinions without becoming more marginalised

It's a whole load of psychological fuckery. The Veeky Forums lifestyle, IQ threads, /r9k/, it's all the same. Even the wojak-in-the-corner-of-the-party meme is that. Wojak is what is behind the mask of anonymity.

Why do you propose IQ is worse for society than working memory if you merely re branded a test of intelligence. What I mean is if IQ were to be gone today and working memory was the new "IQ" nothing really changed with your speech about not branding people with a number. Working memory can just as easily assign people numbers, "I can hold 8 digits, well hah I can do 12" and then those with 5 will be branded as deficient. I do agree that working memory is a better predictor at least for those with learning disabilitys (which don't correlate as well with IQ), are you saying that at least the branded stigma of being "deficient" will be better because its more reliable since working memory tends to be fixed like IQ (Granted it is more manipulable). I have adhd, and bipolar, a double whammy to my working memory does this make me stupid? You appear to hate the IQ for the same reason you like working memory. Maybe I misinterpret, would you say there are no ways to measure intelligence then? No of course not, Just out and say you think that IQ is a correlation and working memory does it better not give us some drivel of trying to be morally superior.

>WAAAAHHH WAAHHHH I don't like that we're able to test how good people's brains are by getting them to try and solve pattern recognition problems

uh sorry sweetie, but science doesn't care about your feelings.