Are I.Q. tests good for measuring general intelligence, or are they inherently flawed?

[Sir Dookface McFerretballs]

I personally think they are massively flawed, biased, and simplistic, with many often focusing too much on mathematics or scholastic memory retention and not enough on actual "intelligence" as a whole.

I think the only thing an I.Q. test measures is how well people can do on an I.Q. test.

I think they are biased and often miss the mark completely when it comes to general intelligence outside of isolated schooling or mathematical related situations.

What do you fine people of Off Topic think?

[isomorphic_projection]

Escrito originalmente por Huh?:

the answer to that question is no. I've seen way too many losers in my life with high IQs, but no real progress, huge lack of communication abilities and overall, in a depressed state doing nothing with their lives.

And do you think that's their fault. Or the fault of today's society, run by banks, oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, film and series industry.

[Pocahawtness]

Well, put it like this, the average caveman was just as intelligent as us and yet he would probably eat the test paper and stab you in the forehead with the pencil.

[EASY PETE]

"People who boast about their IQ are losers" - Steven Hawking

[Sir Dookface McFerretballs]

Escrito originalmente por Llamapalooza:

Be honest OP, how low you got?

I failed my I.Q. test.

Apparently ripping off my clothes and running around in my underwear screaming "This is SPARTA!" at all the other people in the room is not the correct answer to what hole the star shape goes into.

[Sir Dookface McFerretballs]

A lot of people don't even know that an "intelligence test" is usually done as an observational study that includes things like spatial perception, critical thinking, word problems, social interactions, and more standard paper testing but without any "multiple choice", and can often take about 3 days/visits to complete.

So someone could have a, intelligence score of 80 in mathematics, but 155 in spatial perception, 115 in science, 15 in social skills, and 120 in critical thinking and so on... With none of it being "averaged" together into a single score like the more flawed I.Q. testing does.

Most people's exposure to "I.Q." testing is usually nothing more than a single multiple choice test of various subjects, a few word problems, and a trivia section that is really no better than a facebook quiz that then pumps out a single number to cover all areas.

What is even more interesting is the history of I.Q. testing being used for very dark and evil reasons including genocide and forced sterilization.

[Pierce Dalton]

As we know, there are different IQ tests, that means there's no definitive/ultimate intelligence test or something like that. So yeah, they're all biased in a certain way.

[Yavin Shikanoko]

Intelligence is a broad concept, you can't measure it by a test. And an online IQ test has the same value as a buzzfeed test about what kind of Disney princess you are depending on how many ear wax will you put on your chicken nuggets

[Morkonan]

Escrito originalmente por Sir Dookface McFerretballs:

..
What do you fine people of Off Topic think?

They have proven predictive value.

They do not, however, act to state what practical value any human being may have in society. THAT is not their purpose, yet many people imply that from their results.

Mathematical ability has been found to be of good predictive quality in terms of one's overall "intelligence." It is not the only predictor, though.

They also do not act as a predictor for "possible" success, even within those skills they directly measure. Outliers, unique individuals, unique situations, aren't always so very unique and "luck" is pretty common for people who are able to maximize its potential...

There are many highly desirable qualities we value in human beings that are not measured by an I.Q. test.

Related: IMO, notions of general intelligence being split and given other qualities, like "Emotional Intelligence" and the like... are generally not worthy of intense consideration and may not have much value or predictive quality. They could, however, indicate mental disorders at their most extreme, which begs the question of whether or not they're not actually "generally" applicable in any normal sense. Many people suffering from certain things can excel in certain behaviors... That does not mean they are "more intelligent" in these... things. It's something else that drives that rather than some shared intellectual quotient humans possess.

[Sparky mark phillips]

Any true Dragon measures the worth of his foes by both the shininess and size of his treasures

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

For raw intellect, yes.

the issue is our ability to make decisions is based as much on our wisdom as intellec,t and IQ doesn't care for that.

[sotaponi]

I like the vaguely implied sentiment ITT that IQ is more of a disorder test. In that scoring below some cut-off (maybe below 110 or 120) means that you are trailing in some sense. The same way that you can score less-than-stellar in autism tests.

But beyond that you have to start wondering what makes a Plato or Einstein different from some materialistic human calculator with 200 IQ. And what makes an idiot-savantic artificial neural network different from conscious genius, as well.

Hyperbole: Assume remote-viewing real in a higher-dimensional sense, possibly necessitating the presence of consciousness. How then could an unconscious AI ever compete, no matter how well-trained and oversized its artificial neural network is? It'd be like bringing a knife to a gunfight. The AI would need more than just an exponential increase in artificial neurons in order to compete in the "real world," beyond one-dimensional games such as chess.

Meaning: It's entirely plausible that you can make up for the lack of "IQ" in other regards. As it's not exactly known to what degree the IQ is just the proverbial knife in a gunfight. And today's AI doesn't even have a real knife, but an oversized toothpick.

Then sans hyperbole: The world is proven to be at least 4-dimensional. And if some test only concerns itself with lower dimensional or highly linear problems that don't necessarily require consciousness or abstract reasoning... You're testing for a knife. But that's just a sidearm. Plato and Einstein bring a gun. They don't need a Katana.

Escrito originalmente por Tetravalence:

As a mental health professional of the last 10 years: yes, IQ tests are reliable. The stigma that they are unreliable comes from the insecurity of people.

I really like that psychology believes it an argument to declare people ill if they disagree.

"If you question the validity of sexually repressed anal phases, then you're schizoid!"

It's nothing but a Kafka trap at that point. When rejecting something is merely evidence of your guilt. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that's exactly the reason why people such as Popper disliked psychology. Because you cannot falsify it without being declared "guilty."

[L1qu1dator]

Nah, they show how well you can find patterns :P

[vinny]

IQ tests are a good measurement of a person's intelligence to a certain extent. Just because someone has a high IQ doesn't mean they're going to be a genius, I have an above average IQ and I tend to feel stupid most of the time.

[sotaponi]

Just to add to my post: Animals have neural networks that require a lot of calculations only in order to roam their territory, just like AIs. But humans are conscious, can experience schizophrenia, NDEs, have moral laws and language, can ask and resolve fundamental questions about reality on a level that AI cannot understand due to a lack of consciousness, etc. Which implies that humans are already the next step up from this.

So clearly the IQ is a knife. And an excessively high IQ is arguably a Katana. But Plato and Einstein use a gun. They don’t need a Katana. A regular knife does the trick for them. It’s why it becomes ultimately pointless to test for “IQ” as such, above some threshold. As is evidenced by people with excessive IQs never amounting to anything, even if they spend their entire life researching. And certainly the same would go for excessively propped up machine learning algorithms.

Pure neural networks as sockets (knives) are already outdated. And clearly the conscious self is a gemstone (gun) within.

[Irene ❤]

hmm I think IQ test is legit. For example you have a circle and you must draw lines to divide it by 2. A monkey will not be able to do it, so you're smarter.

But the money can survive better than you in the jungle. They know which fruit to eat, which tree brunch is strong or weak. They can imagine how a tiger will attack and defend themselves. What a human can do is just to visualize this silly circle divide and nothing else, and it can all be learned from a math book. Isn't the monkey with survival instinct smarter and the IQ test pointless?

The answer is no. If there are 5000 monkeys and 5000 humans in the same jungle, overtime humans will conquer, setting up their tribes and weapons. So I think the blind spot is that we try to argue about the test credibility with results from just 1 person. The high IQ person cannot do a lot of things. Sometimes a low IQ person can do better. Because life depends on a lot of other factors.

The IQ test is legit, it can be consider smart if we can divide the circle to 3 equal parts, or 10 equal parts. But the smart person will need other smart things around him to deliver results, just like a smart programmer with many good formulas needing a computer. The test is only a starting point that determines that you have that creative room, and that is the whole purpose of the test. For example if you know that your child has extraordinary high IQ, you might try giving him piano lessons, chess or to explore other things and create a miracle.