Your Visual Skills Are Not Correlated To Your IQ (vanderbilt.edu) 201
Science_afficionado writes:
Psychologists at Vanderbilt University have conducted the first study of individual variation in visual ability. They have discovered that there is a broad range of differences in people's capability for recognizing and remembering novel objects and this ability is not associated with individuals' general intelligence, or IQ.
Or, as the article puts it, "Just because someone is smart and well-motivated doesn't mean he or she can learn the visual skills needed to excel at tasks like matching fingerprints, interpreting medical X-rays, keeping track of aircraft on radar displays or forensic face matching."
Or, as the article puts it, "Just because someone is smart and well-motivated doesn't mean he or she can learn the visual skills needed to excel at tasks like matching fingerprints, interpreting medical X-rays, keeping track of aircraft on radar displays or forensic face matching."
Were the psychologists under 30? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not new information. Millennials should be banned from science until they are at least 45. They 'discover' the already discovered with alarming regularity, and for some reason feel compelled to publish their 'findings'. Newsflash: science is not instagram. It'd be a freaking miracle if they read an old book or paper (formerly known as 'research') instead of conducting their endless science fair projects. Newsflash #2: refusing to acknowledge the work of others is not the same thing as independence, especially not independence of *thought*. If anything, it is the sheep mentality exemplified, and more important still, it doesn't work. Management, please reimburse the ten minutes I spent on this. Thank you.
Re:Were the psychologists under 30? (Score:4)
refusing to acknowledge the work of others is not the same thing as independence, especially not independence of *thought*.
Yet your post is contains unsupported assertions, no citations, and you acknowledge the work of nobody.
Not mutually exclusive (Score:5, Informative)
The most important thing to remember is that IQ tests are neither meaningless nor harbingers of all types of intelligence.
There are several 'recognized' intelligences, and arguably many more.
words (linguistic intelligence), numbers or logic (logical-mathematical intelligence), pictures (spatial intelligence), music (musical intelligence), self-reflection (intrapersonal intelligence), physical experience (bodily-kinesthetic intelligence), and social experience (interpersonal intelligence).
Re:Not mutually exclusive (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Not mutually exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)
The other view is that "intelligence" refers to aptitude for a particular task. To me, that model more accurately describes what we see. You see people who pass calculus with honors, but they can't determine what to say to potential dates. You see people who can balance the books of their company, but they fail to grasp the basic principles (rules and physics) of driving. You see people who can design and build houses, but they can't give you a geopolitical analysis of the wars in Afghanistan. Even when all these people have access to the same information.
There is no doubt that a person's DNA can affect their aptitudes for these various tasks. But when you say there is some singular variable that raises or lowers all these aptitudes simultaneously, that seems like a coarse simplification. Ignoring the nuances does a disservice to your understanding.
Re: (Score:2)
The concept of multiple intelligences has panned out as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, one of the beautiful things about claims about general intelligence being general is it should not matter what subject matter is used for the test.
Why should we use this boring book learning to assess children? We should teach the subjects a new dance routine and see how quickly they can learn it. I would love to see the kids from Palo Alto HS line up next to kids from Oakland on the auditorium stage, to shimmy for their chance to get into Harvard.
The bottom line is the IQ test is culturally bi
Re: (Score:2)
This is fairly mundane. It should be obvious to see that people who score highly on "I consider myself a creative person" would also score highly on "I come up with new ideas" and low on "I tend to only think inside the box". Once a lot of people take these test
Re: (Score:2)
I saw what you did there. You danced around the heart of my argument (pun intended) by denigrating a perfectly valid measure of mental prowess, thereby graphically demonstrating my point: that this thing masquerading as "a reliable measure of general intelligence"* is chock-filled with cultural bias. It really does not matter how much you do or do not care for dancing, if general intelligence is genuinely general, my thought experiment is highly valid.
Mind you, cultural bias is not automatically a terrib
Re: (Score:2)
There is a measurable (e.g. in IQ-tests) quantity, let's call it intelligence, that is strongly correlated with e.g. income, the ability to perform cognitive tasks (other than filling out IQ tests), etc. One can then look at special kinds of intelligence, like linguistic intelligence but it is found that these are strongly correlated with some base quantity. Intelligence is not some internal variable that determines behaviour, it's a measure of cognitive ability.
The assumption, that these findings can be ex
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not wrong. Even within the framework of accepted definitions of intelligence, there have been social attempts to marginalize traditional intelligence to make everyone feel better about themselves. It's the participation trophy of life.
Still, even within the confines of intelligence as the ability to acquire, store, recall, and apply knowledge and skills, there are different subsets of intellect that vary greatly amongst even most mentally acute. There are observable differences in individual abiliti
Re: (Score:2)
Those "recognized" intelligences are BS invented to make the less-intelligent feel better about themselves.
You can highly educate people... (Score:2)
But you can't make them smart.
I recently left an R&D group that gave its operation over to a megalomaniacal "Key Expert".
This guy insisted on reinventing the wheel badly every time, because he had never actually built anything himself, or done anything IRL.
He could quote any formula, but was sadly unaware of reality.
There's a lot of those in America, which is why foreigners who can easily take their jobs and do better at them.
And why the idiots are afraid of immigrants...
Re: (Score:2)
There are several 'recognized' intelligences, and arguably many more.
No there aren't. People will try and tell you that to make themselves sound better than they are, but that's part of the test. Intelligence is logical, abstract problem solving ability. eg Being a body builder isn't physical intelligence, nor is mowing the lawns, grass cutting intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
a practical definition of intelligence (Score:2)
Intelligence is our primary survival tool. Other living things have claws, teeth, camouflage, speed, etc. Our secondary survival tools include our senses, including vision, and hands and various motor skills including the ability to run like hell.
To the extent that we survive and excel in our environment and achieve our goals, we can be said to be intelligent. I don't understand the TFS' association of visual memory with intelligence. Visual memory as described is probably a good thing, but even total blind
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that argument is that "intelligence" is an undefined term, unless you are arguing that IQ is intelligence, I which case I deny your original assertion.
What people have that has been our mainstay of success is culture. Human culture depends on language, though it clearly includes a lot of other things too. (Various monkeys and apes have been shown to have a primitive culture, but without language cultural transmission is labored and limited.) And unlike intelligence, what culture is at th
Duh! (Score:4, Interesting)
"Just because someone is smart and well-motivated doesn't mean he or she can learn the visual skills needed to excel at tasks like matching fingerprints, interpreting medical X-rays, keeping track of aircraft on radar displays or forensic face matching."
In other news:
Just because someone is smart and well-motivated doesn't mean he or she can learn to run fast.
Just because someone is smart and well-motivated doesn't mean he or she can learn to shoot accurately.
Just because someone is smart and well-motivated doesn't mean he or she can learn to paint.
Just because someone is smart and well-motivated doesn't mean he or she can learn to play a music instrument.
---
Seems Like They Need An English Teacher (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In intelligence studies, there is a widely known concept of "general intelligence" or the g-factor [wikipedia.org]. Basically, studies show that all of the different classes of intelligence (musical, mathematical, linguistic, etc.) are correlated to some extent. It can be interpreted as the master clock frequency of your brain, but as with different CPU architectures, it doesn't explain all of the differences in intelligence.
To me, the article seemed to imply there's absolutely no correlation between visual and other sk
Re: (Score:2)
Almost everybody agrees that there is a thing described as "general intelligence." That much is clear. But the claim that the "g-factor" describes general intelligence is dubious; and the link you gave says it is only even claimed to account for "40 to 50 percent of the between-individual performance differences on a given cognitive test." So everybody agrees that there is a thing called "general intelligence," and everybody agrees we don't have a measure for it yet. ;)
Memory and IQ (Score:2)
It has long been known that memory of the arbitrary is uncorrelated with IQ.
Coming up later on WTF News (Score:2)
If you have perfect pitch hearing you might be good at tennis. But equally, you might be bad at it.
Yet still required for interviews (Score:2)
I mean to answer phones at a help desk role surely requires the right answer like do you own a shed with a drafting table and how quickly you can organize puzzle pieces questions in 3 mins.
Cows excel at this. (Score:2)
Anyone who thinks identifying and remembering novel objects requires a significant IQ has never been around cattle, or for that matter, sheep.
Re:IQ is not related to anything relevant (Score:5, Funny)
Is that what you took away from that?
Interesting, and a bit ironic given the subject matter.
Re: IQ is not related to anything relevant (Score:2, Interesting)
I take it then that you didn't like your score.
IQ tests aren't meaningless, they're just not the solution to every question about intelligence. They're mainly useful in measuring things relevant to formal education before all the new changes.
I have a high IQ and I can tell you that it's not meaningless, it's just not what people think it is. I can push far more data than anybody else I've met before going crosseyed and I can count cards with the best of them using my own system.
As for visual skills the test
Re: (Score:2)
Intelligence also manifests in a number of different areas, from mathematics to politics. Spend some time with a cohort of people who have scored high on IQ tests, and you will see what I mean.
Re: (Score:2)
IQ tests aren't meaningless, they're just not the solution to every question about intelligence. They're mainly useful in measuring things relevant to formal education before all the new changes.
Actually, no. IQ is a measure of how good you are, compared to your age group, at solving unfamiliar problems applying common knowledge all test takers are expected to have, or knowledge given by the test itself. The education level should not influence the score at all - if it does, the test is flawed.
What's expected common knowledge differs for age groups. A six year old can be expected to know that water flows downwards, while a sixteen year old can be expected to know about exceptions like siphons a
Re: (Score:2)
But that does not mean that the education level is the cause.
What happens if a 6 year old goes to an accelerated education program, and learns about siphons and capillary actions, and which edge of a shingle to seal ? Wouldn't she be able to answer the questions for the 16 year old ?
And what if the 16 year old grew in a country where they don't use shingles for roofing, but clay tiles ? Would they know which edge to seal ?
Re: (Score:2)
What happens if a 6 year old goes to an accelerated education program, and learns about siphons and capillary actions, and which edge of a shingle to seal ? Wouldn't she be able to answer the questions for the 16 year old ?
Your question breaks down at the "and".
1: If she learns about siphons and capillary actions to the same level as a 16 year old, she should be able to deduce the same answers as the 16 year old. The 16-year old test question would be appropriate for her too, but not for her contemporaries that lack this knowledge. Thus it won't be asked, unless it's a personalized test.
2: If she learns about which edge of a shingle to seal, she should not be asked the question, and it should not be counted. It would be
Re: (Score:2)
You say all that, but actually rich parents send their kids to tutoring designed to increase the scores by studying the types of knowledge that would allow for scoring high on the test without deducing anything.
And many of the questions actually have wrong answers if you're deducing the answer, because the required answers are the same wrong things you'll find in a "n Lies My Teacher Told Me" type of book! There were other kids giving the correct answer and being scored as wrong all along, and the reason it
Re: (Score:2)
And many of the questions actually have wrong answers if you're deducing the answer, because the required answers are the same wrong things you'll find in a "n Lies My Teacher Told Me" type of book!
And often as in "There's more than one way to skin a cat".
A typical wrong test is:
Insert the missing value:
1 2 4 [ ]
There are dozens of valid answers for this one, and the two most common ones, 7 and 8 are both equally valid.
Similar for some of the common shape tests, where the test maker might be unfamiliar with concepts like both OR and XOR being valid operations. So a valid result might be scored as incorrect.
And yes, there are cultural differences too. A test description that says "blue" and elemen
Re: (Score:2)
2: If she learns about which edge of a shingle to seal, she should not be asked the question, and it should not be counted. It would be as invalid whether answered by a knowledgable 6 year old or by a 50 year old roof layer.
It's the ability to deduce an answer that the tests aim for, not knowledge. In order to test the ability to deduce, questions should be about things the question taker does not know, but have enough underlying knowledge to be able to think their way to an answer.
That is an excellent textbook answer as to how an "intelligence test" ought to be designed. But where the rubber meets the road, standard instruments are standard instruments. No one ever does a detailed pre-test of each subject to figure out if certain questions might be problematic. If the subject is showing a confused look on their face, the test administrator is bias towards assuming that demonstrates the question is working the way it should, not rock the boat with questions about whether their chos
Re: (Score:2)
Education generally doesn't change a person's intelligence: your point is weak. If a persons education constantly involved solving a spectrum of novel problems, then experience teaches a student so trained will perform better in the next round of problem solving
That does not follow. IQ tests are deliberately made and changed to combat the effect of rote learning, because that is not what they want to measure.
Nor is it relevant to a person's intelligence - getting better at something does not mean getting more intelligent.
If anything, while there is a correlation between higher education and IQ test scores, individual scores do not increase during education. (The scores actually decrease slightly, like for other groups that have a higher score than average, due t
Re: IQ is not related to anything relevant (Score:2, Interesting)
Find me someone with downs syndrome with a score above 120, and a physicist with a score below 100.
It's measuring something, and can be used objectively to make scientific predictions.
Your attempt to redefine intelligence does not invalidate the test.
Re: (Score:2)
People who can't read are extremely rare in most developed countries, so they're irrelevant to the matter at hand. You might have a point if we were talking about the middle ages, but we aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
I have kept one eye on IQ research over several decades, and this is not what anyone seriously involved actually thinks.
g factor (psychometrics) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Wild guess: 86.
Re: (Score:2)
You overstate the case. IQ is correlated with many useful skills. But it sure hasn't been shown to correlate with others.
For that matter, IQ itself is not a unitary measure. The tests measure different, and perhaps independent (but certainly not varying identically) capabilities. Sometimes the capabilities are correlated, but not identical, as, e.g., the ability to maintain focus and the ability to memorize. But as I know of no accepted separation of the capabilities measured by IQ, I doubt that there'
Re: (Score:2)
This shoudn't come as a surprise, as the first IQ was invented by Alfred Binet to work as a test for school children to sort them in the right class.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the part I'm wondering. Maybe somebody willing to read the article can tell me. The summary says, "this ability is not associated with individuals' general intelligence, or IQ."
My question in, since when the fuck did anybody invent a useful test of general intelligence?! That is a way more exceptional claim than there being a lack of correlation between IQ and visual object memory.
I'd also be a lot more interested in visual classification vs IQ than visual object memory. Especially if the click-line
Re: Nothing is related to anything relevant (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed, and your score can easily be improved with practice which means it can't be a measure of raw intelligence unless practicing IQ tests is also the most effective way to boost your innate intelligence.
Re: (Score:3)
What, for ever? Does that mean there are people who start out being literally cretins who practice for ten years and score over 200?
It couldn't possibly be that there is some penalty from being unfamiliar & inexperienced and it gets eroded with practice, could it?
Re: (Score:2)
Performance at certain tasks that may or may not be biased towards one or more cultures, which require some degree of practice to reach full potential at?
Pretty much, yes. And the tasks are probably designed to reflect useful skills in life, which are also biased towards the culture you're in.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably? If you think it's so then show us an actual example. A current one, not from before WW1.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, if you're from a culture where people expect you to have high IQ score it is more likely that you'll discover that the fish is always 72 inches, because the people who write the tests don't enjoy algebra and they all copy the same word problem. POW! Unless you're already scoring in the 99th percentile, your IQ went up. And if your IQ is in the 99th percentile, I just lowered your relative score by increasing the IQ of a few random credulous idiots.
Another, if you regularly engage in word games
Re: Nothing is related to anything relevant (Score:5, Interesting)
So what are you claiming it actually measures?
Within 20 points of the mean (80 to 120), IQ scores are strongly correlated with income and financial success. Outside that range, the correlation breaks down. If you have an IQ of 140, you are unlikely to earn much more than someone with an IQ of 120. Likewise, someone with an IQ of 60 won't earn much less than someone with an IQ of 80.
IQ is strongly and negatively correlated with incarceration. People in prison tend to be dumb. This could mean that dumb people commit more crimes, or that they are more likely to get caught and be convicted. Mostly likely it is a bit of both.
IQ is not correlated with happiness.
Re: (Score:2)
IQ scores are strongly correlated with income and financial success.
IQ is strongly and negatively correlated with incarceration.
IQ is not correlated with happiness.
Doesn't financial success make you more happy than being in prison? I know it makes me happier...
Re: (Score:3)
After a lot of tutoring, my son recently graduated to moron. We still don't let him play with the neighborhood children because those kids are idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic the 100m sprint isn't a measure of who can run fastest.
Cultural bias is a red herring, it's so old it stinks.
I do. Patronising wanker.
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic the 100m sprint isn't a measure of who can run fastest.
It isn't. It's a measure of who can sprint over short distances fastest. Using it as a measure of general running performance clearly disadvantages distance runners who are not fast but have exception endurance.
better nutrition? Less pollution? ...
It says nothing about it one way or the other. Completely irrelevant.
What?
It's like you know the answers, you use them when it suits your argument, but then completely ignore them when they don't...
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic the 100m sprint isn't a measure of who can run fastest.
It isn't. The person who wins the 40m might have achieved a higher top speed. Also the guy in last place might have run faster than the winner while warming up. No way to know. You've got a lot of narrowing to do before you figure out what was measured by that test!
Cultural bias is a red herring, it's so old it stinks.
A red herring is something irrelevant that distracts. However, your complaint seems to instead be that it is wrong. On its face the accusation of cultural bias is obviously important to the utility of the test, so it can't be a red herring. You n
Re: (Score:2)
practicing IQ tests is also the most effective way to boost your innate intelligence.
In don't think anybody claims that IQ tests measure your innate intelligence. They aim to measure your actual intelligence level, and that's something that could be improved with practice and study.
Of course, if a standardized IQ test has a limited sampling of questions, and you only practice those particular types of questions, you'll skew the results.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying it's a test of aptitude in various disciplines... I agree, but that's not how some people treat it.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, but that's not how some people treat it.
That's their problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Until your boss thinks your skin colour correlates with your innate intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like how once Indians get into management they predominantly hire other Indians?
Re: (Score:2)
I kind of agree that the gap needs to be addressed, I'm just not in agreement about what the gap represents. For example, in the 1930s white Americans were 20 points below today's level. That is, the average white American from the 30s is equivalent to a modern American who dropped out of school before age 8.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I find hilarious when SJWs start with this "IQ is racist" shit.
White Guy1: Let's find some way to scientifically prove we're smarter than the bally darkies!
White Guy2: Capital idea! How about a sort of quiz, with questions about regattas, cutlery and the like?
WG1: Great! But just make sure that the slitty-eyed little yellow devils and the red sea pedestrians score higher than us!
WG2: Why not!
Re: (Score:2)
Since a regatta isn't a boat I don't see what your point is. You probably know what a horse is. I doubt you can even spell gymkhana.
Not getting such a well known reference [theintelle...tional.com] is rather like asking what ls does in a thread about Linux; it pretty much disqualifies you from the discussion.
Can't copy-paste properly indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's an example.
Re: (Score:2)
SJWs
If it is growing out of your neck, it isn't a "beard."
"The More You Know!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
15-16 points, between US whites and blacks
What is the definition of White and Black? This may sound obvious if you're dealing with pure bred Somalians vs Icelanders, but in the modern world this is no longer clearly cut.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not disputing that there is a gap, merely disputing what it is that the IQ test actually measures. And the genetic component seems to be very small, and the evidence for it is not very compelling since it is impossible to control for other factors.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, self-identified.
Right so like how Barack Obama calls himself black even though he is actually 50:50, so technically he could equally call himself white if he wanted? Sounds legit...
Re: (Score:2)
We need to fix the gap, not deny it exists
Indeed, and there are plenty of things we can do:
1. Black children have nearly twice the average blood lead levels of white children. This depresses IQ and causes antisocial behavior. Blood lead levels have declined since the banning of leaded gasoline, with big benefits to society including lower crime rates. But clearly we still have work to do, and we need to find and eliminate other sources of environmental lead. While we are at it, we should work on reducing other neurotoxins such as mercury and c
Re: (Score:2)
Since a regatta isn't a boat I don't see what your point is.
The word "regatta" was used in a test from the 1970s. If "cultural bias" is really a big problem, then we wouldn't have to go back 45 years to find an example of it.
Also, the highest scores in America are achieved by the children of Asian immigrants. How does "cultural bias" explain that?
Re: (Score:2)
Now for 99% of jobs someones IQ isn't really important.
Not true. For many jobs IQ is a strong predictor of job performance [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
But by how much? Like any other kind of training, diminishing returns sets in. I could train an hour a week and run 5% faster. I could train two hours a week and maybe run 10% faster. If I train 100 hours a week I am totally not going to run faster than a cheetah with its arse on fire.
Holy strawman! (Score:2)
Who? If it was meant to be that they'd have called it WQ, wouldn't they?
Re: (Score:2)
Some people just want to believe that there is a scientific, objective way to measure a person's worth. They usually think they are near the top of the ranking, especially if they also cling to the idea of racial intelligence.
IQ is very strongly correlated with success. Multiple replicated studies have added support for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but success is not the same thing as intelligence. And success is strongly correlated with wealth and access to good schooling (although there are plenty of exceptions), which suggests that IQ is not measuring some kind of innate ability or mental processing limit.
I'm not suggesting that IQ doesn't measure anything. I'm saying it measures a variety of non-fixed things. I guess you could compare it to CPU benchmarking, which as we know often has little relation to real world performance and if often ar
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, but success is not the same thing as intelligence. And success is strongly correlated with wealth and access to good schooling (although there are plenty of exceptions), which suggests that IQ is not measuring some kind of innate ability or mental processing limit.
Your lack of a background in science is showing again. Success is strongly correlated with wealth, and also strongly correlated with IQ. IOW, look up what "controlled study" means. For IQ, especially, it's easy to control for socioeconomic effects, hence the "IQ is strongly correlated with success" assertion.
Re: (Score:2)
You keep saying IQ is correlated with various things... But not intelligence.
Re: (Score:3)
You keep saying IQ is correlated with various things... But not intelligence.
That's what I started with - "IQ is strongly correlated with success".
IQ tests don't measure "intelligence" because that word, for many people, depends on context. IQ tests measure problem solving ability. This is probably why it correlates so strongly to success: a strong ability to solve problems probably results in a large measure of success anyway.
IQ tests are like BMI - mostly accurate, for most of the population, in the ways that actually matter. If I were to bet on a random high-IQ person successful
Re: (Score:2)
We agree. They should remove the I from IQ.
Re: (Score:3)
We agree. They should remove the I from IQ.
I said 'many people don't consider problem-solving to be a sign of intelligence'. I did not say 'most'. The overwhelming majority do, and llike BMI, for most people, in most contexts, it's mostly accurate for what most people consider to be intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
I said 'many people don't consider problem-solving to be a sign of intelligence'. I did not say 'most'. The overwhelming majority do, and llike BMI, for most people, in most contexts, it's mostly accurate for what most people consider to be intelligence.
I think your analogy works very well. BMI is a fine overall statistic for plunking onto a chart in a power point presentation about how we might want to allocate more money to health education due to increasing teen health problems. But it easily fails when used for individuals, where there are many other more useful measures on hand. We should endeavor to not be like the dumbass doctor who looked at my young son's BMI number and did not actually look at him before pronouncing he should lose some weight.
Re: (Score:2)
You keep saying IQ is correlated with various things... But not intelligence.
That's what I started with - "IQ is strongly correlated with success".
Up until they banned sword duels being good with a sword was strongly correlated with financial and political success. It is really not a very way to start off if you're trying to prove even that is a test of general problem-solving. It clearly tests things, but there is no reason to assume that it is testing something generalized.
Re: (Score:2)
You keep saying IQ is correlated with various things... But not intelligence.
That's what I started with - "IQ is strongly correlated with success".
Up until they banned sword duels being good with a sword was strongly correlated with financial and political success.
Even if true, that doesn't mean that IQ is incorrectly correlated with success. Like I keep saying, for most people in most contexts, IQ is a mostly correct measure of what most people consider to be intelligences.
It is really not a very way to start off if you're trying to prove even that is a test of general problem-solving. It clearly tests things, but there is no reason to assume that it is testing something generalized.
I'm not trying to prove anything - IQ is a test of problem-solving ability, and it is mostly correct. Most high-IQ people would be considered intelligent (even if their IQ were not known) while most low IQ people would be considered less intelligent (even if their IQ were not known).
Humans put eac
Re: (Score:2)
You keep saying IQ is correlated with various things... But not intelligence.
That's what I started with - "IQ is strongly correlated with success".
Up until they banned sword duels being good with a sword was strongly correlated with financial and political success.
Even if true, that doesn't mean that IQ is incorrectly correlated with success. Like I keep saying, for most people in most contexts, IQ is a mostly correct measure of what most people consider to be intelligences.
OK, stop there. Is that what you think I claimed? Re-read what I said, and see if it says that. And, you just admitted that you understand you're just repeating assertions. Did you consider I might be engaged in something other than simply asserting conclusions? Do you understand that what I said doesn't refute what you said, it is simply something else that is even more strongly correlated. It is a claim of higher quality than yours, and yet it is clearly lacking on its face. That doesn't prove anything ab
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong in that you have a well-formed belief about something known to be an unresolved issue.
IQ and the definition thereof is not an "unresolved" issue - not only is IQ well-understood lay people also have no trouble understanding it. For *you* it might be unresolved - the rest of the world understands it just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
You're supposed to correlate what is true, not correlate things that are not true. When you detected that IQ isn't the word with disputed meaning, then instead of jumping straight to "yer rong" you should have instead realized your mistake and understood that we weren't even arguing over the definition of IQ. Figure out the context of your argument. Then you might even be able to comprehend what I said.
As for now I'm just going to mark you down as "failed." I don't really care what the numerical representat
Re: (Score:2)
You're supposed to correlate what is true, not correlate things that are not true. When you detected that IQ isn't the word with disputed meaning, then instead of jumping straight to "yer rong" you should have instead realized your mistake and understood that we weren't even arguing over the definition of IQ. Figure out the context of your argument. Then you might even be able to comprehend what I said.
As for now I'm just going to mark you down as "failed." I don't really care what the numerical representation of your failure would be, either. Or the underlying causes.
Regardless of your incoherent ramblings, for most people, in most contexts IQ is correlated with higher intelligence. Also, please look up what "correlate" means. I don't get to correlate what is true and what is not true, the fact is that intelligence as understood by the clear majority of the population, including scientists, mental health professionals and lay people is very strongly correlated with IQ.
Please, FCOL, look up what the word "correlate" means. You look like an ass when you say such blunders
Re: (Score:2)
Some people just want to believe that there is a scientific, objective way to measure a person's worth.
Actually, after having it thought it over, I am genuinely curious - do you believe everyone has the same worth or that some people are worth more than others?
Re: (Score:2)
I also think trying to measure a person with a single number like IQ is both deeply flawed and undesirable from a social point of view because we all benefit from everyone having opportunities to reach their potential.
No one was arguing that opportunities must be limited, only that IQ is an accurate enough indicator of intelligence to be useful most of the time. Intelligent people score higher on IQ tests, outliers notwithstanding.
Regardless, if your aversion to intelligence is because it is socially undesirable, what do you propose? That we get rid of intelligent people? That we find a different test so that stupid people can score high too? After all, no one is proposing to use IQ scores as a restriction to opportunit
Re: (Score:2)
No one was arguing that opportunities must be limited, only that IQ is an accurate enough indicator of intelligence to be useful most of the time.
That's the same thing. If you rely on IQ as an indicator of intelligence you must have some purpose in doing so, e.g. filtering job applicants or provision of schooling to children. And if IQ is a flawed measure then some people will be denied opportunities that they should have access to.
Regardless, if your aversion to intelligence is because it is socially undesirable, what do you propose?
I like intelligence, I just don't think you can encapsulate it in a single number determined by a written test.
After all, no one is proposing to use IQ scores as a restriction to opportunities
That's exactly what happens. Job applicants are filtered by IQ test scores, funding for education is diverted t
Re: (Score:2)
No one was arguing that opportunities must be limited, only that IQ is an accurate enough indicator of intelligence to be useful most of the time.
That's the same thing. If you rely on IQ as an indicator of intelligence you must have some purpose in doing so, e.g. filtering job applicants or provision of schooling to children. And if IQ is a flawed measure then some people will be denied opportunities that they should have access to.
But a) IQ isn't a flawed measure, and b) we aren't relying on IQ for filtering purposes.
Regardless, if your aversion to intelligence is because it is socially undesirable, what do you propose?
I like intelligence, I just don't think you can encapsulate it in a single number determined by a written test.
You make a 6-hour test sound like a thumb-suck. The IQ test isn't a social science, you understand; it's an actual science.
After all, no one is proposing to use IQ scores as a restriction to opportunities
That's exactly what happens. Job applicants are filtered by IQ test scores, funding for education is diverted to children who score highly on IQ tests. And some people go even further, arguing that some skin colours are also mentally superior and should be supreme. It's that kind of thing that I object to.
I want everyone to be as intelligent as possible, which means having access to good education and opportunities to fix social problems like poverty. I don't accept the argument that "these people have a low IQ, therefore will always be poor and dumb and doing anything to change that is anti-intellectual and anti-science."
No one made that particular argument, and yet, even if they did you can argue against using a criteria (not just IQ score, any criteria) to prevent opportunities to people.
Right now, as things stand, the IQ score is an indicator. Sure there's outliers, but as far as "worth" goes, higher IQ people ha
Makes some popcorn (Score:2, Funny)
That would mean women are smarter than men, and we all know that's not true.