A New Study Shows IQ to be a Myth

I have always felt IQ tests were flawed based on the fact that some people that are 'smart' problem solvers are sometimes 'dumb' when it comes to the most simplistic problems.
The so-called-absent-minded professor's that are so immersed in what they find interesting fails in other areas!
Also, the brain changes in problem-solving in day-to-day activities i.e. you are sub-consciously stressed about something on a personal level that you aren't aware of on the days you are "IQ tested"?
I have always thought the so-called IQ tests are obsolete studies that belong in the dusty books along with old medical 'truths' (like bleeding a patient so their bodies make "new" blood), etc.
All the IQ's do is give 'scientists' (and I use that label sarcastically) a baseline to pigeon-hole certain personality types!
It's time to scrap this useless 'test' of intelligence'

Originally posted by Sandalphon



If they have never been taught to think for a test how can you measure their fast or slowness? Maybe english is a second language, maybe they're Mayans from another time line and zero is not a part of their math system, maybe they don't know French or music or the-way-the-westerners-do-it.

The Mayans were one of the first cultures to use zero, so that's pretty darn doubtful

It's funny how everyone with a low IQ is always quick to want to discredit IQ. Yet, these same people, who also have no money are so quick to defend the "billionaire". That's because there's always that chance of winning the lottery and becoming a billionaire, but they never, EVER have a chance of having a higher IQ than what they have.

People always hate things of status if they have no opportunity, in any way, of ever achieving that status, so, they attack it. It's outright jealousy and childishness.

There are people in this world who are smarter than you. They will always be smarter than you. You cannot achieve what comes naturally to them and you are jealous. Too bad. You can rant and rave as much as you want, but they will continue to be smarter than you no matter how loudly you shout and scream.

IQ tests, the professional IQ tests, not the internet ones, are accurate and they do measure a person's intelligence. Intelligence does not equal trivial knowledge, it's much, much more than that and it is measurable. You may not like it, but that doesn't change the fact.

First, the actual results of the study aren't what you are reading here, you are reading an opinion article that uses the study as a source, not the study itself. It has been twisted and manipulated by another who is jealous of IQ rankings because he didn't end up as high as he would like. Granted, he's smarter than you (the people ranting and raving who are against IQ tests) because he was able to manipulate you. Of course, that's not really saying much.

Let's say for a moment that you are an excellent arc welder. You have worked long and hard at it and you are very, very good at your job. Now let's say they bring some guy in off the street who is the nephew of the boss and they make him an arc welder. They start bragging on him and go on and on about "well, anyone can be an arc welder, people just say that it takes years of work and practice, but anybody can do it just as well as anyone else". That will offend you because you ARE a good arc welder and the new kid absolutely stinks at it. Half his welds fall apart, this will cause failure to the articles you are building, the articles that people know you build and expect quality because of your ability as a welder. They end up with the products the new kid welded and they fall apart. Oh, but he's a great welder because practice and skill have nothing to do with it, he's the boss's nephew, so he's a great welder. It must have been somebody eles's fault down the line.

This is the exact same thing many of you are griping about with the IQ scores. Those people have been tested, by professionals, and the test was accurate. They have a very high IQ and are deserving of recognition just as the great arc welder is deserving of recognition. They are smarter than you, they are more intelligent than you, they deserve to enjoy that status whether it hurts your feelings or not. Emotions of the lower levels doesn't negate the higher levels. You can't take it from them because you aren't capable of taking it from them. They win and they deserve it, whether you like it or not.

For a place that's supposed to "Deny Ignorance" some of you do a very poor job of it. You seem to embrace it more than deny it. Denying ignorance does not mean that you deny that you are ignorant when you are, it means you don't let the ignorance have power over you. Or at least that's the impression I got from it, maybe it is the other way around. The majority here sure does make it seem that way.

Originally posted by IEtherianSoul9
LINK - IQ a Myth, Study Says

Can a moderator PLEASE move this to the 'Science and Technology' section...no clue how it ended up in the Fragile Earth section.

“When we looked at the data, the bottom line is the whole concept of IQ — or of you having a higher IQ than me — is a myth,” said Dr. Adrian Owen

“If there is something in the brain that is IQ, we should be able to find it by scanning. But it turns out there is no one area in the brain that accounts for people’s so-called IQ. In fact, there are three completely different networks that respond — verbal abilities, reasoning abilities and short-term memory abilities — that are in quite different parts of the brain,” Owen said.

IQ tests do not properly determine an individual's level of intelligence. The reification of intellectual acuity into a scalable number so easily defined by IQ tests is inaccurate; it's much more complex than that.

These recent results are in line with late pundit Stephen Jay Gould's views on biological determinism and intelligence testing. In his book the The Mismeasure of Man he provided a critical review of the reasoning behind the Bell Curve and IQ testing (notably the g factor).

The two fallacies that are present concerning the principles of IQ testing are: reification and hereditarianism. The hereditarianism fallacy claims that intellect can be passed on, through genes, to the progeny of a person. The degree to which it is heritable is clearly been exaggerated by the most avid hereditarians (Gould, 1996). The first fallacy doesn’t take into account environmental effects, which can greatly outweigh any genetic effects passed on from parent to child. It doesn’t allow for opportunities for improvement of intellectual capabilities through proper education. The second fallacy is the misassumption that if hereditary explains a certain percentage of variation among individuals within a group; it must also explain a similar percentage of the difference in average IQ between groups (Gould, 1996).

In conclusion the study determined that three factors - reasoning, short-term memory and verbal ability - form one's "cognitive profile" and that unlike a trait like height which can be measured almost precisely, intellect is not a single, scalable, immutable number, so easily defined by IQ tests.

S&F for a worthy topic. But is it really a surprise? Human intelligence is too complicated a thing to be contained in tests or defined by tests.

I've always maintained that IQ tests are a dangerous way to pigeonhole humans.

Just think of the lives that have been ruined (one way or another) by taking the results of an IQ test too seriously.

Originally posted by VekTorVik
reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

I am not disagreeing with your statements on IQ, I just feel that your stance on mediocrity could use some reconsideration. What a better way to live but stuck in the deep rut of mediocrity.

They are welcome to be as mediocre as they wish to be, however, they shouldn't hate on those who rise above the mediocrity.

IQ tests are very accurate when given by a trained psychologist. If it's not administered to you by a trained psychologist, the results are not accurate and mean absolutely nothing.

The stupid little trivia games that pop up on the internet are NOT tests of IQ regardless of what their title or description is. They do not measure intelligence, they measure pop-trivia and nothing more. Intelligence and trivia are very, very different things. Anyone with a good memory can be successful at trivia, that's not intelligence, intelligence involves much, much more.








.

I am really suprised no one has posted a link to this yet...

Brain Challenge

It was linked in a PhysOrg article on this very subject. Go ahead. Take the test. Measure your penis.

"The uptake was astonishing," says Owen, the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Cognitive Neuroscience and Imaging and senior investigator on the project. "We expected a few hundred responses, but thousands and thousands of people took part, including people of all ages, cultures and creeds from every corner of the world." The results showed that when a wide range of cognitive abilities are explored, the observed variations in performance can only be explained with at least three distinct components: short-term memory, reasoning and a verbal component. No one component, or IQ, explained everything. Furthermore, the scientists used a brain scanning technique known as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), to show that these differences in cognitive ability map onto distinct circuits in the brain. Read more at: medicalxpress.com...

PhysOrg

It is funny to read posters here describe the "Nutty Professor" stereotypes and associate that with a higher IQ. I don't know why everyone is all worked up over this issue. There are people defending IQ scores and those dismissing them, when in reality all of our IQ just dropped ten points when we added to this discussion.

Originally posted by VekTorVik
I am really suprised no one has posted a link to this yet...

Brain Challenge

It was linked in a PhysOrg article on this very subject. Go ahead. Take the test. Measure your penis.

"The uptake was astonishing," says Owen, the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Cognitive Neuroscience and Imaging and senior investigator on the project. "We expected a few hundred responses, but thousands and thousands of people took part, including people of all ages, cultures and creeds from every corner of the world." The results showed that when a wide range of cognitive abilities are explored, the observed variations in performance can only be explained with at least three distinct components: short-term memory, reasoning and a verbal component. No one component, or IQ, explained everything. Furthermore, the scientists used a brain scanning technique known as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), to show that these differences in cognitive ability map onto distinct circuits in the brain. Read more at: medicalxpress.com...

PhysOrg

It is funny to read posters here describe the "Nutty Professor" stereotypes and associate that with a higher IQ. I don't know why everyone is all worked up over this issue. There are people defending IQ scores and those dismissing them, when in reality all of our IQ just dropped ten points when we added to this discussion.

Luckily, some of us had further to fall than others

And as I said, the internet based tests are not accurate. Only a trained psychologist can give you an accurate test.

reply to post by L8RT8RZ


I don't even know if they call it an IQ test, but they did base the results from the first group of tests on their study. These nutty professors are doing a second study and using the results of the sampling taking from the link I provided.

I can't stand to lose any more IQ points or I may forget to breath.

reply to post by mbkennel

This is false.

No it isn't. I guess you could argue about what "success" means The one show i recall was for people in Mensa.
I did a few searches on der Google and i found much on both sides. The most successful people don't seem to have the highest IQ now does it seem to provide any keys to being happy.

Here was one of the most interesting links.

www.cracked.com...'

V

I don't fully think that people that disagree with the validity of IQ tests are in your opinion 'jealous'! I think intelligence 'just happens' as in the case of my brother and I (I won't go into what our IQ's are as I said I don't believe in them, but if I did I would have to say they are above the so-called average).
Someone who is smart (by IQ standards) may not use their potential (or as I stated, they may be flawed) take for instance, Sharon Stone - IQ of 154 well above 'average' but in interviews she comes across as an 'average' actress.
From since we were kids my brother and I was interested in normal 'boy' stuff but we were both interested in stuff like not just space exploration but as a small child I would design space probes based on spacecraft like the 'Surveyors' sent to the moon. As a 14 year old I built a copy of the first mechanical television as I just loved that kind of stuff!
After the Air Force, I used my degree to get into the space program and built parts for the Space Shuttles and even did work on the Patriot missiles. So is intelligence always measurable? I don't think so, by reasoning based on my cousin who as kids we always thought he was a 'little slow' and we always played 'simple games' when he was around. My aunt moved away and we totally lost track then about 20 years later I found out that he alone designed some of the navigational systems used in deep space probes!
For your information the tests I was given WAS performed by qualified professionals as I guess JPL didn't want just anyone working on the systems.
So, I still say the IQ test even performed by "experts" are flawed and my experience shows nothing to prove otherwise!
Show me PROOF they are accurate and I might change my views.

IQ is "Intelligence Quotient"...

Quotient def:
quotient [ˈkwəʊʃənt]
n
1. (Mathematics)
a. the result of the division of one number or quantity by another
b. the integral part of the result of division
2. (Mathematics) a ratio of two numbers or quantities to be divided

quotient (kwshnt)
The number that results when one number is divided by another. If 6 is divided by 3, the quotient can be represented as 2, or as 6 ÷ 3, or as the fraction 6/3 .

It is a battery of of questions from multiple disciplines of science, mathematics, music and literature. The "quotient" is a somewhat "average" of how someone scores across the board. It does not take into account someone being particularly gifted in one field or another...for instance...a math genius who has focused all their attention on mathematics would score extremely well there and extremely poor in another category...but twhen they are averaged together and a "quotient" is attained...this is what we look at.

It is not a perfect system, it is a generalization. It does mark a couple of key points. Someone who is well versed in several subjects has the apparent capacity to learn more...if they can learn more, then they can solve more problems...if they can solve more problems, they are smarter...but still, a generalization.

I too know people that might be dumb as a stump in one thing and blow you away in another...perhaps this is a phase of evolution happening right in front of our eyes and we do not see it yet. Perhaps, we will become specialized sub-species...certain beings far more capable of certain tasks than others...

I took an IQ test about 20 years ago...I know what I scored then...I do feel smarter today than I was then but that does not mean I would score higher. I might score higher in some categories today and lower in others...probably rounding out to basically the same score. I have had some subjects that I have really focused on and others I have let slide...if you get the drift of what I am saying.

I have always looked at Intelligence quotient as a barometer for someone's capacity to learn and retain...not necessarily their raw knowledge. When it comes right down to the bone...it is the capacity to make new connections that no one else has ever done that defines true genius...or super genius...I am neither btw...I am not embarrassed by my IQ score of years gone by but it showed me that I am not all that special.....127

Hey,
I thought the IQ test determined the 'processor-speed', not the capacity of the 'hard-drive'?

I may possess everything knowledgeable in my hard-drive, but if I can't process it; (access it to open it/close-it) I can't claim to be so knowledgeable, can I?

That sux, b/c I'm pretty sure I know most about nothing, and least about everything!

Then the EQ (emotional quotient) has it's own spectrum too. I don't think one can be tested/ridiculed while the other (EQ) one goes unaddressed, and can then somehow come to an accurate finding- lacking half of the overall assessment.

We may only use ten or so per-cent of our brains; but 100% of our hearts.
Cool thread none the less.

reply to post by wulff


Your story suggests you have been pretty successful in relation to your IQ just as I stated. You actually support what I said, not the other way around

Just because a group of kids considers another kid "slow" doesn't mean they're slow. Apparently he must have tested well too. It doesn't have anything to do with IQ, it has to do with poor judgement on behalf of children.

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ


I always find it amusing that people with no concept of what "IQ" is often try to debunk it, then suggest it actually measure what it really does measure, it's just that since they have no concept of it, they imagine it to be something else.

What exactly do you think IQ tests measure? They measure various factors of reasoning, short-term memory and verbal ability, not "general knowledge".

All these stupid "internet IQ tests" measure little factoids instead of actual intelligence, then people go off on tangents about what their IQ is (according to the inaccurate internet tests) and they'll rant and rave, brag or strike out, all based on what they have been led to believe IQ is. Well, you're wrong, that's not what it is.

I would hazard to guess that 90% of society has never had an actual IQ test, yet they go on and on and on about them, claim they have just because they clicked an internet popup, or they outright lie about it. Until you've had an actual test given by a licensced psychologist, you have no idea where you fall nor do you have any idea what your IQ is.

Actual, scientific tests are accurate in measuring intellectual ability, it's just that most of the people that prattle on and on have never had one. Oh, they think they have or they lie that they have, but they haven't. I know it's true, I've participated in actual research, not "thought experiments" where people just "think about it" and look for matching opinion articles on the internet, then write their own and attribute actual studies incorrectly without ever having actually read the study, let alone processed it.

People are against IQ because 95% of the people don't fall in the "high IQ" group. They are offended by that, they are threatened by that and they feel they have to fight back. 68% of the population falls in the middle. That's between 85 and 115, that's "average" whether you like it or not. Going up the scale, 14% fall between 115 and 130, that's where 90% of the population CLAIMS to be, but where they are not. another 2.1% are higher than 130. Only 2.1%. It's the same for the other end of the scale. About 14% fall between 70 and 85, and 2.1% are below 70.

Stop clicking on the internet tests, see a professional and have your actual score calculated if you are interested in knowing what it is. Also, stop trying to "debunk" something without actually knowing what it really is. The people who DO know what it is can see through the feeble attempts and it looks ridiculous.

I believe you are generally correct in what you said. Almost everything.

I say "almost" because there are actually some internet IQ tests out there which are pretty close to the real thing. Some are more accurate than others. Some are longer than others. Some (though not all) of the best ones require you to pay for the results.

I have had the real-deal performed by a psychiatrist, so I do have a basis for comparison.

When looking for a "good" test, make sure it touches on all the standard stuff (much of which has been mentioned at various points in this thread.... memory, analogies, spatial reasoning, etc etc). A test will not be exceedingly accurate unless it is timed.

I personally haven't shared my numbers because I try not to be a braggart, and I don't want to make anyone feel bad.


To the member who said they have scored on the lower-end, yet feel they are intelligent. If you're basing that solely on an internet test, you should double check the test to make sure it's not BS. I would also advise that the stuff tested for on a standard IQ test is not the be-all-end-all of intelligence. As I mentioned in a previous post, most of these skill-areas can be trained and improved, and typically will not remain stable throughout a person's lifetime. Further, standard IQ tests often ignore certain aspects of "intelligence."

One of the more important ones is "emotional intelligence." Like with IQ tests, you can find tests of this online as well... but also like IQ tests, some of the ones available online are little more than heady games. Though some are quite involved and serious.

If you don't like where your level of brain power is at, tested or not, do realize that you don't have to settle. Allow me to let you in on a little "secret." This is one of my favorite sites on the internet. They not only give their own type of "Intelligence Test ("The Twelve Pillars of Intelligence"-- not standardized, and it's in the form of a series of little games) but if you sign up for an account you can re-take individual game-tests for the purpose of training (or just fun, I suppose) and it will even track your progress over time

Cambridge Brain Sciences Website

Cambridge Brain Sciences IQ Challenge Direct Link

Whoops--- I somehow missed that the IQ challenge link had been posted.

As I mentioned, the (longish) IQ challenge is not the only way to enjoy that site.

And yes, L8R, I understand (as stated) this is not a standard test. Probably not bad to get a general feel for it, though, and definitely good for training purposes.

I do, however, disagree that there are no good tests online. It's been a while since I've seen any (as I haven't looked) but I'll see if I can maybe dig up one or two if I have time later, if you're interested.

Once a unicorn told me I was dreaming after I woke up so then I laid back down. I was pretty tired anyways

reply to post by iforget


That reminds me of the day the frog covered my legs in jelly. What a wonderful sun.

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ
It's funny how everyone with a low IQ is always quick to want to discredit IQ. Yet, these same people, who also have no money are so quick to defend the "billionaire". That's because there's always that chance of winning the lottery and becoming a billionaire, but they never, EVER have a chance of having a higher IQ than what they have.

People always hate things of status if they have no opportunity, in any way, of ever achieving that status, so, they attack it. It's outright jealousy and childishness.

There are people in this world who are smarter than you. They will always be smarter than you. You cannot achieve what comes naturally to them and you are jealous. Too bad. You can rant and rave as much as you want, but they will continue to be smarter than you no matter how loudly you shout and scream.

IQ tests, the professional IQ tests, not the internet ones, are accurate and they do measure a person's intelligence. Intelligence does not equal trivial knowledge, it's much, much more than that and it is measurable. You may not like it, but that doesn't change the fact.

First, the actual results of the study aren't what you are reading here, you are reading an opinion article that uses the study as a source, not the study itself. It has been twisted and manipulated by another who is jealous of IQ rankings because he didn't end up as high as he would like. Granted, he's smarter than you (the people ranting and raving who are against IQ tests) because he was able to manipulate you. Of course, that's not really saying much.

Let's say for a moment that you are an excellent arc welder. You have worked long and hard at it and you are very, very good at your job. Now let's say they bring some guy in off the street who is the nephew of the boss and they make him an arc welder. They start bragging on him and go on and on about "well, anyone can be an arc welder, people just say that it takes years of work and practice, but anybody can do it just as well as anyone else". That will offend you because you ARE a good arc welder and the new kid absolutely stinks at it. Half his welds fall apart, this will cause failure to the articles you are building, the articles that people know you build and expect quality because of your ability as a welder. They end up with the products the new kid welded and they fall apart. Oh, but he's a great welder because practice and skill have nothing to do with it, he's the boss's nephew, so he's a great welder. It must have been somebody eles's fault down the line.

This is the exact same thing many of you are griping about with the IQ scores. Those people have been tested, by professionals, and the test was accurate. They have a very high IQ and are deserving of recognition just as the great arc welder is deserving of recognition. They are smarter than you, they are more intelligent than you, they deserve to enjoy that status whether it hurts your feelings or not. Emotions of the lower levels doesn't negate the higher levels. You can't take it from them because you aren't capable of taking it from them. They win and they deserve it, whether you like it or not.

For a place that's supposed to "Deny Ignorance" some of you do a very poor job of it. You seem to embrace it more than deny it. Denying ignorance does not mean that you deny that you are ignorant when you are, it means you don't let the ignorance have power over you. Or at least that's the impression I got from it, maybe it is the other way around. The majority here sure does make it seem that way.

edit on 23-12-2012 by L8RT8RZ because: (no reason given)

Yeah I have a friend that literally tells me to my face he hates me because i'm smart. lel... and he's serious in his animosity towards me, and if I used the word animosity he would say I'm being a snob for using such a big word. lel IQ of 123 here.

reply to post by IEtherianSoul9


EQ matters more of course because then we're in the domain of subtle information relative to the qualia of our actual human experience within the present moment of being. In that sense IQ is just spacial information processing, along with reaction/response stimulus (not intelligently self aware).

However that said, I have a close friend who's slightly developmentally disabled or learning disabled, and who's tendency is to go emotionally to imagined experiences whether past or present, or future, and immediately express what is arising for him, emotionally, and as often as not from the POV of an insecurity, and it's not always a pleasant thing to be subjected to let me tell you, but for the sake of love and friendship it's certainly a worthwhile ministry. I get a lot of energy from his unbridled self expression, whether towards sorrow and disappointment or glee at some as yet unrealized possibility, don't get me wrong, because I love my friend and accept him for who he is and enjoy his friendship in kind, but when everything's coming straight off the top of a low IQ, while there are moments of penetrating insight in simplicity, it may also be said that the feeble mind is the devil's playground. So I always rejoice when he comes out with something utterly absurd if not abhorrent in celebration of it's utterly pathetic nature, and grin and bear it.