>mention IQ tests, IQ relating to ability to do a job, or just IQ in general >everyone goes absolutely ballistic ranting about IQ having zero merit and being purely made up nonsense
Why is there such a massive resistance against IQ? By now it's as close to proven as it gets, and most jobs have you take an IQ test (called differently to circumvent the law), yet the clubs and rocks come out the moment you mention it.
because of leftwing ideology where all inequality in the word is due to evil man-made cultures.
>and most jobs have you take an IQ test (called differently to circumvent the law) t. NEET
Maybe your Walmart job interview didn't, but most decent jobs nowadays within management, STEM, etc. have you take an "aptitude test" which is the same fucking thing as an IQ test, but under a different name because otherwise it's illegal (because some judge said "IQ does not show the ability to carry out a job", even though that was and has been proven wrong).
Lol my friend had to take one of those spatial reasoning iq tests for an investment banking internship at a boutique
But, why the resistance?
It's irrefutable science that breaks the leftist world view they inherited from Christian society that says all people are equal and that the only reason not everyone is successful is due to environment
The left is incompatible with reality and leftism only arises in decadent, will fully blind, societies
You're talking about people who think they're smart for changing their world view because of fiction they read (they'll dress it up with the world 'literature')
>most decent jobs nowadays within management, STEM, etc. have you take an "aptitude test" t. NEET
IQ tests are a meme. What matters is your knowledge of the field and your problem solving skills.
Because the brain is a complex machine that we don't fully understand yet. There are many forms of intelligence each of which correspond to different parts of the brain and IQ tests only test for the parts that some random guy deemed worth enough to test for.
Also, the general idea of IQ as something you're born with that can't be improved, and if you take the IQ test multiple times it's cheating. This is incorrect because the brain is designed to improves itself with repetitive use the same way muscles do. As you learn and train your brain your brains physical structure rearranges and reorders itself.
Standard IQ tests may be the best way of measuring intelligence, but that by no means makes them good.
You're full of shit Everyone who posts on Veeky Forums knows brainlets exist, but IQ is a retarded metric
IQ is just "thinks per second"
No, it is not a retarded metric. Proof Take 1000 people who have scored 80 on an IQ test and 1000 people who have scored 130 on an IQ test. Which group do you think would make the better doctors , engineers, lawyers, journalists, accountants, actuaries, bankers, programmers, scientists, academics, CEOs ? Obviously the group whose IQs are 130, because IQ is a valid low-resolution measure of whether someone is a brainlet or intelligent or average.
Are you going to apologise to Veeky Forums for polluting this board with your stupid and obviously false post?
it's a predictor of success has very little to do with intelligence
t. Retarded NEET
>Grug say he big head >Grug say big head important >want to join big head tribe because he big head too >big head tribe tell Grug to match mammoth hairs and sort berries >Grug work very hard but big head tribe tell Grug he not big head and cannot join big head tribe >Grug angry, Grug deny big head exist, say big leg and fast hand also type of big head and same importance >Grug hate big head tribe
It's a test of how well you can identify patterns. Pattern identification is the central skill in understanding the behaviour of things and the rules they operate under , which is needed to manipulate your environment to your benefit.
The fact that IQ is predictive of success in all sorts of mentally demanding problem solving endeavors in all sorts of subjects and vocations is strong evidence of this and of the validity of IQ as a proxy for intelligence.
Only butthurt brainlets cry about IQ being invalid or not measuring intelligence when IQ is clearly able to distinguish robustly between the gifted, the average and the brainlets.
>all research points to IQ being very real and tangible >all research points to the whole "different types of intelligence so EVERYONE is intelligent!" being bullshit >even on Veeky Forums the reaction is a lot of butthurt with no arguments or arguments proven wrong by research decades ago
Fine if you think IQ is bullshit, but if you're gonna make that claim, back your claim up with some research and data, not just your own anger.
Can anyone ITT define intelligence?
>>all research points to IQ being very real and tangible >back your claim up with some research and data
>Why is there such a massive resistance against IQ? You have to posses 2-digit IQ to not understand this. Firstly, IQ is something you can't do much about, and ranking people based on it makes them obviously often feel bad. Secondly, IQ tests really aren't that reliable. Surely the best indicator of general intelligence, but most people practice them (even one round can be considered practice), which improves their results wildly. There's also no reason to expect pattern recognition tests to tell everything about a person's general intelligence. Lastly, people with high IQ can be unsuccessful as people with lower IQ can be successful. A large part comes to motivation and also the person's thinking pattern.
>ranting about IQ having zero merit Because 'everyone must have equal chances to succeed in life, and is born equal' It's that simple. Some people got offended that data was not going along their ideology. Now you have to understand IQ is a potential. People with high IQ can still end up lowlifes failures. But the reverse is quite rare.
Are you saying that everyone is a genius? That prostitutes, criminal gangs, truck drives, african tribes & janitors are just as intelligent as scientists?
>mfw it's another "/scipol/ chooses to let raw data dictate their worldview" thread with no care or interest in ethics or the implications of these findings being acted upon legislatively Do you guys just think you're inherently going to be on the topmost portion of any system that segregates itself by IQ?
I want to know how the story ends. Was he right? Will he succeed?
>lets ignore the signifigance of this data because it would disrupt the harmony of society by revealing uncomfortable truths about a persons potential.
You have the same line of thinking as the inquisition in the middle ages, congrats.
Because it destroys the just world fallacy, intelligence is genetics, looks (face and hair) are genetics, height is genetics, mental illnesses are genetics, and now even intelligence, it's clear that free will is but an illusion
Because IQ is racist, but nobody will admit to that.
>can't be double blind studied >close to proven
I don't see how IQ being genetic means that free will is an illusion. IQ is just your brain's hardware, the software is up to you.
if by 'aptitude test' you mean an interview and a look at your CV/resume, sure
if you mean they actually hand you a fucking test then you have no fucking clue what you're talking about
howabout >Grug have zero life accomplishments >Grug think saving grace is big head >Grug join big head tribe >Grug realize everyone in big head tribe obsessed with big head, and nothing else >Grug realize everyone in big head tribe compensating with sorrow of having no redeemable features apart from big head >Grug wonder if maybe big head not what its cracked up to be
>getting butthurt at a fucking brainlet wojak greentext
Well you definitely aren't big head tribe, that's for sure.
Offering an alternative perspective using the same format is butthurt? I'm just trying to speak Veeky Forums
(but I was tho)
Not at all. The software is determined by other chemical reactions in your brain and by your environment, just like your IQ which is also effected by the environment (diet during childhood)
> Surely the best indicator of general intelligence, but most people practice them (even one round can be considered practice), which improves their results wildly Institutions that employ IQ-testing don´t let you "practice" or retake their tests as many times as you like. >. Lastly, people with high IQ can be unsuccessful as people with lower IQ can be successful. On average, people with lower IQ are less successful than people with high IQ. > A large part comes to motivation and also the person's thinking pattern. Intelligence leads success in most endeavors, which leads to a motivation to learn more challenging concepts.
>IQ is just your brain's hardware, the software is up to you. You don´t create your own will - it is a result of subconscious processes sprung from a combination of a large quantity of causally linked events that culminated in the circumstances of your birth, upbringing and life.
>but most people practice them (even one round can be considered practice), which improves their results wildly Proven wrong so many times by research.
looks like none of you retards applied to Amazon or Intel
they literally make you do an online """"logic""""" test
I'm one of them. I took two IQ exams. One when I was 15, and another at 20.
WISC-IV and WAIS-IV respectively. 107 on the first, 124 on the 2nd. I literally learned patterns on the exams because of the dumb RAVEN matrices threads on here.
Also, at 15, heritability of IQ is at the near maximum, which 20 being around the same.
Ted Kaczynski has a decent psychoanalysis of these types of people.
>I literally learned patterns on the exams In the very unlikely event that you "learned" a pattern or two that just so happened to pop up in an IQ-test, it only serves to prove that you cheated.
Learning is cheating, then?
>you can "cheat" on IQ tests
sounds like a pretty useless metric
>Institutions that employ IQ-testing don´t let you "practice" or retake their tests as many times as you like. It's not like you can't practice if said institution doesn't specifically spoon feed you with practice rounds. >On average, people with lower IQ are less successful than people with high IQ. I don't even think I argued against this. But IQ is not the sole factor of a person's success either. >Intelligence leads success in most endeavors, which leads to a motivation to learn more challenging concepts. Spoken like a true brainlet. The way the reward system of a person's brain functions is not directly tied to their IQ.
Do post some of this research, I won't mind being proven wrong. I've actually never done an IQ test but I do the ones posted here regularly. Would be lying if I said I didn't improve after getting a few pics worth of practice. The more you practice them the more you'll be familiar with all the tricks around.
Grug like IQ test Grug has high 83 IQ
>I've actually never done an IQ test but I do the ones posted here regularly. Would be lying if I said I didn't improve after getting a few pics worth of practice. The more you practice them the more you'll be familiar with all the tricks around. Literally this.
I can't believe I bested the system so easily. IQ truly is infallible.
>Would be lying if I said I didn't improve after getting a few pics worth of practice on that note wouldn't quality education have the same effect? of course, racial differences are almost entirely because of genetics, I'm sure
Maybe a really minor one? Practicing logical thinking surely should bring at least some benefit.
Anyway, I think both the people who disregard IQ and the ones who think it's some kind of an absolute infallible metric are idiots
Bruh do you even know what the Flynn effect? Where you grow up and how educated you are has a huge impact on IQ scores. Hell even learning to play an instrument or learn another language can bump up your IQ scores.
It has an effect for sure. Let's not go crazy though. The Flynn effect was not from education alone. Better nutrition and less toxin exposure are factors too.
Actually didn't, guess I've been living in a box. Doesn't sound surprising though, if you think how much dumber we'd probably be had we never gotten any formal education. Education likely has a significant positive impact on early age brain development?
>intelligence is skills which are measured by IQ tests
I'm gunna make an online IQ test that measures your ability to troll and shitpost. I'm going to be the smartest person in the world!!
The major attributions were due to access to education and nutrition. The largest uptick in intelligence as a function of change in nutrition being adding iodine to salt in the united states. There are a couple cases were education impacts on IQ scores could be examined closely, such as when Virginia closed public schools to avoid integration and private schools were only open for Caucasian students. The Black students had a drop in IQ of 6 points per year of school they missed. Another factor is that schooling exposes you to tests and how to approach them, giving a distinct edge compared to those who have not dealt with standardized testing before. Overall it will cause less developed nations to show much decreased IQ scores than developed nations.
>People can practice IQ tests and get better scores with each subsequent test >If they keep taking them, they'll eventually hit a score of 200 unless they're retarded because there is no real cap on it
I don't think research can change the reality that everything is a skill, and human beings are made to learn and adapt.
In the end I agree that some intelligences like "musical" intelligence is stupid, but saying that intelligence is not composed of any sub components is even more retarded. The mind is complex, and certain functions will be better then others. There are some people who are incredible in everything but processing speed, for example. You may be able to have an incredible understanding of a subject, and be able to make insane connections, but the time it takes you to do these things is long. Intelligence is still not very clearly defined, both in the world of psychology and neurology
I mean even this guy Only hit 124 IQ when he was captured by the government.
I know his IQ probably isn't 124, and it's probably higher than that, but it's just evidence that IQ can fluctuate like crazy. He had every reason to ace that IQ test to substantiate his claims to the public, but he didn't.
Something that kind of bothered me about him is that he never entertained the idea that he was like everyone else. It's like he really fucked-up despite being very smart.
On a certain level, despite his skill in mathematics, you can kind of see that he had his own feelings of inferiority. Mathematics let him make-up for all of the failures in his life (never had a real relationship with a female. never had good friends. never had an excellent job.), so he relentlessly pursued the idea that he was intelligent because it was the only thing he had.
He's right about everything, but he's also a sad man that lives in a prison cell and failed in life.
If Veeky Forums wanted to make a class on how to take an IQ test, how would it be set up? Would you just drill a bunch of problem sets until they can reflexively do them? Or would there be significant pedagogy as you try to reshape the way a person integrates information to be better suited for the IQ test?
Even within a certain subject there are different types of intelligence. In my department we have one lecturer who used to be insanely good at math olympiads, and won second place in some worldwide math olympiad, but never really got far with his research. Now he's just a lecturer and stopped doing research.
On the other hand we have professors who never participated in olympiads but are doing very relevant research and pulling in loads of grants for their projects.
so is Amazon and Intel most of STEM?
pretty sure Biogen Inc doesn't do that >inb4 anything with Bio in it clearly would be low IQ
>grug want intern at granite valley >grug pick wrong picture in matchy match test >grug now work mammoth dealership
>but it's just evidence that IQ can fluctuate like crazy. The law of large numbers can cancel this out to a large degree though.
>some intelligences like "musical" intelligence is stupid It is real. It's the reason why not everyone has perfect pitch or the creativity required to compose a song. Why deny it?
No it's not. It's deeper than that
I think it's a bit too broad though. I think musical intelligence can be boiled down into a few different aspects. Something like "logical intelligence" is hard to break up, but musical can be tons of different things. As you said, creativity, well developed hearing, logic, etc. These are all things that contribute to someone being good at music.
Just curious user. What's the endgame? Like suppose tomorrow you win the battle. All of Veeky Forums agrees that IQ is everything and that racial IQ is stratified (on average). What will be your next move?
>some fag mentions IQ test >ask where he had it tested >tells me some dumb website >go to it and take the test >tells me i'm >99 percentile or einstein level or some shit IQ tests are usually disregarded because most people take worthless online tests that inflate scores. Even then, there's variance from test to test, unless you all take Mensa tests, which means that some tests may suit some people better than others.
If there's anything to take out of them it's that so long as you aren't sub 100 then you're not a brainlet, but how intelligent you are isn't going to be measured by the number of points past 100 you are.
Only if you're black or hispanic user sorry to break it to you
I'm sad about it. You can't really talk about it without coming off as insecure or butthurt (I guess I am). I just have to accept that I scored a 100 on an iq test.
I started the test at 8pm, and towards the end was really tired. It seems weird that these tests don't take into account a lot of other factors. I'm positive I would have done better if I had taken the test on 9 hours of sleep earlier in the day.
>WAIS >what is the 18th letter of the english alphabet? These questions are bollocks.
I’m sure there are a bunch of savants that would get low scores or non math related subjects or can’t function Socially. So in this case IQ doesn’t help. Gahdamn polysci major would live a more fruitful life
Most people have very low agency and are just parroting what they hear around. This will change to people having the same reaction against people that take IQ seriously in a few years, as knowledge about IQ and genetics spreads around.
People are sheep. inb4 butthurt >muh edge >muh tips fedora
So the test, as are all human made tests, only test your ability to conform to what it's human creator's limited perspective informs them is correct, or is proof of intelligence, and therefor is proof of nothing else. Ok, I think we're done here. /thread
Just ask them if they would hire someone with an IQ of 70 Their tune changes quickly
>and most jobs have you take an IQ test Unless you're applying for an incredibly low-demand position that requires no CV of any kind - maybe, but otherwise university degrees already do a good enough job of sorting people based on intelligence.