[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 15 KB, 812x734, iq.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10481691 No.10481691 [Reply] [Original]

As someone who has never had a test taken and really has no clue what IQ even really is can you guys help me understand...

Is it a good representation of intelligence?
Does IQ increase or decrease?
and what does one IQ "point" even mean?

>> No.10481695

>>10481691
it’s BS; basically a bunch of psychologists sit in a room and give each other brainteasers and then they go “oh fuck that one only smart guys like us can do, put it on the test”

>> No.10481698

Not really, it's a just loose measure of ability
No
One point doesn't really mean anything by itself

>> No.10481701

>>10481691
It’s nonsense that attracts /pol/tards and pseuds

>> No.10481702

This will surely lure in that guy that always comments "another IQ thread".

>> No.10481706

>>10481698
So you cannot change it at all?
it's a test right, so what if you took it years later where you knew more shit

I'm sure I would have a larger iq than a baby version of me right?

>> No.10481707
File: 119 KB, 583x482, 1548672444364.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10481707

>another IQ thread

>> No.10481709

>>10481691
Something something g factor something something correlation something something psychometric consensus something something hereditary component something something.

>> No.10481714

>>10481706
Hereditary component increases with age as environment reinforces genotypic expression as a phenotype.
You cannot separate nature from nurture.

>> No.10481716

>>10481691

Means nothing. It's a social science meme that went too far, like politics, economics and marketing.

>> No.10481720

Intelligence is subjective. Scholars can't agree on a solid definition for it.

>> No.10481724

>>10481720
IQ tests test certain areas of cognitive ability unusually agreed upon as being useful, like visual-spatial intelligence, which is used a lot in STEM.

>> No.10481921

>>10481691
To all those people claiming that IQ means nothing.
There is no other known measurement of intelligence that predicts so nicely scholar achievements, wages, long term stability of marriage, preposition to criminality and even what major one chooses. It is neither disproven nor unjustified simply because /pol/ abuses it.

>> No.10481939

To give an answer that is somewhat useful:

Some say the validity of IQ as a measure of intelligence may be disputed, in that the way in which we measure it is dubious at times (or most of the time, depends on who you talk to).

This said, there are a lot of things that correlate to IQ and these correlations seem to hold true with a high degree of reliability (i.e. quality of life, success in life).

IQ decreases with age according to Jordan Peterson and a number of other psychologists.

>> No.10481991

>>10481921
Level 1 deniers can't wrap their head around the fact that it is not equal to intelligence, but is representative of it to varying degrees.

Level 2 deniers believe that if there is any variability or deviation from actual intelligence then it must be invalid; they don't know how science and statistics, respectively, works.

Level 3 deniers make short, esoteric statements of statistics to plebeians and call Jordan Peterson a quack.

>> No.10482000

>>10481691
iq is like a bank account and currency, it is great to determine how rich or useful you are right now but there is absolutely no way to predict how much money you will have in the future and again is completely predicated on how much you are willing to "work"

>> No.10482002

>>10481991

>if there is any variability or deviation from actual intelligence then it must be invalid; they don't know how science and statistics, respectively, works.


You, respectfully, mixed those up. Science approximates reality and statistics measure and approximations deviancy.

>> No.10482050

>>10481691
Yes though it's being superseded by g which is supposedly better.
Yes.
By definition the population average IQ is 100, one IQ point means one one hundredth of an average cognitive ability.
>>10481706
Babies/children are taken as distinct populations, average IQ is always 100. If you were a smart baby you might get 120 on a baby IQ test then you grow up to be a smart adult and score 120 on adult IQ tests.
IQ tests are designed to be mostly independent of learned information. Questions are more like "finish the sequence: o oo ooo __" than "list all the countries in the world" so learning more stuff doesn't help.

>> No.10482097
File: 191 KB, 1228x1150, 1525639725520.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10482097

>>10481720
>but the scholars!

>> No.10482234

>>10481991
>implying Jordan Peterson isn't a quack

>> No.10482239
File: 603 KB, 800x472, npcHD.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10482239

>>10482234
Why?

>> No.10482244

>>10482239
he just says a lot of stuff that sounds deep until you think about it for more than .2 seconds and realize it's basically meaningless

>> No.10482260

>>10482244
Like?

>> No.10482292

>>10482260
educate yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas

>> No.10482303

>>10482260
Clean your room.

>> No.10482304

>>10482097
this is /sci/ not /x/

>> No.10482313

>>10482292
Ask a question get a video. I.E. you have no idea how to defend your argument even though you apparently can supply the resources which do so. Either you are too stupid to understand it yourself or too afraid that if you really pay attention to this guy you won't really be convinced.

Asking me to watch this video you have demonstrated you don't understand (otherwise you would summarize it, not ask me to watch it), is the laziest most entitled shit. I mean, we were having a directed conversation until you give me thirty minutes of content I'm expected to watch before continuing while you still have the burden of proof. You made the claim, you should be able to defend it.

Your position is "I've heard he's a quack."

>> No.10482316
File: 214 KB, 1200x1200, uncle ted.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10482316

>>10481695
>>10481701
>>10481716
Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

>> No.10482426

>>10481691
An arbitrary metric
not devised by neuroscience
created by psychologist with varying ideas of what IQ actually is
tested by using questions that can't be considered unbiased on small sample populations

tl;dr psuedoscience

>> No.10482485
File: 265 KB, 1262x846, iq threads.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10482485

>>10481707
Based.

>> No.10482742

>>10481921
>predicts

>> No.10482806

>>10481707
Do you even take a day off?

>> No.10482810

>>10482313
Your question was "Like?"
What do you expect other than the example?
You're retarded

>> No.10482811

>>10482806
We are many.

>> No.10482814

>>10482426
>not devised by neuroscience
Actually it's corroborated by neuroscience.

>> No.10482816

>>10482316
I never hear anyone refute what he said to say without resorting to character assassination.

>> No.10482821

>>10482810
A line with the proper context.

>> No.10482846

>>10481991
You are right, but Peterson is a quack regardless

>> No.10482862

>>10481691
IQ is defined by taking a bunch of people of the same age and taking their average score in a test. That is used as baseline.

You take the test, gain a score, then it's divided by the average score for your age and multiplied by 100. So that value means you are on par with the average level of your age.

IQ does not really mean much for normal people, even big differences are not particularly significant. It's utility is in the diagnose and treatment of developmental issues.

>> No.10482895

>>10482862
This way of calculating IQ scores fell out of use somewhere in the 50s.

Right, the original purpose of the IQ test was for diagnosing and treating developmental issues in adolescents when it was first used in the early 20th century. By then it became an object of statistical science.

A man can socially function despite having a borderline-retarded IQ while someone else fails to live on his own despite being of above-average IQ. However, generally it is the case that a person with a borderline-retarded IQ is much more likely to be socially dysfunctional.
This is the problem when it comes to statistics. It's probability but most people only seem to think in Yes- or No-categories.

>> No.10482899

>120 IQ virgin procrastinator vs. 95 IQ chad hard worker.

>> No.10483027

>>10482895
The best example I always think about when it comes to IQ is this one monk I met long ago. Sure, he was into some weird occult stuff, but then again he was able to control his emotions masterfully and thus able to learn a lot of stuff in just a short amount of time. Maybe he was gifted, or maybe it was just because he was able to successfully control his emotions.

Imagine, one factor I think that is heavily influencing are things like stress, depression or anxiety. I am not only talking about it in the context of a serious mental disorder, but it can quickly develope towards it if it starts early.

I noticed this on myself too. Three years ago, I was extremely influenced by emotions, like questioning everything I do, fear in exams, etc. IQ test was horrible. After I went through a tough training, I became way more aware of my emotions was able to control them. Since then, I actually felt to being a lot more quicker in thought processes than before.

I think it's not only genetics. There are many other factors.

>> No.10483032

>>10482814
i call bullshit on this

>> No.10483039

>>10483027
Onde encontrou esse monge?

Where did you find this monk?

>> No.10483057

>>10481691

The correlation between IQ and lifelong success (health, money, achievement) is the strongest statistical correlation in all of psychology and sociology (from a published literature perspective, not anecdotal). To deny it means either:

a) Low IQ
b) Ignorance
c) It doesn't fit your ideology (Low IQ)

>> No.10483070

>>10482816
>without resorting to character assassination
it's just easier to say he's a paranoid schizophrenic. the problems with his reasoning are obvious if your IQ isn't in the double digits.

>insist that everything is culturally relative
strawman
>they are deeply involved emotionally
appeal to motive
>in their attack on truth and reality
circular reasoning
>drive for power
appeal to motive
>outlet for hostility
appeal to motive
>feelings of inferiority
appeal to motive

the whole "argument" is a series of unfalsifiable assumptions. not very compelling, sorry.

>> No.10483075

>>10483057
Just reminding you, that all three of your reasons given are logical fallacies, aka ad homines, including that "denial" would mean ignorance even though there are studies that show that the IQ isn't as perfect as you claim it to be. Besides that I see you using a strawman either. At least, when trying to sound edgy and smart, do it right. The OP never claimed nor did he say that IQ wouldn't exist. His question is whether it IS a good representation of intelligence or not. And this is a question that cannot be answered in the way that everyone is satisfied.

The IQ is a good representation, if it can measure all factors that come into play, and yes, there are things missing which can't be measured directly without having a psychological profile of that very person first that is being tested. A person with anxiety, fear, and other factors etc. can easily fail an IQ test, even though intellectually having enough capacity to be on the same level like average or above-average people.

What we can actually conclude from this is though, that the IQ can give a good introspection of yourself. The more you start to get aware of your emotions and start controlling them, the more you're also able to concentrate, focus and blind out the things that are not relevant to the test.

>> No.10483080

IQ is meaningless. I know this because my IQ is 187.

>> No.10483085

>>10482899
this desu

>> No.10483094

>>10483075

3/10.

I was being facetious. I also never said it was perfect; I said it was the strongest statistical correlation in those fields. Best does not equal perfect. Additionally, "To deny it" does not equal "You are denying it". I was referring to the other IQ deniers in the thread.

You write your first condescending paragraph, then your second goes on to agree with exactly the point I was making; it's the best statistical correlation. I didn't include the other factors you discussed; that does not mean I denied they are relevant.

My point still stands; IQ is the strongest statistical correlation in all of psychology and sociology.

>> No.10483098

>>10481691
>impressionable, dumb zoomer gets hammered about >muh IQ in >>>/pol/
>thinks IQ is """science""""
>wonder where all IQ threads come from
Cancer

>> No.10483101

>>10483075
I know students who have no problem solving mathematical problems in an acceptable amount of time. But once put to test (might it be a friend saying: "O, hey can you explain me this or solve me this?" or an exam), they become dumb as fuck all of a sudden. You can't tell me that is just a coincidence. This is absolutely psychology and emotion playing inside a person and thus preventing him from having a normal thought process.

I can only imagine what would happen if you completely take away all emotions and feelings from a person. Even Kant (and that was one smart motherfucker) that emotions play a particular role in one's power of judgement and reason. Too bad, that Kant wrote his texts way too convoluted. He gave very good advice how to overcome these pesty barriers. Sure, it cannot possibly increase the IQ given by birth, but it definitely can increase the IQ points that were lost during emotional and passive influence from outside.

>> No.10483103

>>10481702
Why can we have daily multiple IQ threads and yet not a single one about muscle atrophia? How the fuck do you explain someone not being put on any muscle even after years of training?

>> No.10483105

>>10483094
>My point still stands; IQ is the strongest statistical correlation in all of psychology and sociology.
haven’t been following your long-winded blathering but just wanted to point out that “IQ is the strongest statistical correlation in psychology” is a meaningless statement since correlations need to be between two things—IQ and what other thing? anyhow you’re wrong because e.g. i think the correlation between being gay and having sex with people of the same gender is more robust than whatever you can come up with

>> No.10483161

>>10483101
Individual case ≠ General case. This argument has already been brought forward a long time ago only to be refuted by the observation that the large scale distribution doesn't significantly change due to stress. People who scored low on an IQ-test will score low on another IQ-test, irrespective of whether they were or weren't nervous.

>> No.10483173

>>10483105
Your objection is non-sensical because it has already been clarified with what IQ correlates. These are observations so of course the general case applies: correlation doesn't imply causality. If however you would use that argument consequently, you would have to discard all of science.

>> No.10483184

>>10483173
sorry; just give me a tl;dr on how IQ correlates with something more strongly than how homosexuality correlates with same-gender intercourse

>> No.10483192

>>10481691
an attempt by brainlets to reduce the whole of a human's mental abilities and complexities to a single number out of a couple hundred

>> No.10483268

>>10483184

"...from a published literature perspective, not anecdotal". There is literally a famous literature review psychology paper that simply looked at all of the research showing correlation in order to quantify what made a strong correlation. There wasn't one on homosexuality and same-gender intercourse.

Also, you're confusing causality with correlation. You gotta do better.

>> No.10483300

>>10483268
okay so basically you admit that
>IQ is the strongest statistical correlation in all of psychology and sociology.
is a dumb statement that is only defensible if you cherry pick ideas from one particular paper. in other words it’s a misquote / misunderstanding (even if we assume that the statement makes sense in the first place)

second, i’m not confusing correlation with causality with my example of correlations between homosexuality and same-gender sex. the strong correlation exists, period. and even if you want to talk about causality in that example, it’s dumb, because plenty of gays have had straight sex and vice-versa. in other words, causality is not a clear thing here, but the correlation is clear as day

>> No.10483326

>>10481691
Ever since all these IQ threads are popping up I'm unable to build any muscle.

>> No.10483442

>>10481706
IQ can certainly be changed. Yours changed when you grew up. Studies have shown that it changes significantly (15+ points) in teenage brains as well.

>it's a test right, so what if you took it years later where you knew more shit
How much you know is not intelligence. IQ tests are not intended to be measures of knowledge.

>>10481720
Subjective to an extent. You can build up a pretty clear picture of it if you understand what it is, though. There are many traits that are universally considered signs of intelligence, and intelligence shows itself very clearly, the majority of people can recognise it in some form.

>>10483101
Stress and anxiety certainly does bring your intelligence down, especially over the long term. Anxiety essentially interrupts cognitive functions and prevents them from working smoothly, and your intelligence is just an emergent property of your various cognitive abilities working together in harmony to produce thoughts and actions that can be considered valuable/useful.

>I can only imagine what would happen if you completely take away all emotions and feelings from a person.
Not as interesting as you think. Becoming a Vulcan doesn't necessarily make you any smarter, it usually makes you duller. We take for granted the unconscious motivations that drive our thinking, especially our system 1. The motivations that drive your brain to work for your benefit, to solve problems as you see them, to shape your environment a certain way, to choose what to focus on and what to react to and how to react to it, to put in the effort to adapt and change your thinking as necessary. When you get rid of the emotions, you get rid of the motivations as well.

>> No.10483444

OP here, I have only just started looking at the /sci/ board, I'm sorry I did not realise that you guys get a lot of IQ related threads. Thank you for answering my questing though :)

>> No.10483445

>>10483442
>You can build up a pretty clear picture of it if you understand what it is, though.
oh shit bro, you cracked it? plz post github link to your AGI when you finish it

>> No.10483469

IQ is a measure of how well you do on IQ tests

>> No.10483485

>The same IQ and Jordan Peterson threads every day
Shouldn't you people be paying attention to the lecture going on? There is no way any of you are actually graduates.

>> No.10483534

>>10481691
it is a stupid test that "measures" your visual and logical skills, i think it may even correlate to some kind of intelligence as we use those skills a lot, but when those political racialists start using that data for literally anything... wow... just get cancer already, it is so retarded to think you can quantify intelligence just using that

i also never actually took that shit, just once my jew parents told me some shit like "you need to do this bullshit test, it is for your future", had no clue what that was, to my surprise it was a bunch of neverending retarded cartoons, i thought to myself "i didn't agree to wake up so early in the morning to do this fucking garbage" so i just started signing random shit midway, and i couldn't finish it as an adult either, so my IQ must be sub -420 kek i am too dumb to even take the test

>> No.10483606
File: 14 KB, 323x351, IMG_1204.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10483606

>>10483469
No shit retard. Do you have any other trivialities to spout?

>> No.10483631

>>10483606
>can't extrapolate further meaning from a simple sentence
I bet you're a big believer in IQ

>> No.10483632

>retarded ass boomer coworker bitch who has gotten to the same place in life at 50 as I am at 19 bragging about her "genius" son

>"his IQ^TM is like 150. He's so smart. He just keeps having trouble with Calc 2, but he's gonna be an Engineer^TM

How fucking good it felt telling this cunt that I got an A in Calc 1, 2, and 3 all while being 4 years younger than her precious boy. I fucking love yelling at that dumb bitch.

>> No.10483636

>>10483632
Fucked myself on that superscript a bit.

>> No.10483677

curiosity

>> No.10484102
File: 1.46 MB, 3840x2160, 1 (You).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10484102

>>10483094
>IQ is the strongest statistical correlation in all of psychology and sociology.
meaningless statement.
the important question is whether or not it is adequate, period.
my car is the fastest machine i own. that doesn't mean it can get me to the moon.

>> No.10484192

>>10482292
>discord tranny

>> No.10484366

>>10483032
Well, you are wrong.

>> No.10484372
File: 283 KB, 1432x1228, IQ.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10484372

>>10483032
You are wrong, see pic related.

>> No.10484730

>>10484372
Notice that the autors are either neurologists or neuroscientists and all of them accept IQ as an indicator of intelligence.

>> No.10484773

>>10484372
this is "used" as a tool for kepping a certain level on measuring intelligence. the thing that whether it is "devised" or not is still remained as a question.
take this a little bit absurd example. There's a study of differences in brain damage through SAT Math scores. with this, can you draw the assertion that the SAT Math score is led by neuroscience?

>> No.10484791

>>10484773
>this is "used" as a tool for kepping a certain level on measuring intelligence.
A certain level of what?
>the thing that whether it is "devised" or not is still remained as a question.
Devise means invent. The person who invented the first IQ test was Alfred Binet. This is not a mistery. What are you talking about?
>There's a study of differences in brain damage through SAT Math scores. with this, can you draw the assertion that the SAT Math score is led by neuroscience?
Are on drugs?
What you said makes no sense.

>> No.10484806

>>10484773
And by the way, I don't think you understand how to use " "

>> No.10485568

So......What's the conclusion?

>> No.10485584

>2 People are given a logic test
>Person one does it faster than person 2

Post modernists:
>Nu-uh, that’s bullshit it’s literally impossible to measure cognitive ability!!!

Do you fuckers listen to yourselves

>> No.10485718

>>10485568
IQ is a good indicator of intelligence and some of it's basis are genetic.

>> No.10486042

>>10482050
Isn't being knowledgeable a big part of IQ? I know technically you're right: it's SUPPOSED to be one's inherent cognitive ability. But do we truly measure it on a test? Isn't learning more math helpful for the pattern recognition on IQ tests? What would your IQ be if you had never learned how to read?

>> No.10486053

>>10486042
>But do we truly measure it on a test? Isn't learning more math helpful for the pattern recognition on IQ tests?
The brain functions that you develop while studying math are helpful, but not the knowledge itself.
This is why IQ is not entirely genetic.

>> No.10486072

>>10481707
Fuck Off
T.neurologist

>> No.10487332

An IQ test is really just a set of questions. These questions are not very well thought out. The point is that you can compare the results with others.

Its really quite primitive, there is nothing special about IQ

>> No.10487465

>>10481698
>loose

Cope

>> No.10487492

>>10483075
t. IQlet

>> No.10487506

>>10483632
Are you literally me? I have a fat 50 yo female coworker who said the exact same shit to me.

>> No.10487841

>>10482002
Wow, what a fine zingeroonie!

>> No.10488427

>>10483070
you didn't say shit, you fucking retard, explain why something is an appeal to motive or circular reasoning, and how does it fit in in this context, if you just write the word expectiong people to imediatly see the issue, you won't convince anyone who doesn't already see things like you do.

>> No.10488466

>>10481691
>Is it a good representation of intelligence?
Yes, by definition.
>Does IQ increase or decrease?
Why wouldn't it? It's common to lose some IQ after brain-related accident or some illness. It even varies during the day.
>and what does one IQ "point" even mean?
It's a score on a test. The tests are standardized in a way to make them fit Gaussian curve. Single point doesn't have much meaning except for properties from the curve.

>> No.10489095

>>10483632
You don't see the irony in that you're bragging on the internet about your intelligence in a similar manner as your coworker bragged about her sons intelligence?

>> No.10489677

I have a high IQ and I'm a schizo that thinks himself a genius. But in fact I'm a ultra underachiever guy irl. My excuse is that I never tried nothing really hard, which is true. I blame my depression, but maybe I'm actually dumb. And I already did many stupid things.

>> No.10490682

>>10481691
It's a loose measure of ability.
People with a higher IQ are more likely to be smart, but people with an average IQ aren't necessarily dumber than a person with a higher IQ, even if they have the exact same knowledge.

>> No.10491071

>>10488427
>seething this hard
why would i spend hours crafting a 20 page thesis in response to a brainlet 1 line post? would anyone even read it?
to answer your specific question:
the main point of that paragraph is the leftists who oppose his worldview (which he has presupposed is aligned with "reality") aren't cool-headed logicians: they're emotional, hungry for power, hostile, etc.
this is textbook sophistry. notice that he's not entertaining their substantive evidence or arguments, instead preferring to make blind assumptions (that you can't disprove) about their ulterior motives.
so the poster earlier pointed out that the schizo's argument doesn't ever truly get refuted.
my counterpoint is that the schizo's argument is built from fallacies and unfalsifiable assumptions designed to be irrefutable, so it's meaningless.

>> No.10491947

>>10481691
You mean the largest or the smaller ones. Why should we care about anyones iq but the one who has the highest iq. I would assume they would know about iq more than everyone else who knows less.

>> No.10491952

>>10481691
Sorry I just saw your picture and thought you were someone else

>> No.10492026

>>10489677
I have a very high tested IQ, and I had a good thing going with my former job. Not great, but good. Somehow I managed to become a major fuck up. Like, I hit rock bottom and kept digging.
I was blessed with high IQ, but the toll came im the form of bad parenting. Parenting makes all the difference.

>> No.10492178

>>10481691
its an atempt to generalize and measure the capacity to solve problems. it takes in account the most basic capacities a person use to solve problems like : logic and memory. other sorts of tests also linked to intelligence exists to solve social problems but normally no one cares about those.

>> No.10492238

>>10490682
>but people with an average IQ aren't necessarily dumber than a person with a higher IQ,
they literally are though

>> No.10492908

>>10481691
keep in mind IQ test teat fof other various intelligence. memory, attention, math, spatial reasoning, verbal.

you could be a 130 IQ but have absolutely shitty memory and attention (which generally is indicative that you have ADHD) or shitty verbal intelligence because you have verbal dyslexia

>> No.10492916

>>10481691
I realized iq was a scam when I saw how much of a brainlet langan was

>> No.10494323

ITT: Buthhurt brainlets