Do you believe in IQ/intelligence?

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that it's a crock – a sorting mechanism to assess cultural privilege and commodify the prejudices, preferences, and skills of established academia, business, politics, et. al, and to retroactively reward/explain the decisions and influences that have lead to success.

not on this board

I mean clearly it's an artificial concept, and I kind of think Howard Gardener's onto something w/ the multiple intelligence model. I don't, however, buy his categories (although even he admits they're constructions), as they're too neat, contemporary, and sort of astrological.

I don't think that's *why* IQ exists as a concept - in fact I'm sure a lot of successful academics and (esp.) business people and politicians would do pretty horribly on the test. but I do agree that it's a crock.

'intelligence' I dunno.

what's interesting is how people will just drop 'he has an IQ of 120' or whatever, but it's like this number comes from this magical place, there's not one standardized test or justification for why one particular logic game would be better than another logic game for judging intelligence.

anyway I have an IQ of 235

I could have joined Mensa.

I didn't.

Because I'm not daft.

highly technical article on why it's rubbish and a myth, and where the myth has come from:

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html

and an even better follow up on heritability studies:

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/520.html

most of the stats stuff goes over my head but even if you skip all that they're still a pretty good read.

this was the IQ test I took. I scored 25, which put me in the category of "severe mental retardation"

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51GeYHEEivL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

I guess what I'm saying is that the idea of a Spearman g factor, or a specific confluence of psychoemotional traits that help to place somebody somewhere on a continuum of g factors arranged low to high strikes me as simple-minded and absurd? The idea of 'intellect' as a knowable, ownable faculty seems to reflect too clearly the class and cultural (not to mention racial...) tendencies of the world in which it was invented, ca. ~1900.

A few of the students I work with "know" their IQ, and they use it to bully their way to the top of the class, and see themselves as smarter/more worthy than their peers. I just don't... I can't imagine a parent letting their child know an IQ score; it seems v, v, irresponsible.

One time my former mom-in-law had this job at an adolescent jail and she wanted to practice her IQ test she had to give on me. SO I joked around and made fun of it the whole time instead of giving legit answers. But she still said I scored "off the charts" at a number "too high to measure" and that I had to become a doctor or something. She got fired a few months later.

One of my wife's crazy uncles reportedly had an IQ that was "too high to measure" or something, but/and he suffered a nervous breakdown at his job and has worked at a Safeway for the last 25 years or something.

I've never taken one, but I've always feared not being able to do very well .

this is a weird question to answer because I don't REALLY believe in IQ tests, or rather I believe they do a good job at predicting how well a person will do on an IQ test, but scoring high on them and on standardized tests was an integral part of shaping my personality, so holding that belief feels a little like saying that half my personality is a gigantic sham

I could have joined Mensa.

My rejoinder to anyone who brought up Mensa was always that Jimmy Savile and Garry Bushell were members... but I don't suppose I can do that anymore.

Mensa as an organization totally makes sense when you are 9; if you go through puberty and you're still pining for it, it's time to re-evaluate many of your priorities.

it seems like it would be a lot like that sarcasm detector episode of the simpsons

I read this article and a couple of related articles/papers last week:
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/oct07/vol65/num02/The-Perils-and-Promises-of-Praise.aspx

which happens to mention in passing

Alfred Binet (1909/1973), the inventor of the IQ test, had a strong growth mind-set. He believed that education could transform the basic capacity to learn. Far from intending to measure fixed intelligence, he meant his test to be a tool for identifying students who were not profiting from the public school curriculum so that other courses of study could be devised to foster their intellectual growth

That's interesting. There's definitely an application of IQ scores in education, but I'm undecided on whether it's a good application. For students who do well on tests, it's a nice boost/confirmation/motivator, and can be v. influential in channeling energy to school. But for students who don't do well, or do less well than they expect, it is very discouraging and often leads to tracking.

but scoring high on them and on standardized tests was an integral part of shaping my personality, so holding that belief feels a little like saying that half my personality is a gigantic sham

http://nextlol.com/images/541-i-know-that-feel-bro.png

(Not sarcastic, btw)

Maybe IQ tests indicates whether you're specifically suited for the type of education/cultural style in which you're currently being raised? Maybe they confirm 'fit' more than predict ability.

Chalk me up as deep suspicion + lackluster score...

I do think that 'intelligence' as a concept is due to undergo substantial revisions

I just don't... I can't imagine a parent letting their child know an IQ score; it seems v, v, irresponsible.

when i was a(n obnoxious) kid i discovered the idea of iq tests on my own and administered them to myself & was insufferable about it -- it seems odd to me that any kid who would be a dick about something like iq scoring would end up hearing about it from their parents. like it's out there to find easy enough. or, yeah, "mensa makes sense when you're nine"

Maybe IQ tests indicates whether you're specifically suited for the type of education/cultural style in which you're currently being raised? Maybe they confirm 'fit' more than predict ability.

eh IQ tests aren't particularly different from other standardized tests like the SAT, where you can improve your score substantially by prep work. like if you had a class of poor inner city black kids but you made them study nothing but IQ test logic games all day, would they have 'higher IQs' than some comparable suburban white school? prob.

I agree; I don't see how our posts contradict each other?

not saying they do!

I just like saying eh

I do think that 'intelligence' as a concept is due to undergo substantial revisions

i think in actual psychology the idea of stanford-binet style intelligence testing is some horrible old relic? there's the touchy-feely 'multiple intelligences' stuff from the 80s which is beloved of a certain class of educator but i have no idea what the current idea of how learning/smurtness works is actually based on -- i imagine it is, unlike iq tests, based on having some actual ability to measure what brains are doing, these days

wait, are iq tests still administered in american schools as a normal thing

nah, it's all hardcore standardized testing

eh IQ tests aren't particularly different from other standardized tests like the SAT, where you can improve your score substantially by prep work. like if you had a class of poor inner city black kids but you made them study nothing but IQ test logic games all day, would they have 'higher IQs' than some comparable suburban white school? prob.

but surely the prep work for IQ tests is improving your ability to solve spacial-temporal reasoning and numerical skills. which would in turn be good skills for various (science based) studying?

i agree with everybody who thinks IQ is a crock

btw as a child I was reasonably good at and loved all the logic puzzles and word games that make adults think "oh hey, smart kid"*, but I now feel dumb as rocks on a daily basis, by pretty much any useful measure of "can I make sufficient intuitive leaps to get stuff done and not make a fool of myself in conversation"

the explanation for this is either that finding the next number/word/shape in entirely artificial sequences is not actually a meaningful measure of intelligence, or that I have led myself into bad habits (e.g. by falling into the mindset detailed in the article I linked to above)

which is obviously a much more enticing explanation for me, hence why I was reading articles about kids not meeting potential and going "oh my life", but yeah, the former, really

* also I was weird, and if you are a weird kid and can spell you are automatically assumed to be a genius, whereas if you are a weird kid who can't spell you are automatically assumed to be mentally subnormal, never mind that the truth might just be that you are a weird kid who can or can't spell

i agree with everybody who thinks intelligence is a crock

that too

someone ask marilyn vos savant

doesn't mean you're "smarter" of course. maybe that's the issue.

high-IQ just means you're good at doing those things, like someone who is "good at maths" isn't necessary smarter, or someone "well read", or someone who "knows so many things"

xxxpost to self

yeah but I know people who are 'good at maths' because they've had $100h math tutors or because their dad taught them and is a scientist etc. etc.

that's my point exactly!

"talented at guitar" = had a very good guitar teacher since the age of 5

I guess I'm trying to highlight the difference between innate 'good at this' and tests 'good at this'

Like Jimi Hendrix did (xp)

nature vs nurture

most ppl are "good at [x]" because someone taught it to them at an early age

like, I probably would not have zipped through elementary school math so quickly if my dad hadn't taught me about number bases when I was 4

then again, I have no idea if it's normal or not for a 4-year-old to grasp the concept of number bases

well, if you've got a father who teaches you it is

(also: awesome)

I just don't... I can't imagine a parent letting their child know an IQ score; it seems v, v, irresponsible.

Agreed. Also bad though perhaps not irresponsible are parents who use their kid's IQ/standardized test scores as guilt inducing "proof" that their offspring are not "living up to their potential" if they get a B+ instead of an A or decide not to become a (insert generic big money earning occupation here). Or maybe that was just mine.

B+ instead of A is just unacceptable in any case. no proof required.

There's something profound to be said about the ethic, character, and success of "unintelligent" people working at the absolute peak of their ability, as opposed to "brilliant" people shooting down the middle of their skills.

no there isn't, shut up

;_;

like have a little shame + humility and keep that shit to yourself

being over the age of 19 and sharing your SAT scores pretty much the poor man's version of this

what if someone is constantly badgering you over AIM for your SAT score

get better friends

only cos it's a shitty measure, if it was worth sharing and mine was in any ways impressive i'd wear a tshirt and go round flashin grannies in a spy coat

it's tacky

the last bastion of the aspie rube

accomplishment >> potential

beloved shabby obi-wan figure vs sterile €5000 boxed collectors item

Some worthwhile ilx discussion of the issue on this thread (with nabisco in good form): Should scientists study race and IQ?

I have in my life known a great many intelligent people. The intelligence I'm describing includes but isn't limited to: abstract reasoning, the ability to quickly grasp and integrate new ideas and information, subtlety and flexibility in transitioning between different subjects and levels of abstraction, etc. The people I'm describing have tended to do reasonably well in school, and though I have no way to know for sure, I think it's likely that they'd likewise do well on most intelligence and cognitive aptitude tests.

I have also known a great many unintelligent people, people with very little apparent ability to think and, in most cases, little to no apparent interest in thinking. I see no reason to categorically insist that the apparent intelligence I'm describing is innate, but nor do I see any reason to agree that that it isn't. From what I can tell and have read, it may be innate to some degree or another, but it also seems to be a product of environmental factors.

Similarly, while I don't see any evidence of the existence of any single, identifiable 'g' factor that unifies all the abilities and predilections that collectively constitute what I perceive as intelligence, this doesn't suggest to me that general intelligence is a myth. Instead, I see it as a sort of "family resemblance" per Wittgenstein: a valid general classification that exists only as the sum of other, more tangible things.

oh and hi

iq tests are still useful in a limited capacity for school psychologists, but theyre not administered willy nilly. it's done at parental request or after weeks of classroom interventions have proved unsuccessful and there is a suspected learning disability

I must summon f bison when I am home

and rly (as I understand it) a composite score is not so useful as the individual component parts as far as what they might tell you

Uh btw I don't want my silly anecdote upthread to be read as a brag, because,,,it is not,,,rather, it is just a funny story and I did not think it was a legit measurement at all, regardless of the larger question of the legitness of an of these measurements.

i thought the point of iq tests is that you can't revise or study for them?

i, er, have a similar experience to dan on these. i'm fairly sure they measure some native aspect of intelligence but also that whatever it is isn't all that relevant to adult life. i am not sure what there is to "believe" in or not. it's a curio but i've never met anyone who really places importance on it since childhood.

if anything "smartness" (non-iq related) is the crock, because there are so many ways of being smart (and dumb, at the same time) that to call someone smart w/o specifying in what way exactly isn't that helpful.

I have also known a great many unintelligent people, people with very little apparent ability to think and, in most cases, little to no apparent interest in thinking.

"Interest in thinking" is sort of an interesting way to put it. I have this VERY half-baked theory that I started to form in my mind recently that "intelligence" may partly have to do with motivation to put extra effort into certain kinds of thinking, and that this may in turn partly have to do with what we're rewarded (or punished) for doing early in life. So, for example, a person who, from an early age, is praised for reading and conquering difficult (for their age) books is more likely to struggle through difficult books in the future and in turn to further develop their reading ability in the process. I kind of wonder if there's some pleasure mechanism that fuels this, almost in a pavolovian way. It would certainly help to explain the folk wisdom of certain "cultures" that do better in school because they "value education" or w/e.

Meanwhile, sadly, a lot of kids grow up not only not 'rewarded' for stuff like reading and math, but sometimes even vaguely punished for it by peers or by parents who above all don't want to raise a weakling or a nerd.

there's a brand of culturally-neutral intelligence tests that aren't supposed to be influenced by literacy.
they're really expensive and look like op-art.

I kind of doubt there's any kind of 'culturally-neutral' test though some might be far better than others.

I would do better with a species-neutral intelligence test.

i do think they're biased towards cultures that really like op-art...
i'll try to find some images. (they're super expensive though, so they'll probably try to hide them
from IQ pirates)

IQ pirates? Watch for this coming soon in a display name near you!

I think there might be some sort of innate intelligence, but of course that depends on your definition of "intelligence".

It's interesting to think that some intelligent people aren't born that way but are taught by parents. Some people are born "smart", though, I guess. I taught myself how to read when I was three despite having parents who could give a shit, skipped grades, etc., and it was driven out of this inner drive to learn and understand the world, life, blah blah blah. I had to teach myself how to do everything... even love. What a royal pain in the ass.

Interesting question for me: why do we even value IQ in the first place? The whole idea seems really silly to me, considering, in my opinion, that it matters jack shit for having a quality life... and what's more important than that?

here's one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/RavenMatrix.gif/220px-RavenMatrix.gif

totally legal, free streaming IQ.

people like having it as easy tool for bragging about how smart they are, like it's way quicker to say "I have a 150 IQ" than it is to write "Some people are born "smart", though, I guess. I taught myself how to read when I was three despite having parents who could give a shit."

Fair enough, I'll concede to a little bragging, but the point still stands that its not just the conduct of parents who influence it, and I'll rep for that.

isn't the person with the "world's highest iq" a bouncer in a bar or something?

http://palscience.com/science/the-worlds-top-8-smartest-people/

dumb article obv, but for a selection of some extreme high IQ people they seem pretty mediocre on the whole.

if you can parallel this whole thread with an imaginary thread about "strength" is it going to run the same way?

like, how some people genetically will grow "stronger" than others but then it depends still how often you go to the gym. and people are strong in different ways e.g. upper body strength/leg muscles/dead lift/endurance.

and how being "the world's strongest man" (i.e. very good at atlas stones) does not necessarily help you in life?

i agree, for the most part.

but there's a hereditary basis for strength; there isn't for intelligence.

you can quantify strength and you can clearly define it

xpost is that true?

is that true?

ken c, it's v. controversial either way. i'm trolling a bit.

the superior intelligence stock was an argument of eugenics proponents, so i'm a little kneejerky about knocking it down

let's face it though, there are some str8 up idiots out there.

http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/KirkSaysKhan.jpg
I'm laughing at the superior intellect...

is there a bug happening whereby people's links to other threads are edited by the database to ... point back to the thread they're posting from?

or am i just being stupid in the intelligence thread

Just scanned this thread very briefly but the few things I read were painfully otm.

i taught my lil bro how to read when he was three and the little shit works in a stock room in a games store now, which just goes to show

otm, never teach people to read

if i couldn't read i couldn't ilx i'd be president by now

Well, dictator, anyway

You'd have to take down that elephant...

my considerable iq isn't helping me decipher that one

DAMMMNNN

ah it was an amusing reference
/humour iq

if i couldn't read i couldn't ilx i'd be president verger
by now.

Was that a reference to "seeing the elephant"?

it was a reference to this: ORNALDO BLOOMPS FOR PRESIDETN

says the man who proves that early reading isn't bad for everybody