A New Study Shows IQ to be a Myth

Too bad people will always seem to have a need for IQ levels. People have some sort of need to compare their intelligence to other people, just look at some of the people in this thread, who put so much value onto IQ tests. IQ tests mean nothing other than how well you can do an IQ test. You can pass an IQ test with flying colors and totally bomb a trigonometry quiz, because IQ tests don't measure how intelligent you are. You can't measure intelligence because there are so many different areas that contribute to intelligence. An apathetic person is more intelligent than a bi-polar person. Someone who can remember what he/she ate up to 2 years ago is more intelligent than a person who can't. Intelligence isn't a trait, it's a combination of traits and skills, and practically means nothing to our current civilization.

And for the person that said "what do you call my friend who knows all there is to know about computers? surely he has high IQ" .... I don't even know what to say, that sounds like something straight out of Idiocracy. If he knows alot about computers, then he knows alot about computers. It doesn't say jack shot about his Intelligence level. If you took the time to, you could learn the same amount of things he does. It doesn't mean anything other than you know alot about computers. Really?

no one is saying it but I will.....
on my tests, there were several questions on Shakespeare literary characters....questions about the names in his writings.......EXCUSE ME........they should have told me.....I aced the ropes through the blocks, though!

Before I begin, let me say that I have a degree in Psychology.

The fact is it's well known in the field that IQ tests aren't perfect, and it's also well known that there are multiple types of intelligences. But it is highly likely there is a general IQ.
This thread is basically rehashing a ton of old theories...the problem is many of you are acting like it's new stuff. This is stuff that's been known for a long time.

There are varying levels of intelligence. Accurately measuring it is rather difficult.. While tests aren't perfect they are much better than they were in the past. And the common ones are usually only accurate the first time you take it. So all these people taking IQ tests multiple times saying they got high scores, probably aren't geniuses. They just know exactly what's going to be on the test.

It is my belief that the most accurate IQ test is one that involves spatial reasoning, example.

I see a lot of people confusing knowledge and intelligence in this thread. They are very different things. Just because you know a lot, doesn't make you intelligent. So just because someone goes to college, doesn't necessarily make them smart; however, most intelligent people go to college. Also, if you take one person randomly from a college, and compare their IQ to a random person who hasn't gone to college, odds are the person who is in college will have the higher IQ.

reply to post by Ahabstar

That was very well said and I completely agree. Thank you!

Originally posted by Anjola
reply to post by Ahabstar

 

That was very well said and I completely agree. Thank you!

actually, that poster confused intelligence with knowledge

reply to post by L8RT8RZ


eugenics much?

Originally posted by Variable
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.

And that isn't the issue at question: it's when you measure IQ/g/whatever over a large population (including +/-3 standard deviations from the mean) and look at aggregate outcomes, most prominently educational attainment, income, wealth and criminality.

Anecdotal information about personalities on Mensa---especially on a TV show meant to be entertainment for the average person---is less reliable than large scale research studies.

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.

Correlation does not imply the lack of other inputs, but the correlation is reasonably strong.

The most successful people are likely to be pretty good at a number of traits, one of which is general intelligence/IQ, but also emotional intelligence, persistence, ability to read people's motives and emotions, self-control, self-awareness and excellent social leadership & charisma.

Billionaires are rarely the ultra highest quantile in IQ, but they are almost always substantially well above average. Look at the backgrounds of the Russian oligarchs.

Originally posted by mr10k
IQ tests mean nothing other than how well you can do an IQ test. You can pass an IQ test with flying colors and totally bomb a trigonometry quiz, because IQ tests don't measure how intelligent you are. You can't measure intelligence because there are so many different areas that contribute to intelligence.

What is actually done is to measure many different areas which are belived to be related to cognitive tasks and then analyze statistically the strength of the common factor. Again, many performance aspects can be measured---imperfectly---but with some reliability and the subtask performance is not mutually uncorrelated/independent.

Intelligence isn't a trait, it's a combination of traits and skills, and practically means nothing to our current civilization.

This is false. The Flynn effect (measured IQ rising over time) is likely explained by increasing requirements for using such cognitive skills.

And for the person that said "what do you call my friend who knows all there is to know about computers? surely he has high IQ" .... I don't even know what to say, that sounds like something straight out of Idiocracy. If he knows alot about computers, then he knows alot about computers. It doesn't say jack shot about his Intelligence level. If you took the time to, you could learn the same amount of things he does. It doesn't mean anything other than you know alot about computers. Really?

Could everybody learn the same amount of things that the expert does, in the same amount of time that the expert did?

Do you have any personal first-hand experience about the complexity of the tasks and performance of people who work professionally in "computers", and how much they understand and how much new they can learn quickly?

Clearly, experience is a large part of it in a professional environment, but some people are able to gain experience and insight very rapidly and most aren't.

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
reply to post by mbkennel

 

Ah. You are correlating intellect to perceived worth. Ability = Value...

No, I said explicitly I was not making any normative judgments.

Making money involves doing things that other people want. When more people can do them successfully, relative to the demand, they will get paid less because other people can get away with paying them less.

This is a fact of the world, not a value judgement of worth.

Try telling the Chinese that.
They think IQ is EVERYTHING!

Originally posted by hadriana
Science should always match reality.

We are all equally capable.

Right.

Mayhaps *I* am not smart enough to understand this- but they are saying that IQ consists of 3 things.
Short term memory. Reasoning. Verbal ability.

Stop right there. Spatial visualization, mathematical, and emotional intelligence are ...What?

I do not know about those researchers or participants but maybe they designed a study to show them what they wanted to see, manipulating definitions in the process, but I have a friend who is a MONSTER mind. He seems to know EVERYTHING about computers there is to know...and I have another friend who is a math genius who's now a nuclear physicist, and then I have a couple who know more than 7 languages each- fluently.

So if IQ doesn't exist, what makes those folks so brilliant? What would you call them, if NOT high IQ? You'd have to call them SOMETHING because they are more capable by far, than most.

So let's go make some new terms and new definitions and scrap the old one, just so we can feel better about ourselves for a while?

And, since there is no IQ, let's quit feeding and changing the diapers of those we've measured as having extremely low IQs. They should be able to do it by themselves, right? Because of this study? I mean, it just changed everything, right?

Very well said! I was thinking, while reading this thread, that such a study is nothing more than another attempt to make everyone feel good about themselves, by pretending that we are all the same. This is similar to the way, for example, that they hand out trophies to every single player on kids' sports teams these days, instead of to the best players. No tryouts anymore, either; can't have someone feeling badly about not getting to play. Never mind that the entire team suffers, because half the players can't play. This is more of the way some want to lower school standards, because not all the kids can meet the highest goals.

Another possible outcome to this sort of thing, if the idea becomes mainstream, occurred to me. We already have a lot of people viewing anyone more successful as an enemy, someone somehow keeping the other people down. This could lead to people treating those with a higher IQ as a threat of some sort, as though those people were trying to take advantage of the rest.

Anyone remember Harrison Bergeron?

Originally posted by rockoperawriter
reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

eugenics much?

Everyone practices eugenics. When looking for a mate to reproduce with, we naturally look for the healthiest, most attractive, most intelligent people willing to procreate with us. It's good for the species


The people who have a problem with all of this? The ones who don't do well on IQ tests. The test is one way to measure mental acuity. People get low (

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

The above definition of intelligence doesn't negate the validity of multiple intelligences. The concept of multiple intelligences merely points out that individual's have varying capacities to LEARN AND UNDERSTAND different subjects, tasks, skills, etc. For example, one may have a great ability to learn and understand numbers/math, yet have poor ability to learn and understand how to be effective in social situations (i.e. poor interpersonal intelligence). There is no one determinant of one's capacity to learn and understand in ALL areas of life, which is why many have suggested that IQ is meaningless.

Now, to address the "skilled use of reason" part of the definition of intelligence, I will first post the definition(s) of reason which are: (1) to justify or support with reasons (2) to persuade or influence by the use of reason (3) to discover, formulate, or conclude by the use of reason

reply to post by IEtherianSoul9


IQ isn't intelligence. IQ is a (man-made) construct, an operationalisation (like everything else, even these words). A high IQ isn't an instant-win in life, it can also be (perceived as) a burden. There are much more other factors who have greater impact. Openness to new experiences, emotional regulation, impulse control etc.

So IQ neither is nor was a myth. It's just a (more or usefull) model for certain circumstances. Nothing more and nothing less.

Originally posted by crackerjack
Try telling the Chinese that.
They think IQ is EVERYTHING!

Maybe that's why they're ahead of us in everything

Originally posted by GBP/JPY
no one is saying it but I will.....
on my tests, there were several questions on Shakespeare literary characters....questions about the names in his writings.......EXCUSE ME........they should have told me.....I aced the ropes through the blocks, though!

Then it wasn't an IQ test that you took

Originally posted by rockoperawriter
reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

eugenics much?

eugenics or "natural selection"?

Originally posted by mbkennel
Could everybody learn the same amount of things that the expert does, in the same amount of time that the expert did? Do you have any personal first-hand experience about the complexity of the tasks and performance of people who work professionally in "computers", and how much they understand and how much new they can learn quickly?

I'm a computer programmer, and have been since I was 15, and I can tell you that it isn't at all hard to learn about computers, computer languages, or the parts of a machine. All you need to do is sit down, pop open a book and learn. That doesn't mean I'm intelligent, although it does mean I'm knowledgable on the subject of computers and computer programming, and took an interest to the subject at an early age, although someone who may have been interested since they were say 12 or so can be said to have a higher IQ but we certainly cannot judge from the time it takes someone to take an interest in learning something.

Clearly, experience is a large part of it in a professional environment, but some people are able to gain experience and insight very rapidly and most aren't.

Our current civilization does not embrace high intelligence -- it embraces high amounts of knowledge. The more you know, the more intelligent you seem, even though that may not be the case. Given that a mentally unstable person wouldn't be able to read through the same books that I read as fast as I read them and learned the same things I did doesn't necessarily make me more intelligent than that person -- just means I can read books faster.

I just want to know why some people are curious and other people never are about anything. It's almost as if there's two different forms of humans, the incurious and curious. And it stands to reason that the more curious you are, the more you learn, and the higher you would score on any test, IQ or otherwise. So is curiosity the true measure of intellectual ability? Is it inborn or something else?

Originally posted by mr10k

Originally posted by mbkennel
Could everybody learn the same amount of things that the expert does, in the same amount of time that the expert did? Do you have any personal first-hand experience about the complexity of the tasks and performance of people who work professionally in "computers", and how much they understand and how much new they can learn quickly?

I'm a computer programmer, and have been since I was 15, and I can tell you that it isn't at all hard to learn about computers, computer languages, or the parts of a machine. All you need to do is sit down, pop open a book and learn. That doesn't mean I'm intelligent, although it does mean I'm knowledgable on the subject of computers and computer programming, and took an interest to the subject at an early age, although someone who may have been interested since they were say 12 or so can be said to have a higher IQ but we certainly cannot judge from the time it takes someone to take an interest in learning something.

The fact that you found this to be "not all that hard" might actually imply something about you. Have you interacted frequently with actually stupid people? Certainly effort and persistence matters---but no matter how much I train I won't make the NBA.

Terry Tao (UCLA mathematics professor) writes HUNDREDS of papers a year on original subjects (proving things!)---he is able to achieve new things in a large diversity of mathematical areas which have resisted efforts from even other research mathematicians in their area. Why can he consistently do this, and hardly anybody else on the planet can do this?

Clearly, experience is a large part of it in a professional environment, but some people are able to gain experience and insight very rapidly and most aren't.

Our current civilization does not embrace high intelligence -- it embraces high amounts of knowledge. The more you know, the more intelligent you seem, even though that may not be the case.

Of course, high amounts of knowledge are what is actually useful---and this comes from a combination of intellectual ability and the personality traits of people who are willing to work and learn---and yes these personality traits are not the same thing.

Correlations can be imperfect (r^2 well under 1) but still substantial. A high level of knowledge about certain subjects does imply something---though not everything---about intelligence in statistical aggregates.

Given that a mentally unstable person wouldn't be able to read through the same books that I read as fast as I read them and learned the same things I did doesn't necessarily make me more intelligent than that person -- just means I can read books faster.

edit on 24-12-2012 by mr10k because: (no reason given)

Why is it that you can read and understand books about difficult things faster? Is that ability completely unrelated to other intellectual tasks? Research says no.