What's the real deal?People always say that "Iq only measures how good you are at taking IQ tests" but idk my dudes... That just sounds like R*ddit cope.Because if you talk to an 80 IQ brainlet and a 130 IQ guy, you can tell the difference, right? There's a very noticeable, observable gap.
>>16947526>>>/r9k/
>>16947526How many random people in public have a verified IQ score that they can prove is official and real?How do u kno u are talking to a 130 IQ man or a 85 IQ man? Do u just ask everyone u meet for their official IQ card and proof of IQ test results?I do not even think Einstein took the actual IQ test one time but people just say he has a high IQ for no reason lol.
>taking something complex and multifaceted and trying to boil it down to a single numberThe biggest and most obvious problem with IQ tests.>each tester have their own criteria for the tests>there's social and economic pressure around the results and that affects the tests>you can prepare for them and do betterIf the test is supposed to test "raw" intelligence without influence of culture or education or whatever then it obviously failed.I guess you can make broad weak assumptions from the results and those assumptions could be useful and truthy, but there's no guarantee.
>>16947534What is official and real even? If there is a widely accepted accurate test out there, what makes it so?
>>16947526It doesn’t measure how good you are at the test, it measures how well you can read the language the test is written in.Try to take a Chinese IQ test (assuming you can’t speak mandarin) and see how you do.
>>16947526>Iq only measures how good you are at taking IQ testsWell that is strictly true. But "how good you are at taking IQ tests" is a proxy for g with is general cognitive ability. How accurate that proxy is remains debatable. The fact that one can "practice" for an IQ test and improve their score betrays their flawed nature but they seem generally on the right track.>>16947541The important thing is that it's administered in person by a professional WAIS ans Ravens Progressive Matrices are popular. Anything taken online should be largely interpreted as self-indulgent entertainment on the same level personality tests.>>16947548If you're dumb enough to take an IQ test in a language you don't understand and take it seriously, then the low score you get as a result is probably accurate.That said, the instructions are provided at about a 10-year-old's reading level and without ambiguity. If you find yourself in a situation where the test is handed to you in a particular language, you're probably competent enough of a reader to accurately take that test. The administrator should be there to clarify any confusion.Btw, I found an online IQ test in Chinese if you'd like to test how your claim holds up in practice. I made a guess at what I was supposed to do for the first exercise then went back and translated to verify. My guess was correct snd I know nothing of the Chinese language. Needed translate to begin the test.https://iqeq.com.cn/
>>16947526Hard to make a consensus about the way to measure iq.An ultra-fan of baseball who knows all the games in the main league, all the players, even the referees, etc. that had been played, and can tell you a resume for each game, statistics about strategies used, etc. has surely a high iq of some sort.But this type of iq is in a very specific field.Same with a high skilled hunters-gatherers in the Amazonian forest or in the plains of Africa :Those guys would be highly skilled to memorize places, animal tracks, drinkable fountains, etc.
>>16947658You're conflating knowledge and intelligence. The willingness and ability to retain knowledge about a specific subject is very explicitly not IQ.
>>16947669How could you then measure iq without the ability to manage a knowledge ?You cant measure iq without knowledge, iq doesn't exist in itself.
>>16947669Stanford-Binet and to a lesser extent WAIS include knowledge as a component, as do many other tests.More importantly, if the capacity to memorize and recall relevant information is not assigned due weight, how can you claim to be measuring intelligence?
It's correlated to what you probably think of as "smart", but its still an imperfect measurement because practice/creativity/experience/personality also matter for performing useful tasks so the ability to solve arbitrary logic puzzles is only one useful attribute among many.
>>16947683Like you probably need a somewhat good IQ to be a mathematician but you might still be a great one with a midwit tier IQ if you can work around your limitations and build off of other peoples work very efficiently, or something like that.
>>16947669>>16947675The Sapiens-sapiens from 50 thousands years ago would have never seen a triangle on a paper, but that guy painted some fucking badass pictures in caves and crafted perfectly symmetrical blades and arrow-heads in silex the size of my pinky.
>>16947675Typically IQ tests will provide all necessary knowledge for the exercise at hand. They usually avoid reliance on prior knowledge. Once notable exception is the WAIS which is due to some assumptions they themselves bake into the theory of intelligence.>>16947678Those tests bake in the assumption that IQ can "increase" so they define their IQ metrics using things which can be environmentally stimulated. That and as a proxy for general curiosity which they assume to correlate with intelligence.Basically, they drop the notion that they're even trying to directly measure an innate characteristic (and therefore forgo the original intent behind IQ tests) and unstead lean into measuring things which appear to correlate.>if the capacity to memorize and recall relevant information is not assigned due weight, how can you claim to be measuring intelligence?Long term momory isn't necessarily a component of g. Working memory, which is much more clearly g-loaded, can be tested by having them memorize number sequences.
>>16947697>can be tested by having them memorize number sequences.What if a guy is not very good at counting numbers or memorizing them, does he have a low working memory ?
>>16947700I mean, probably. Having a hard time memorizing information that you're actively working with is kinda what "low working memory" means.
IQ tests measure things like reasoning, logic, pattern recognition, and problem-solving, and how fast you're capable of doing these things. Of course it's not a perfect reflection of how intelligent someone is, but ability to do those things will be correlated with most definitions of intelligence. It's heavily influenced by both environment, and yes, genetics.But whenever anyone admits that, the wrong sort of people start thinking it's fine to treat lower-scoring populations badly. Some people be smart, others be dumb. Doesn't mean you can take their rights away. That's why scientists are always iffy about admitting these things, and research showing it gets buried, because nobody wants the fingers to point their way when some psychos genocide/sterilise/intern a bunch of people while claiming it's OK because they were born superior.
>>16947703>hard time memorizing informationInformation can be anything, "number" is a very specific sort of information.If you can easily memorize numbers, can you also memorize flowers in a field by there colors and shape ?
>>16947687wish i had the power to tell the body count of each one of those arrowheads, could have been a woolly mammoth, saber tooth tiger, terror bird, etc
>>16947714There's a lot more variables to account for with the flowers thing. So that is just objectively harder.But the basic principle is the same. And some tests do have you memorize an arbitrary list of symbols.
>>16947638Feel free to take the whole test without using a translator and let me know what score you get. It’s weird what people will try to argue, when it seems so obvious.By the way if you’re telling me you intuited the solution to this problem without knowing the language at all then I don’t believe you whatsoever.
>>16947734>Feel free to take the whole test without using a translator and let me know what score you getI tried and gave up when I assumed it wanted me to memorize words matched to numbers and I don't have chinese characters on my keyboard.Not to mention the core point remains the same. If you don't have a 10 year old's understanding of the language then you shouldn't be taking that test.>if you’re telling me you intuited the solution to this problem without knowing the language at all then I don’t believe you whatsoever.I saw "1-25" and the numbers at the bottom ascending like a stopwatch and the numbers on the grid were scrambled after I clicked the blue button so I guessed it wanted me to click 1-25 in order as fast as I could. I'm not patting myself on the back for guessing that one since it was pretty obvious.
>>16947740The same thing would happen if you took the test on paper. So what is the test actually measuring? If it was intelligence primarily, then a test taker should be able to do decently well on any test. If it’s measuring language comprehension, then you’d expect the score to be strongly correlated with the language of the test. Which is exactly what we have found!This is a simple logical refutation of IQ that everyone should be able to get on board with. There’s more to intelligence than the ability to read and write, that’s also something that everyone should be able to agree with.Unfortunately some people are still obsessed with IQ. I think these people get high scores but aren’t typically treated as “smart” by the people around them. So the score is important as a sort of cope. But when you’re actually smart, it’s truly unavoidable. Dumb people can tell you’re not dumb and they treat you different. Midwits see you as a resource. Most smart people actually downplay how smart they are as a result. You don’t WANT a score on your head making you even more othered. So I tend to find that people obsessed with IQ or who even believe it’s a good metric are usually not very smart themselves.
>It doesn’t measure how good you are at the test, it measures how well you can read the language the test is written in.>Try to take a Chinese IQ test (assuming you can’t speak mandarin) and see how you do.>a test taker should be able to do decently well on any testWhat the hell are you even saying? Any test in any language (disregarding language tests themselves) would be taken under consideration that the examinee understands the language and what is being asked. This is an unspoken and obvious assumption to anyone. Are you autistic by any chance?
>>16947745If what you're saying was correct, then people with equal understanding of the test's language should score equally. They do not.You are conflating "not understanding what is being asked of me" and "not being able to perform a task I do understand." Ravens Progressive Matrices are a prime example of this. Everyone understands what is being asked of them. Some people are better at doing them than others. Your hypothesis is instantly falsified by this simple observable phenomenon.
>>16947754Which two people have equal understanding of anything?
>>16947769Most people have enough understanding of their native tongue to comprehend what is asked of them in an IQ test. In that regard, they are functionally equal.And don't think I missed the part where you selectively ignored my point about Ravens Progressive Matrices. Most people can understand what's being requested of them without a single word.
>>16947526Education is key. If you introduce education within 2 generations the iq of an area climbs. Its that simple
>>16947526In theory you can study for an IQ test, these are the 'book smart' people that can only be taught but can not learn by themselves, so getting an high score does not necessarily mean you have an high intelligence. You can not recover from a low IQ score however because people with high intelligence will not get a low score because they inherently can understand the pattern recognition, so they don't struggle with it as much.
>>16947526>What's the real dealif you have to say "redpill me on ...", like you did in your thread title, you're objectively double digit iq.
>>16947697>IQ tests will provide all necessary knowledge for the exercise at hand.This is obviously false as per the previous>IQ test in a different languagehypothetical.
>>16947880>as permidwit detected
>>16947526IQ tests are good at detecting retards but less reliable for anything else. Even there you get false positives if the person taking the test is sick or sleep deprived. Best used as a filter, "under 85 and you're not allowed in safety critical areas", that sort of use.
>>16947526>Because if you talk to an 80 IQ brainlet and a 130 IQ guy, you can tell the difference, right?well yeah, they're nearly four standard deviations apart in ability. the guy at 80 is less test-competent than 80% of the population, and the 130 guy is in the top 2%. even in something with narrow margins like 100 identical computer parts or injection molding casts you'd see a noticeable difference the 15 shittiest ones and the 2 best ones. The problem with IQ is it doesnt tell you how big that range is, or if it's an even spread, or what that number actually means. for all we know there might be no measurable difference in ability between 200 IQ and 2000 IQ, just like there isnt much difference between 20 and 2. you cant do much worse than randomly guessing in an IQ test after all. actually i've never looked into how they score wrong answers, you'd think getting every question wrong would indicate almost as much intelligence as getting nearly all of them right, but who knows>>16947539>>you can prepare for them and do betterin animals we take complex reasoning and memory skills to be signs of intelligence. Is knowing to prepare for a test NOT a sign of intelligence that the test is accurately rewarding with higher scores?>"raw" intelligence without influence of culture or educationare learned information and systematization skills not a form of intelligence?>>16947548>Try to take a Chinese IQ test (assuming you can’t speak mandarin) and see how you do.i think i'd do okay on the sequence matching and spatial reasoning parts
>>16947539>taking something complex and multifaceted and trying to boil it down to a single numberWhy do people say this like it's a bad thing? You can do the same with the GDP per capita and make a huge amount of generalizations about a country and be right on like 90% of them.
>>16947880Any test is going to assume you understand the language well enough to comprehend what is being asked of you. The fact that you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge this point is telling.
>>16947534Don't post again, apoidic nigger
>>16947904Because wealth production is not the same as intelligence? I hate analogies, they're always fucking stupid.
>>16947920I've noticed people who hate analogies tend to be retarded.
>>16947921t.
>>16947920IQ has a strong correlation with educational attainment, job attainment, job performance, not being in poverty, and not being on welfare. Guess looking at one number does give you a good overview the vast majority of the time.
>>16947745>The same thing would happen if you took the test on paper. So what is the test actually measuring? If it was intelligence primarily, then a test taker should be able to do decently well on any test. If it’s measuring language comprehension, then you’d expect the score to be strongly correlated with the language of the test. Which is exactly what we have found!behold! a test which is actually just measuring language comprehension!
>>16947539>taking something complex and multifaceted and trying to boil it down to a single numberYou mean like aging? I don't need to understand the intricacies of telomeres or other mechanisms influencing degradation of DNA to assign a number to someone to represent age. >But she doesn't necessarily correlate with aging! A rare 40 year old could look younger than a rare 18 year oldOkay, and? Most 40 year olds look older than most 18 year olds, and the quantification of their aging by their age works very very well.
>>16947942Thats not accurate though. Its more like you're developing a test to gauge "agedness" which is and abstract approximation of the sum of ageing factors, none of which can be directly measured
>>16947726>There's a lot more variables to account for with the flowers thing.>>16947714>memorize flowers in a field by there colors and shapeDoes the guy it pic can pass the IQ test then ?
>>16947526Intelligence is a boon and it's a lot more fluid than postulated by the retards losing grip on their muh superior genetics narrative. Invest in the people and be amazed by the results. It's profoundly sad to me how much human capital we constantly piss away because a group that latched on to wealth as a lever of power perceive themselves to be a superior breed of human.
>>16947925Retard, there is plenty of evidence of morons with wealth (Elon) and geniuses in poverty (Tesla).
>>16947953The test is looking at their face and guessing their age. Just like with IQ you look at their reasoning ability and guess their intelligence. The exact number is meaningless. I don't know the difference between a 31 year old and a 32 year old by looks. Yet I can assign such numbers. Maybe it's more like 32±5 years. Like IQ would be 120±15. You can absolutely make strong inferences based on IQ values the problem is that the errors are not often provided if at all
>>16947968>Correlations imply causation Lol. Lmao. Hey, retard, is hair loss is correlated with being a male, that doesn't mean you cannot find an example of a woman with hair loss. Nor does it mean you cannot find a man with hair. You blithering fucking mouth drooling incompetent retard.
>>16947994>n-noo stop noooticing that my claim is very easily gapedOkay chief, it's the thing you presented with no evidence. Those fucking poors are just retarded. True.
>>16947526
>>16948002Exceptions to the norm do not invalidate the norm, midwit.
>>16948016You haven't established your case to be the norm. Correlation does not equal causation. God I fucking love irony. An off the charts genius is way more likely to be a shut in schizo than a Ceo. Midwits make individual wealth the end all because they can't into the bigger picture. Example (You).
>>16948018>Correlation does not equal causation.>EqualNobody who understands statistics says this, pseud. The word you're looking for is imply.
>>16948020Thanks for playing.
>>16947927>be blind
>>16947964No.
>>16947526I just want brain scans to see how different peoples brains are connected and how their brain fires when asked to do certain tasks
>>16947526I just had to listen to a like 90 IQ immodest guy in an uncomfortable chair for too long. This is fucking torture. Society works in such stupid ways and Im so fucking pissed that I need to participate
>>16947964holy mother of ESL
>>16947526my iq or rather g was measured when i was a kid at 135 on the wisc or some generic matrices test im smart as fuck and can master most things in a day. now give me 500k
>>16951545Child IQ doesnt mean too much because you could have been quick to mature compared to the average. 135 IQ by itself also is not that smart. I think 155+ is smart, smarter than me. That said mabe you are that smart, I dont know, but its unlikely
