IQ is not a empirical measurement of intelligence

[Barkun]

IQ is not a empirical measurement of intelligence. It's someone's or some group's personal quotation of your intelligence regarding a company's or institution's entry or continuation. There is no grade of intelligence in IQ, only a recommendation by way of test results that may or may not reflect intelligence. Any intelligence quotient test ought produce new questions, any questions answered using memory of former question answers is a false test, you must work something out for it to test you. In the case that one eye sees that you are intelligent because you completed a high score on their test, doesn't mean all eyes find you intelligent or that they should.

To truly express that you are intelligent to all eyes you would have to produce one or many spectacles showing intelligence.

To truly test intelligence, one would have to answer a straining logical question, just one question that is increasingly difficult, and the further you can stretch it's difficulty, the more intelligent you are.

To conclude, IQ tests do not empirically measure intelligence, they are quotations from individuals or groups that hold no bearing on the reality of intelligence, other than the fact that they are at times spectacular - real test would be something less random and more technical. There is no point in getting quoted generally lest you're looking for egoism, but for a specific job IQ tests can be useful.

[JackDaydream]

IQ is not a empirical measurement of intelligence. It's someone's or some group's personal quotation of your intelligence regarding a company's or institution's entry or continuation. There is no grade of intelligence in IQ, only a recommendation by way of test results that may or may not reflect intelligence. Any intelligence quotient test ought produce new questions, any questions answered using memory of former question answers is a false test, you must work something out for it to test you. In the case that one eye sees that you are intelligent because you completed a high score on their test, doesn't mean all eyes find you intelligent or that they should.

To truly express that you are intelligent to all eyes you would have to produce one or many spectacles showing intelligence.

To truly test intelligence, one would have to answer a straining logical question, just one question that is increasingly difficult, and the further you can stretch it's difficulty, the more intelligent you are.

To conclude, IQ tests do not empirically measure intelligence, they are quotations from individuals or groups that hold no bearing on the reality of intelligence, other than the fact that they are at times spectacular - real test would be something less random and more technical. There is no point in getting quoted generally lest you're looking for egoism, but for a specific job IQ tests can be useful.

The issue which I see is both how intelligence is measured and defined. Ideas about intelligence may vary from culture to culture and IQ tests may reflect such biases. However, while the standards and measures are questionable you pose that logic should be the basis which is open to query because it is one of many factors in adaptation and life. What about emotional intelligence which is more about understanding people and negotiating social situations? Also, what about the wisdom of learned experience? .Why should logic in itself be ranked as being of ultimate importance?

What is considered may relate to the ends and purposes of those who are measuring and evaluating and, the underlying values on which it is based, and not allowing for difference. Some people may have certain skills but not others, so attempts to make universal and definitive standards may be limited. Ideas of what intelligence is are socially constructed, with some aspects of consensus, but are not necessarily objective in any way. Also, people's abilities at tasks may vary, depending on what pressures they are under at specific times, just as exam results may fluctuate.

[Sy Borg]

If you want to find a measure that tests a person's likely success in life, test them for shmoozing and networking aptitude.

[JackDaydream]

If you want to find a measure that tests a person's likely success in life, test them for shmoozing and networking aptitude.

Even success is open to question. While most people wish for success, there are so many factors involved around performance and popularity, amidst competition in a unequal world. Perhaps, being able to cope with failure is the ultimate test and, resilience an important skill for coping with the rough and tough tumbles amidst the turmoila of life.

[LuckyR]

Still waiting for the Happiness Quotient.

[d3r31nz1g3]

There is no intelligence test that can reliably test all persons fairly. It's heavily biased towards education and prior experience. Language/cultural/class bias.

Also I think test results are highly incorrect in regards to the reality of inborn intelligence. I'm pretty sure most people are in a very close range of intelligence and there aren't really any people beyond those boundaries.

There are simply "savants". There are people who acquire incredible intellectual skills like Kim Peak. But it's an acquired form of intelligence. There is no such thing as a genius.

There are "the vast majority that are relatively much the same", "the mentally handicapped suffering from damage or poor development", and then there are "savants" that create the illusion of natural genius. But actually their genius intellect is acquired or circumstantial.

The reason I think this, among other reasons, is that computer technology has a theoretical pinnacle of computing power within a given amount of space and time. I think during the course of evolution, certainly mankind reached an evolutionary pinnacle of intellectual potential and this gene universally spread across our entire species. So most people are roughly the same intelligence. Anyone more intelligent than this range are people who acquired their skills.

[Sy Borg]

IQ tests are famously imperfect, but they are still a more solid guide than many believe.

A thought experiment. You are introduced to two people. You are told that one has an IQ of 95 and the other an IQ of 140. Would you be able to tell the difference? I think it would take mere seconds of conversation to know who is whom. However, there's every chance that the low IQ person is earning far more than their smarter peer. Being average has enormous advantages because more people will understand you and find you relatable.

[LuckyR]

IQ tests are famously imperfect, but they are still a more solid guide than many believe.

A thought experiment. You are introduced to two people. You are told that one has an IQ of 95 and the other an IQ of 140. Would you be able to tell the difference? I think it would take mere seconds of conversation to know who is whom. However, there's every chance that the low IQ person is earning far more than their smarter peer. Being average has enormous advantages because more people will understand you and find you relatable.

Yes one could tell immediately. Though not because one is ACTUALLY more intelligent than the other, but because one is more "traditionally" learned.

[Sy Borg]

IQ tests are famously imperfect, but they are still a more solid guide than many believe.

A thought experiment. You are introduced to two people. You are told that one has an IQ of 95 and the other an IQ of 140. Would you be able to tell the difference? I think it would take mere seconds of conversation to know who is whom. However, there's every chance that the low IQ person is earning far more than their smarter peer. Being average has enormous advantages because more people will understand you and find you relatable.

Yes one could tell immediately. Though not because one is ACTUALLY more intelligent than the other, but because one is more "traditionally" learned.

But very likely that person will be genuinely more intelligent over most vectors. The IQ 95 person will most likely be more popular and networked.

[JackDaydream]

IQ tests are famously imperfect, but they are still a more solid guide than many believe.

A thought experiment. You are introduced to two people. You are told that one has an IQ of 95 and the other an IQ of 140. Would you be able to tell the difference? I think it would take mere seconds of conversation to know who is whom. However, there's every chance that the low IQ person is earning far more than their smarter peer. Being average has enormous advantages because more people will understand you and find you relatable.

Yes one could tell immediately. Though not because one is ACTUALLY more intelligent than the other, but because one is more "traditionally" learned.

But very likely that person will be genuinely more intelligent over most vectors. The IQ 95 person will most likely be more popular and networked.

It does involve the question of what is intelligence? . Of There is some consensus, but there are some different variables and much diversity in skills and understanding. It depends whether it is measured on the basis of intellectual ones or other criteria. The social contexts vary in so many aspects of development. For example, a person may get on better in different school environments or due to different teachers. Also, there is an increasing knowledge and understanding of variations, with specialist support for those who are seen to have issues such as dyslexia and dyspraxia.

Social perception of intelligence may also affect individuals. For instance, I know someone who was put in a low grade class at school and this has affected her confidence and self esteem on a long term basis in many aspects of her life. Parents' perceptions of intelligence are also likely to influence someone's development and social skills.

[LuckyR]

IQ tests are famously imperfect, but they are still a more solid guide than many believe.

A thought experiment. You are introduced to two people. You are told that one has an IQ of 95 and the other an IQ of 140. Would you be able to tell the difference? I think it would take mere seconds of conversation to know who is whom. However, there's every chance that the low IQ person is earning far more than their smarter peer. Being average has enormous advantages because more people will understand you and find you relatable.

Yes one could tell immediately. Though not because one is ACTUALLY more intelligent than the other, but because one is more "traditionally" learned.

But very likely that person will be genuinely more intelligent over most vectors. The IQ 95 person will most likely be more popular and networked.

It does involve the question of what is intelligence? . Of There is some consensus, but there are some different variables and much diversity in skills and understanding. It depends whether it is measured on the basis of intellectual ones or other criteria. The social contexts vary in so many aspects of development. For example, a person may get on better in different school environments or due to different teachers. Also, there is an increasing knowledge and understanding of variations, with specialist support for those who are seen to have issues such as dyslexia and dyspraxia.

Social perception of intelligence may also affect individuals. For instance, I know someone who was put in a low grade class at school and this has affected her confidence and self esteem on a long term basis in many aspects of her life. Parents' perceptions of intelligence are also likely to influence someone's development and social skills.

Your observations remind me of the fact that most view Common Sense as rather uncommon, yet very valuable. Generally more useful than (what passes for) "intelligence".

[sahlanazneen01]

You are correct in stating that IQ (Intelligence Quotient) is not a perfect or comprehensive measure of intelligence. IQ tests were developed to provide a standardized way of assessing cognitive abilities and potential, but they do have limitations.

Intelligence is a complex and multifaceted concept that encompasses a range of mental abilities, including problem-solving, reasoning, memory, creativity, and social skills, among others. IQ tests primarily focus on certain aspects of cognitive abilities, such as logical reasoning, spatial awareness, and verbal comprehension.

While IQ tests can provide some insights into an individual's cognitive abilities, they are not without criticisms. Here are a few limitations associated with IQ tests:

1. Narrow focus: IQ tests tend to measure specific cognitive abilities and may not capture the full spectrum of human intelligence, such as emotional intelligence, social intelligence, or practical skills.

2. Cultural bias: IQ tests may be influenced by cultural, educational, and language factors, potentially disadvantaging individuals from different cultural or linguistic backgrounds.

3. Environmental factors: IQ scores can be influenced by various environmental factors, including education, socioeconomic status, and access to resources, which may not accurately reflect an individual's inherent intellectual capacity.

4. Potential for change: Intelligence is not a fixed or immutable trait. It can develop and change over time through learning, experiences, and environmental influences. IQ tests, however, generally assume stability of intelligence and do not account for developmental or situational changes.

It's important to recognize that intelligence is a multidimensional concept that extends beyond what IQ tests can capture. Many theorists and researchers have proposed alternative models of intelligence, such as Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, which recognizes different types of intelligence beyond what is traditionally measured by IQ tests.

In conclusion, while IQ tests provide a standardized measure of certain cognitive abilities, they do not provide a complete or definitive measure of overall intelligence. They have their limitations and should be interpreted with caution, considering the broader context of an individual's abilities and potential.

[Pattern-chaser]

IQ tests are famously imperfect, but they are still a more solid guide than many believe.

A thought experiment. You are introduced to two people. You are told that one has an IQ of 95 and the other an IQ of 140. Would you be able to tell the difference? I think it would take mere seconds of conversation to know who is whom. However, there's every chance that the low IQ person is earning far more than their smarter peer. Being average has enormous advantages because more people will understand you and find you relatable.

Yes one could tell immediately. Though not because one is ACTUALLY more intelligent than the other, but because one is more "traditionally" learned.

But very likely that person will be genuinely more intelligent over most vectors. The IQ 95 person will most likely be more popular and networked.

Your observation, perhaps an accurate one, leads directly to a need to define "intelligence", I'm afraid. [Altogether now: <sigh>.] Without such a definition, it is difficult to judge whether your statement (the one I highlighted) is accurate or not, and that makes discussion difficult. There is a lesser dependence on what these "vectors" are, too, assuming they're not IQ tests. Even your final sentence is not easy to support, unless there is lots of empirical stuff like surveys to use in our reasoning? I know it is said that Dubya only got elected because he was stupid, and therefore not perceived as a threat by less 'intelligent' voters, but I have no idea if it's true, or if it is supported by anything factual.

[Sy Borg]

Dubya was relatable. A fallible everyman (tycoon) who stumbled over his words and was mocked by the (hated) intelligentsia.

And he did God's work, or claimed so, and that kind of lip service is enough for many millions of US Americans. Then he committed an intensely destructive act, perhaps even more so than Putin's recent implementation of his own Grand Idea.

Leaders with Grand Ideas are an issue.

I'll backtrack on the "all vectors" comment. That wasn't what I meant. It's that there are smart people and dumb people in much the same way as there are healthy people and unhealthy people, sociable people and unsociable people. The spectrum, and therefore differing intelligences, are real. However, in life, such differences are not very tangible, hence IQ and personality tests.

[Barkun]

Those versed in a logical game like a completely fair chess can test intelligence against one another. Those that test should use something fair and defining like a competition of chess but for more broadly spoken intellect. Common intellect awards.