Predicting IQ With a Simple Visual Test 325
New submitter trendspotter writes "Scientists at the University of Rochester found a unique way to measure high IQ and IQ of the brain in general just by studying individuals and their abilities to filter out noise in images (abstract). The results of a visual test where people were told to quickly detect movements showed similar IQ results as a classic intelligence test. 'The relationship between IQ and motion suppression points to the fundamental cognitive processes that underlie intelligence, the authors write. The brain is bombarded by an overwhelming amount of sensory information, and its efficiency is built not only on how quickly our neural networks process these signals, but also on how good they are at suppressing less meaningful information. ... The researchers point out that this vision test could remove some of the limitations associated with standard IQ tests, which have been criticized for cultural bias.'"
Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Wouldn't visual defects, such as myopia, or an excess of floaters, impact the results of this exam?
Re:What is IQ? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with IQ is most people don't understand what intelligence is.
I've been able to measure a base IQ of around 130-135 on standardized IQ tests since I was 8. The tests were made for people over age 13 and the more likely deviation would be that my IQ is significantly higher than that. This is pretty dead-on: I'm actually extremely, ridiculously intelligent. I can break Mensa tests above 150.
Taking this to a practical level, I rely very little on emotion and have very little cultural and social understanding (social understanding is measured in something called EQ). So, you'd think what? High IQ and no social ability... so, Stephen Hawking? Some genius locked in his room with nerd equipment, solving the problems of the universe. Sounds legit, right? Not quite.
Most of the serious geniuses you'll meet have not just a high IQ, but also strong abstract reasoning: they turn ideas and goals into well-defined processes. They associate tools and information with problems, needs, and desires. More than that, they actually have a huge basis of domain knowledge--often in multiple domains--to work from.
By contrast, I don't. My abstract reasoning is terrible and I'm fairly lazy. I latch onto information readily, but only as far as requires little effort and provides amusement. I can rattle off about a lot of stuff and generally I'm never wrong--because I talk about things I understand. People *think* I'm a genius because I understand just about any-fucking-thing you stick in front of me; yet functionally I operate like any person of normal intelligence, just with basic ability with a wider range of things.
That's basically how intelligence works. Let's say you go to McDonalds and give the burned-out cashier a little pill that boosts their IQ to 135. What'll happen? Pretty much, he'll stand around feeling like something is 'off,' suddenly recognizing that there's a problem somewhere with the level of stupidity around him; but it won't be a massive, visible change, and it'll pass quickly. Without a huge basis of knowledge and experience, the important associations that highly intelligent people make simply don't happen. Suddenly being intelligent and not bothering to develop a huge basis of knowledge and experience doesn't make you a genius, and overall does nothing.
That's not to say that your average 135-IQ semi-genius won't absolutely squash some 100-IQ norm if they both dive head-long into a mathematics and engineering program, of course. The guy with a 135 is going to cream you, he's going to sail through his classes easily and you're going to struggle and he'll put in less time and less effort and get better grades. But if he's going to just party all night and hook up with cheerleaders? Being a genius and neglecting your studies will get you passed by the slow kids, and in the end you'll babble some stupid shit just like your average redneck who didn't have the sheer brainpower to understand college.
That's been my experience. I'll absorb information like a sponge, and I'll comprehend it immediately; I can take it as far as I care with some effort. Once I got out of high school, I realized that the effort needed in high school was "be present in class, not necessarily awake"; the effort required for higher education and understanding and for building high-level academic skills is ... quite a bit higher than I'd care to put in. So all these damn supergeniuses are way off my level, and I'm stuck in the back of the short bus.
And that's why people don't believe in "Intelligence" and "IQ". They don't understand how it works. It's like your brain comes from Ikea--it might be the upper end model, but you still need to assemble it yourself and you might have pieces left over. I still have a bookshelf in pieces in my living room from 2 years ago.
I've been ranking up in Go recently since I'm taking racetams and noopept. Inter-hemisphere communication is nice. There's all these people on racetams thinking
Re:Great a new way to measure IQ (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh yes, if only IQ predicted economic, academic, or social success with any degree of accuracy...
Wait? It does?? With a substantial but not perfect correlation? Well, who could've guessed.