Is IQ a valid measure of human intelligence?

[Ex-User (14663)]

The proponents suggest it is valid because you can predict certain things with it, like "success".

Others say it's a very limited metric which measures only a certain kind of intelligence.

Perhaps an objection to its justification as a predictor of success is that there are loads of such predictors – one still needs to explain what it has to do with human intelligence (unless you define intelligence as career success).

Discuss.

 

[NothingReallyBlue]

I look at it as a brains processing power. It's useful for what it is but it's only one measure of the mind.

 

[Black Rose]

It measures the amount of information and patterns that you can handle.
It does not measure creativity nor metacognition nor rationality, nor personality.

 

[Rixus]

I think it's valid in measuring the aspects of intelligence it measures. But intelligence as a general concept is far more complicated. I have a fairly high IQ, but then my success is fairly poor compared to many others of similar or even lower IQ. Mainly because I lack in social intelligence and basically I'm quite lazy and disorganised in many regards. And really it's mostly because my pattern recognition is way above average, which allows me to understand concepts that many others find difficult. I think that might even have more to do with my intuitive style of thinking rather than actual general intelligence. Despite that, I also find my tested IQ is limited because my processing speed seems to be lower than my processing power. I can figure almost anything out given time, but find others can calculate basic sums faster.

That said, it has been an observation that those of generally higher IQ's are generally hold more well thought out opinions and actions, whereas those of greatly lower IQ's tend to be easily duped, hold narrow opinions and do things that I would generally term very stupid, failing to understand what to me are basic concepts. I've also had to learn to reduce my vocabulary in conversant as I find the lower IQ populace tend to tell me I'm "talking shit" or "just tryna be posh, now" whenever I use big long words that they don't understand.

I think we have also ascertained that IQ is perfectly valid substitute for penis size amongst any NT type.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

To me, there is a fraudulent component to the claim that IQ measures intelligence. It's almost like a mind trick: you find some variable that is a statistical predictor of certain things like work/academic success, and just by virtue of this predictor being "brainy" in some respect (e.g. involving looking at lines and triangles and whatnot), one therefore proclaims: we have this brainy thing that predicts success, therefore this thing measures intelligence! That "therefore" is the fraud, because we can take any predictor, say, your parents' education level, and attach some narrative to that, like "you parents' education level predicts your success, therefore your parents' education level measures the human spirit" or some nonsense like that.

It's just one of millions of arbitrary predictors, each of which can be assigned fake narratives about what it measures. The question of why IQ can be said to measure intelligence as opposed to your ability to solve IQ-tests still remains.

 

[Reluctantly]

I think it's like this

If you have high IQ, you want to say yes because it validates your ego.
If you have low IQ, you want to say no because it validates your ego.
If you are in between, you want to say yes and no because it validates your ego.
If you have a small ego, you don't see its value at all.

maybe

 

[Black Rose]

I think it's like this

If you have high IQ, you want to say yes because it validates your ego.
If you have low IQ, you want to say no because it validates your ego.
If you are in between, you want to say yes and no because it validates your ego.
If you have a small ego, you don't see its value at all.

maybe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence

 

[Hadoblado]

Face validity: Yep
Content validity: Yes, but limited to particular facets of intelligence
Predictive validity: Yes
Concurrent validity: Yes
Convergent validity: Yes
Discriminant validity: Not sure

I think Reluctantly touches on a good point (though if it were that simple, we could replace IQ testing with your answer to the OP). The discussion of IQ is tainted by human agenda. People seem heavily invested in it either being the ladder by which they can compare themselves to others, or it being meaningless posturing.

You know those nasty 'baldness cure' or 'penis enlargement' ads you find all over the internet? Well the IQ test ones are there right along side them. That's because they tap into a fundamental insecurity.

The truth is that it had a lot of validity, but only within the limited context that it applies to. There are also other predictors that might be better. Last time I heard, EQ was better at predicting overall job success, though IQ was more predictive given sufficiently complicated job requirements.

 

[Auburn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reGfwtpmRjU

 

[Black Rose]

IQ, The Harsh Truth! - Jordan Peterson & Sam Harris

IQ 87 - 93: Custodian

I had this job cleaning building on a military base for 2 years. I was so unhappy. I have a mental illness and this lowers my IQ but still, if I was not mentally ill my IQ would be at least 120. Hopefully, the lithium and anxiety medication I am taking now will make me feel better. I wish I could go back to school. I miss school. I have too much stress in my life. I am glad I at least have the internet. I am on SSDI.

 

[Happy]

In my opinion, IQ is given far too much credence. There are too many variables (for example, AK's post above) for it to hold any truly significant measure of intellectual ability.

What irks me most about it though is that it's given an absolute numeric score. That's a crock of shit, because intelligence is fundamentally dynamic. It can't realistically be measured with a static score - that's ridiculous, as there are just too many variables. For instance, the processing power of our brains is dependent on numerous factors such as our diet, our sleep habits, our thought habits, our opportunities, etc. As such there is no way that the results of an IQ test can be a valid measure of human intelligence...

The truth is that it had a lot of validity, but only within the limited context that it applies to. There are also other predictors that might be better. Last time I heard, EQ was better at predicting overall job success, though IQ was more predictive given sufficiently complicated job requirements.

This sounds about right.

 

[redbaron]

IQ is a measure of independent potential.

EQ is a measure of cooperative potential.

Since the world is grossly overpopulated, EQ is better now. Being a parasite isn't just a valid career and life choice, it's actually more successful too.

 

[Minuend]

Intelligence is more of a spectrum, IQ tests only measure a small fraction of that spectrum. If most people have approximately even abilities across their spectrum, then IQ tests might be indicative of the person's general abilities to a certain degree. But its accuracy is probably somewhat shaky, as you're dependent on the individual to be strong on the areas IQ tests measure and have an even cognitive profile. You do have WAIS type tests that measure more than one thing, but I still think it's incomplete. Not only because of the tests themselves, but because they are dependent on being good at translating the language they are presented in (whether it be symbols, language, numbers) to thought, so to speak. But then, you might argue it comes down to the definition of intelligence. If you define intelligent as being good at IQ tests, then that validates IQ tests

I don't get the impression high intelligence is highly valued around here, though. Maybe it's partly because of janteloven. It might also depend on your social circle, I guess. People are more concerned about you being a likeable person, than a smart one. I even read a few people being skeptical about hiring people with all As from uni, because they thought that person would either be a bit weird (for putting so much effort in) or they risked getting someone high on themselves

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reGfwtpmRjU

The Jordan Peterson guy doesn't understand the difference between statistical models and scientific theories.

 

[Auburn]

@Serac - So far as I know, insofar as statistical models are scientific, IQ is among the most consistent/robust discoveries in the social sciences. That's what Peterson is saying. One could argue statistical models in general are not scientific, but that's a methodological debate you'd have to have for more axiomatic reasons. Not because IQ's efficacy is in question. And indeed you'd have to contend with many other statistical facts that underpin our economic theory, and a slew of other domains.

I used to think like you guys ^
That IQ was probably bullshit because intuitively:

a) "we can't possibly measure human intelligence with just one factor"
b) "there are all sorts of intelligences and people are better at some"
c) "life, upbringing, diet, education, probably all play a major part in it"
c) "we don't need a world where we discriminate based on intelligence anyway"
d) "we should strive to be better individuals but not by comparing dicks..er..brains"

But these very intuitive first impressions of IQ are really off-mark. First of all, yes, IQ tests one specific factor, which is one's capacity to hold multiple variables abstracted in mind at once, without losing any of them. But this single, specific factor is positively predictive of a great number of practical life situations.

And it's also true that having a high degree of this specific factor allows you to be a more effective problem solver across a wide range of skills and situations. IQ is general in the sense that it affects everything else about you. You may have musical, social or emotional talent -- or all sorts of other intelligences. But your capacity to perform in all of those is affected by IQ. You can imagine IQ as your computer's processor. And better processors allow for better overall system processing/interpreting of information.

And yes, it shows up even when accounting for education, lifepath, diet, etc. Again one of the reasons it's so robust is because controlling for variables doesn't affect it's manifestation.

The problems with IQ are mostly because the ideas it brings out are socially unpopular.

o) It seems discriminatory
o) It violates the egalitarian ideal
o) Hence it seems unethical

We don't want to believe in a world where it may be true that a single number/measure can positively identify so much about a person's life potential or limits. Another reason may be that people associate intelligence to "worth" - and so ethically it totally violates things to consider people's worth to be dependent on a number like this.

But it's perfectly possible to acknowledge the reality IQ aims to point out, without conflating it with the "general value of a human being". One just has to reconfigure their ethical framework that way. But it doesn't make sense to deny the "fact" of IQ because it ethically doesn't jive with one's framework.

 

[Minuend]

"I used to think like you guys".

That's interesting, because I'd say the same thing about you, Auburn.

I've met a lot of clever people throughout the years, quite a few from this site. I can honestly tell there are people I've met that are highly intelligent, but that score lower on IQ tests than they "should". I think its patronizing to think our opinions are from a wishing bias and nothing else, regardless.

 

[Rixus]

I think one of the problems with that, though, is that people's IQ scores are so often exaggerated, or at least the expectations of them, that we forget what clever actually is. Someone will say, "mine's only 120, so I'm really that smart." And forget that that's actually in the top 10% of rated IQ's, which is very high really. Anything over about 130 puts you in the top 2%, which is absurdly high. 110 is not stupid, it's actually quite above average. Remember that most tests stop at 150, so any results higher than that are usually bogus. We live in a world now where kids are feeling like they've failed if they don't get A's or at least B's in school - so I think our expectations of intelligence are askew. Find me someone with an IQ of 80 who you define as intelligent. We're also comparing moral development and wisdom with intelligence, both of which are not categorically linked.

I find it to be general rule that people with higher IQ's are smarter, but placing a direct number as a predictor for success in any subject is simply and logically ridiculous. It works as a general truth, just not an absolute one. I don't believe it measures all of your talents - I know there are people with lower IQ's than me who are better at certain things. Sometimes many things.

There are some exceptions - like Trump supposedly having an IQ of over 150. Either that's not true, or a serious aberration as I haven't witnessed any indication of intelligence and my only explanation for his success is that he made a deal with a cross roads demon or something. His policies just don't show any ability to comprehend the consequences of actions, which goes against the concept of intelligence to me, even by Auburn's definition of processing multiple concepts simultaneously. Not even in a moral sense, but a logical one.

 

[Minuend]

What sources claim Trump have an IQ of 150+?

I'm sorry but I have a difficult time seeing how anybody could believe that. Well, except those who hardcore believe in him ofc

 

[Rixus]

I'll retract Donald Trump's IQ as I did my own worst bugbear - I read it on a few news stories back during the election and didn't research it all that deeply. It turns out the assumption was because he graduated from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1968, with a Bachelor of Science degree in economics and anthropology, when SAT entrance requirements were 1500, at the time this would equate to an IQ of 145 or more, and a certain news article claimed this would be 156. But it turned out he didn't enter as a Freshman but transferred there later on. Still, graduating from such a degree at least proves he can't be as stupid as he seems. Or shouldn't be, anyway. Still I don't have a reasonable explanation for how he graduated from any university.

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trumps-intelligence-quotient/

I'll also add - while I think IQ is a valid measurement, it's but one tool in a box. Even if you metaphorically compare it to a brain's CPU - I had a new PC in work that had an decent I5 and only 4gb of RAM (the IT guy made a mistake when building it), and it ran like crap until he replaced the chips with 2x4gb chips. Or, replace a HDD with an SSD and watch the difference.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

@Serac - So far as I know, insofar as statistical models are scientific, IQ is among the most consistent/robust discoveries in the social sciences. That's what Peterson is saying. One could argue statistical models in general are not scientific, but that's a methodological debate you'd have to have for more axiomatic reasons. Not because IQ's efficacy is in question. And indeed you'd have to contend with many other statistical facts that underpin our economic theory, and a slew of other domains.

As I mentioned earlier, finding a predictive variable is not the same as finding a scientific explanation of the underlying process. For example, I am sure one's ability to solve Sudoku puzzles has some predictive power of achievement in life. Does Sudoku then give you a scientific theory of human intelligence? Perhaps we can fit some elaborate narrative to that result, saying that somehow all human endeavor hinges to some degree on your ability to solve Sudoku puzzles.

And it's also true that having a high degree of this specific factor allows you to be a more effective problem solver across a wide range of skills and situations. IQ is general in the sense that it affects everything else about you. You may have musical, social or emotional talent -- or all sorts of other intelligences. But your capacity to perform in all of those is affected by IQ. You can imagine IQ as your computer's processor. And better processors allow for better overall system processing/interpreting of information.

And yes, it shows up even when accounting for education, lifepath, diet, etc. Again one of the reasons it's so robust is because controlling for variables doesn't affect it's manifestation.

There has never been a controlled experiment with IQ – simply because it's impossible to administer such an experiment. You can say "we have controlled for this and that", which doesn't prove anything unless you have controlled for all possible variables, and done this in a fashion which is not limited to linear regression (the only method I have seen being used in this context). At any point there could surface a new variable which flips the relationship between success and IQ. Just off the top of my head – what if just one's ability to face challenge is a much better predictor, and that people with high IQ but low ability to face challenge are less successful than people with low-IQ but high ability to face challenge? That's just one possible extension of the regression from an infinite pool of them.

The problems with IQ are mostly because the ideas it brings out are socially unpopular.

o) It seems discriminatory
o) It violates the egalitarian ideal
o) Hence it seems unethical

I have nothing against the notion that some people are inherently more intelligent than others. It's just that IQ is a dumb concept.

 

[Minuend]

I have nothing against the notion that some people are inherently more intelligent than others. It's just that IQ is a dumb concept.

The fact that you felt you needed to state that tells us something about the biases underlying this discussion. Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming you. I'm just saying this topic isn't as cut and clean as would seem.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

The fact that you felt you needed to state that tells us something about the biases underlying this discussion. Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming you. I'm just saying this topic isn't as cut and clean as would seem.

Biases? It's just a discussion with various opinions.

 

[Minuend]

Biases? It's just a discussion with various opinions.

Ofc, no biases Just objective truth

(edit: we're all biased fucks)

There are definitely biases, but it's the reasoning behind the bias that matters.

I'm editing this into my previous post so I hopefully wont get too off topic.

Yes, you are right. The reasoning matters. That was what I was trying to comment on.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Ofc, no biases Just objective truth

(edit: we're all biased fucks)

There are definitely biases, but it's the reasoning behind the bias that matters.

 

[Auburn]

@serac - right. Well, establishing the "reality" of the statistic is the first step to trying to identify the root cause. From what I've read, IQ appears to be largely genetically determined. Roughly a factor of 0.5 - 0.8.

This places natural differences in brain chemistry, neural connections, etc, as likely candidates for its constitution.

Right, being good at Sudoku wouldn't be the root cause of this obviously. The IQ tests themselves are only psychometrics aimed to quickly/reliably identify that underlying phenomenon. But the phenomenon is there as "g-intelligence"

 

[Hadoblado]

There has never been a controlled experiment with IQ – simply because it's impossible to administer such an experiment. You can say "we have controlled for this and that", which doesn't prove anything unless you have controlled for all possible variables, and done this in a fashion which is not limited to linear regression (the only method I have seen being used in this context). At any point there could surface a new variable which flips the relationship between success and IQ. Just off the top of my head – what if just one's ability to face challenge is a much better predictor, and that people with high IQ but low ability to face challenge are less successful than people with low-IQ but high ability to face challenge? That's just one possible extension of the regression from an infinite pool of them.

I don't really understand your point. We don't necessarily have the perfect construct (definitely not). But why does it matter if technically it could be improved upon, or if there could be other predictors that are better?

IQ is among the best we have thus far. If it turns out resilience to challenge is a better predictor of some things, then that will just be added to the model. Can IQ + challenge resilience create a better predictive model than either alone? That would be great. Nobody's world view would come crashing down.

 

[Black Rose]

I took an IQ test in Nov 2015 and I have been researching them to understand what it measures. What I have come up with is that intelligence is and internal feedback loop that works in three stages. (perception, simulation, and decision). Not only is intelligence about the number of things you can mentally manipulate but also about what you can create in your head. My weakness is perception. I can only draw stick figures, but I have strong abstract language abilities. Now that I am on lithium my mood has stabilized and my perception is better. My visual awareness is increasing and I have better motor control. I scored 1471 on the SAT but I dropped out of college because of emotional problems. Emotional problems are the biggest reason high IQ people are unsuccessful. IQ is not a measure of success though it is a correlated. What it is, is an awareness of options, awareness of ways to achieve goals. IQ is not a measure of motivation. The fundamental mechanism of IQ is error detection. Detecting what works and what does not work and assigning emotional value to the quality of solutions. Statistical sampling of what a person can do is ranked based on how far they can abstract a solution. My eyes are slow so that is why I scored 86 on processing speed. The fastest path to increasing IQ is detached observation and emotional / motor control. And to become aware of internalized feedback loops.

Processing speed

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I don't really understand your point. We don't necessarily have the perfect construct (definitely not). But why does it matter if technically it could be improved upon, or if there could be other predictors that are better?

IQ is among the best we have thus far. If it turns out resilience to challenge is a better predictor of some things, then that will just be added to the model. Can IQ + challenge resilience create a better predictive model than either alone? That would be great. Nobody's world view would come crashing down.

It could easily happen that many people's world view would come crashing down. If, let's say, for some reason this challenge variable tends to be positively correlated with IQ scores, then it might happen that when you add challenge to the model, the prediction model will not be challenge + IQ, but just challenge, or worse yet challenge minus IQ, i.e. a negative relationship between success and IQ.

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay but is that a technical possibility that conveniently allows you to preserve your view, or a practical concern?

Are you aware of whether these variables have been measured in the same model or not? Or are you just talking about the possibility of there being such a variable?

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Okay but is that a technical possibility that conveniently allows you to preserve your view, or a practical concern?

Are you aware of whether these variables have been measured in the same model or not? Or are you just talking about the possibility of there being such a variable?

It's a highly pervasive phenomenon in statistical inference. It's extremely easy to find data sets just about anywhere that exhibits such behavior. I experience it on a daily basis – you make some model with a predictor and it looks good. Then you add another one and it destroys the previous relationship completely.

I have no clue whether that particular variable has been tested. As mentioned, it was just something off the top of my head.

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay, but do you think it's a relevant criticism? IQ after all, has been the focus of a very large body of research.

What I'm asking is, if we have no reason to believe such a variable exists, and we've spent a lot of time looking for one, why is it factoring into your assessment?

 

[Cogitant]

I'd say no.

'IQ' is a valid measure of how well an individual can complete IQ tests.
Also, if an individual so desired, they could learn the technique to excel in them.

'IQ' is not fixed. A person's 'IQ' could fluctuate for many reasons.
'IQ' tests vary in content and format. There is no standard test.

'IQ' does not TiC ethnic and socio-economic variables.
If you look at a map of apparent world 'IQ' distribution: https://americaninfomaps.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/5922b-iqscores.png?w=863&h=494
You will notice that there is a direct relationship between areas of relative poverty and 'IQ'.
This is likely because of:

-Education differences
-Cultural differences
-Learning style differences
-(Dare I say) Genetic differences

A consideration:
An African tribesman might be exceptionally skilled at hunting, tracking and generally avoiding death, but his 'IQ' might only register 70 or so. Is that a fair measure?
Could a UK/US man of IQ 130 survive in that same environment with no Western equipment to assist him?

Socio-economic and cultural differences are reflected on a smaller scale within countries/states and even communities.

Major factors include: familial attitude toward learning, class, cultural identity, genetic factors
Minor factors include: Health, diet, attention span

'IQ' points at social inequality and perhaps 'class' difference.
'IQ' does not even imply success in the traditional sense, nor indeed the potential for success. I'd argue that 'class' background, although related, is far more important in determining that.

I come from a well-educated, middle-class family, who put a strong emphasis on intelligence and education.
Likely as consequence of that background, my apparent 'IQ' tests perhaps somewhere in the ??th percentile, but that factoid says nothing about my life, only that maybe I ought to be in a higher income bracket (if only I actually cared as much as my INTJ brother and didn't have social anxiety issues).

Speaking of my brother, we have a shared interest in genetics, and he has been tracing our bloodline. Turns out our Y-DNA haplogroup is I1.

Just for the purpose of curiosity, to whet your interest in the subject, here's an article entitled, 'Haplogroups as Evolutionary Markers of Cognitive Ability':
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7f96/50ed07fb419fc6b2a0de80417ae12e5bcc82.pdf

-Bear in mind that Cognitive Ability is measured using a modern Western system based on modern Western values and cultural differences.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

i think IQ measures 'learned' intelligence, not something innate. it's the reason why the benchmark for average keeps getting pushed higher and higher through the years. because people are getting better at answering standardized tests, not that people are becoming more intelligent

fwiw i never score high on online IQ tests, even in domains that i consider to be my 'strengths' such as spatial judgement, i dont score high...so i could be biased against it

 

[Black Rose]

When I took the test I did in Nov 2015 I could only hold 5 numbers in my head at once. Some people can hold 12 numbers in their head at once. I do believe that intelligence is the amount of information you can handle. So IQ test do measure intelligence is what I believe. Because basically, it measures the majority of types of information people can hold quantitatively in their heads. It is computing power like others have said. Because creativity is a separate word than intelligence, creativity is simply self-generated content. People that make up stories are building up representations of imaginary happenings. People that draw, internally create complex pictures. IQ tests are considered not real measures of intelligence by some because people consider creating information as intelligence not just manipulation of information as intelligence. I am very intelligent because of my abstract understandings but I am not creative in many areas and I have a hard time manipulating things in my head. Increasing my ability to mentally manipulate information would be nice but I do not see how that would be possible. I think mental manipulation is a limited capacity. Part of my development in understanding artificial intelligence deals with mental manipulation.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

-Bear in mind that Cognitive Ability is measured using a modern Western system based on modern Western values and cultural differences.

Exactly. Researchers use IQ as a statistical predictor of various outcomes in a specific environment. If history turned out differently and maybe would require other skills, it might be some other sort of test would be a better predictor of success. Of course, in that scenario too we would have people claiming they are looking into the categorical essence of human intelligence (whatever that even is).

It think it's kinda like this: say you measure the frequency of how often someone laughs and you claim "this is a test that measures happiness". It might very well be predictor of various things, maybe it is genetically conditioned etc etc – but in the end, wtf is "happiness"? It doesn't exist as a categorical concept, it's a synthetic concept conditional on its context.

 

[Cogitant]

Exactly. Researchers use IQ as a statistical predictor of various outcomes in a specific environment. If history turned out differently and maybe would require other skills, it might be some other sort of test would be a better predictor of success. Of course, in that scenario too we would have people claiming they are looking into the categorical essence of human intelligence (whatever that even is).

It think it's kinda like this: say you measure the frequency of how often someone laughs and you claim "this is a test that measures happiness". It might very well be predictor of various things, maybe it is genetically conditioned etc etc – but in the end, wtf is "happiness"? It doesn't exist as a categorical concept, it's a synthetic concept conditional on its context.

Intelligence = Applied logic
Environmental and sociological factors aside, I do not deny that measuring alacrity and accuracy of pattern recognition and the ability to predict the next sequential step in a given series, might be the key to quantifying and interpreting functional 'intelligence'.

While one could argue that there may well be different forms of intelligence, essentially, logic is what binds them all.
Naked logic is very measurable.

Where 'IQ' tests fail, imo, is perhaps in test format, which is biased toward formal education with aspects including vocabulary and mathematical series.
I'd guess that the likely agenda to exert Western academic supremacy means that the tests won't be replaced by a more universal system anytime soon.

-Also, using different versions of IQ tests for different groups of people would be inconsistent, and would generate data which would be incompatible with other sets.

IQ tests, as they are, nevertheless serve purpose for comparative analysis between populations and individuals and are useful to science for this purpose.

For instance, science has looked into correlations between IQ and neuroanatomy:

(Copy-paste intellectual slackerthon incoming)
Intelligence, from a neurobiological perspective, has been linked to:

Grey and White Matter:
'higher intelligence has been associated with larger cortical grey matter in the prefrontal and posterior temporal cortex in adults'

'Similar to grey matter, white matter has been shown to correlate positively with intelligence in humans.
White matter consists mainly of myelinated neuronal axons, responsible for delivering signals between neurons. The pinkish-white colour of white matter is actually a result of these myelin sheaths that electrically insulate neurons that are transmitting signals to other neurons. White matter connects different regions of grey matter in the cerebrum together.These interconnections make transport more seamless and allow us to perform tasks easier. Significant correlations between intelligence and the corpus callosum have been found, as larger callosal areas have been positively correlated with cognitive performance.'

Grey:
https://academic.oup.com/cercor/art...elationships-between-IQ-and-Regional-Cortical
White:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21391229

Cortical thickness
'Has also been found to correlate positively with intelligence in humans. However, the rate of growth of cortical thickness is also related to intelligence. In early childhood, cortical thickness displays a negative correlation with intelligence, while by late childhood this correlation has shifted to a positive one
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3985090/

Cortical Convolution
'Has increased the folding of the brain’s surface over the course of human evolution. It has been hypothesized that the high degree of cortical convolution may be a neurological substrate that supports some of the human brain's most distinctive cognitive abilities. Consequently, individual intelligence within the human species might be modulated by the degree of cortical convolution'

Gyrification of the Human Brain:
http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/unique-gyrification-of-the-human-brain

 

[Hadoblado]

@Serac
There is always infinite possibility. It's not practical to 'play around' everything that could possibly be true. Science should not be blind. Every experiment costs money, time, and expertise.

The way psychological measurement works is you create models you know to be imperfect. If (made up stat), IQ accounted for 40% of occupational success (measured whichever way), then that is a useful thing to know. Objectively. That still leaves 60% of variance unaccounted for, but that's okay, because we understand the limitations of our finding and 'play around' that.

It's not about assuming there are no other factors, or that there is no better variable, and especially not that there is no better model. There always exists the %100 model, it's just too complex for us to ever attain. And that's fine. Being partially wrong is better than being all wrong, or assuming that nothing can ever be right. If you know approximately how wrong you are, you're in a very good position to make use of the information you do have.

It's okay if there are outliers like those mentioned. We can make a different model for billionaires. Most are probably above average (yes, even trump, there has never been a stupid american president and not only did he manage to become president, but his approach was ground-breaking). Actually now I think about it there's likely too much variance for any single factor to predict differences between billionaires...

Even if you don't have a separate model for billionaires, a model that predicts 90% of the population is still useful.

 

[redbaron]

I think the backlash against IQ is because people use what's meant to be a general indicator to context-specific scenarios and end up using it as a basis for the perceived inferiority of others or their own superiority.

It's a great general indicator but it's pretty bad when used in that sort of context. There's so many developmental factors in a person's life that are less publicized (because they don't have a neat rating system) but no less important to success in various contexts.

Which is why I like to think of IQ as one way to measure individual potential and not as a hard indicator. I think that certain tasks or jobs have a threshold where an IQ above a certain amount doesn't confer any extra competence for example, but that only certain people can complete specific highly technical tasks that someone with lower spatial IQ for example, will struggle with.

I also think that certain competencies are very often not cultivated or are focussed on to the exclusion of others because of the highly specialist nature of society. A builder with great spatial skills may not even focus on verbal intelligence beyond a young age because it fast becomes irrelevant to their line of work. Yet builders and construction workers are often among some of the most competent people I know, they just have little care or interest in intellectual pursuits.

Taking it as a hard indicator (as many people do) is misguided and I think that it's often artificially inflated by people who actively end up focussing on those specific parameters that IQ measures, when the reality is that there's many competencies it can't measure or account for - but to a certain group of people, that competency is far more important to their daily lives than anything you'd find on an IQ test.

 

[Hadoblado]

Which is why I like to think of IQ as one way to measure individual potential and not as a hard indicator. I think that certain tasks or jobs have a threshold where an IQ above a certain amount doesn't confer any extra competence for example, but that only certain people can complete specific highly technical tasks that someone with lower spatial IQ for example, will struggle with.

This is supported by the literature.

I also think that certain competencies are very often not cultivated or are focussed on to the exclusion of others because of the highly specialist nature of society. A builder with great spatial skills may not even focus on verbal intelligence beyond a young age because it fast becomes irrelevant to their line of work. Yet builders and construction workers are often among some of the most competent people I know, they just have little care or interest in intellectual pursuits.

Yep. You're not going to top your reaction range for everything as you have finite time and limited environmental exposure. My experience with builders is similar. Except for the methy ones. Those guys frighten me.

The thing about IQ is that it predicts competence, but the variance within a person's capacities is higher than the variance within a person between one capacity and another. IQ is just a representation of ability, judging people's value by IQ is the equivalent of measuring height by taking a ruler to a shadow. Yes a shadow has some predictive value of height, but when you can measure their actual height more directly you're wasting your time. If you've already finished school and you've already got a job, these are much more meaningful predictors of success. So when people get all high and mighty about their IQ while sitting in their mum's basement wetfisting over their unmet potential it makes me kinda sad. High IQ doesn't even allow people to rationally evaluate the merit of their IQ.

 

[Ahtu]

Intelligence = Applied logic
Environmental and sociological factors aside, I do not deny that measuring alacrity and accuracy of pattern recognition and the ability to predict the next sequential step in a given series, might be the key to quantifying and interpreting functional 'intelligence'.

While one could argue that there may well be different forms of intelligence, essentially, logic is what binds them all.
Naked logic is very measurable.

Where 'IQ' tests fail, imo, is perhaps in test format, which is biased toward formal education with aspects including vocabulary and mathematical series.
I'd guess that the likely agenda to exert Western academic supremacy means that the tests won't be replaced by a more universal system anytime soon.

-Also, using different versions of IQ tests for different groups of people would be inconsistent, and would generate data which would be incompatible with other sets.

IQ tests, as they are, nevertheless serve purpose for comparative analysis between populations and individuals and are useful to science for this purpose.

For instance, science has looked into correlations between IQ and neuroanatomy:

(Copy-paste intellectual slackerthon incoming)
Intelligence, from a neurobiological perspective, has been linked to:

Grey and White Matter:
'higher intelligence has been associated with larger cortical grey matter in the prefrontal and posterior temporal cortex in adults'

'Similar to grey matter, white matter has been shown to correlate positively with intelligence in humans.
White matter consists mainly of myelinated neuronal axons, responsible for delivering signals between neurons. The pinkish-white colour of white matter is actually a result of these myelin sheaths that electrically insulate neurons that are transmitting signals to other neurons. White matter connects different regions of grey matter in the cerebrum together.These interconnections make transport more seamless and allow us to perform tasks easier. Significant correlations between intelligence and the corpus callosum have been found, as larger callosal areas have been positively correlated with cognitive performance.'

Grey:
https://academic.oup.com/cercor/art...elationships-between-IQ-and-Regional-Cortical
White:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21391229

Cortical thickness
'Has also been found to correlate positively with intelligence in humans. However, the rate of growth of cortical thickness is also related to intelligence. In early childhood, cortical thickness displays a negative correlation with intelligence, while by late childhood this correlation has shifted to a positive one
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3985090/

Cortical Convolution
'Has increased the folding of the brain’s surface over the course of human evolution. It has been hypothesized that the high degree of cortical convolution may be a neurological substrate that supports some of the human brain's most distinctive cognitive abilities. Consequently, individual intelligence within the human species might be modulated by the degree of cortical convolution'

Gyrification of the Human Brain:
http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/unique-gyrification-of-the-human-brain

<--This, this was the most accurate, comprehensive, objective and informative reply I've yet come across. Thank you for sharing your wisdom. The reading you added was quite interesting aswell. I would however like to point out, that while it does try to measure mental capacity for analytical thinking, it is still rather limited even in this area. It would be foolish to assume we have sufficiently categorized the workings of the minds logical processing skills(sorry I am tired, I havn't slept, I could not come up with a better way to phrase that atm). While the base concept does a decent job of measuring people in this area, it seems to me to be assuming a tad too much(I might try to expand upon this perspective in a later post, if I remember/if someone asks). And so while it still gets overall results, it still judges individuals somewhat unfairly. That said, I do still think those scores matter. Think of it as having the base platform; there is more that matters, but if you do not at least score decently here, then you will not be able to make up for it with the components that are missing.

And no, I do not fit the assumed position here. My scores have fluctuated a bit over the years, from test to test, but never been bad. At 13 I scored 127(in terms of raw intelligence, I suspect I was smarter then, than I am now. But I was far less educated, less experienced, and less philosophically minded. Although I in some ways had greater mental discipline, greater self-control), at 17-18 I scored an average of 136 across 5 tests. And at 21 I tried doing one differently and spend no more than 35 seconds on any question. This was designed to try myself in more a more practical application, one where speed holds the greatest relevance. I ended up dropping all the way down to 124. I have not tested myself in a few years, I suspect I would score slightly lower than I did at 17-18. Mostly due to physical strain, and by extension, minor mental stress. I do however believe that I could still score above 130.

PS. I created this account because I thought you deserved some thanks and recognition. If we do not show appreciation when we are being given relevant information like this as we ask our questions, then when else is there a better reason to show it?

So thank you for giving me something to read that isn't whining, heavily biased studies(agenda driven), or nonsense. I feel like I finally found good nourishment after days of starvation, although it is in fact just years of having to read through so much conviction/belief/faith-based and ill-considered BS.

PPS. I hope this comment doesn't get removed because of my lack diplomatic phrasing. In my humble opinion, it should not be removed for such reasons, as I don't use much foul language(please forgive the use of "BS"). And don't single anyone, -or any other group than humanity itself out.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

To echo Ahtu, I've also been meaning to say how excellent your posts are, Cogitant. I started reading the paper 'Haplogroups as Evolutionary Markers of Cognitive Ability' but haven't had the time to finish it.

 

[Black Rose]

I just read that dorsal and ventral coupling determines to processor speed. Processing speed is the ability to locate and recognize objects. I scored 86 on PS. That means my eye saccades are not as rapid as most people. It takes me longer than most people to locate and recognize objects. I do poorly when I try to play real-time strategy games. I avoid doing fast activities because I cannot keep track of everything.

 

[HDINTP]

I took an IQ test in Nov 2015 and I have been researching them to understand what it measures. What I have come up with is that intelligence is and internal feedback loop that works in three stages. (perception, simulation, and decision). Not only is intelligence about the number of things you can mentally manipulate but also about what you can create in your head. My weakness is perception. I can only draw stick figures, but I have strong abstract language abilities. Now that I am on lithium my mood has stabilized and my perception is better. My visual awareness is increasing and I have better motor control. I scored 1471 on the SAT but I dropped out of college because of emotional problems. Emotional problems are the biggest reason high IQ people are unsuccessful. IQ is not a measure of success though it is a correlated. What it is, is an awareness of options, awareness of ways to achieve goals. IQ is not a measure of motivation. The fundamental mechanism of IQ is error detection. Detecting what works and what does not work and assigning emotional value to the quality of solutions. Statistical sampling of what a person can do is ranked based on how far they can abstract a solution. My eyes are slow so that is why I scored 86 on processing speed. The fastest path to increasing IQ is detached observation and emotional / motor control. And to become aware of internalized feedback loops.

Processing speed

Hmm. My processing speed is also very low. Internally what I work with is really fast but external information well that is hellishly slow

 

[Happy]

Hmm. My processing speed is also very low. Internally what I work with is really fast but external information well that is hellishly slow

Hm interesting. For me it's quite the opposite. If you give me a problem, I'll give you 5 possible solutions on the spot, but if I have to process it internally, that's when things get slowed down (not to say I won't get there, but internal processing is definitely secondary to external and far slower). However, I think I can get to answers very quickly because I rarely come across problems where I haven't at least thought about something similar at least once before.

Perhaps that highlights some difference between INTP and ENTP?

But there could be external factors at play. I'm riddled with brain damage, so there's that. But my IQ, according to some medical records I found the other day, is approx 140, so all that damage can't be holding me back too much (although I do wonder what that figure would be if my early development wasn't so fucked up). So perhaps that's the reason things are slow internally. After all, the doctors did say I would be 'very slow'.

 

[HDINTP]

Hm interesting. For me it's quite the opposite. If you give me a problem, I'll give you 5 possible solutions on the spot, but if I have to process it internally, that's when things get slowed down (not to say I won't get there, but internal processing is definitely secondary to external and far slower). However, I think I can get to answers very quickly because I rarely come across problems where I haven't at least thought about something similar at least once before.

Perhaps that highlights some difference between INTP and ENTP?

But there could be external factors at play. I'm riddled with brain damage, so there's that. But my IQ, according to some medical records I found the other day, is approx 140, so all that damage can't be holding me back too much (although I do wonder what that figure would be if my early development wasn't so fucked up). So perhaps that's the reason things are slow internally. After all, the doctors did say I would be 'very slow'.

It could be after all Ne is your dominant function then...

I relate to "speeding up" the process by accessing old "thought experience".

140 is more than enough I believe. In my case when first tested they seemed to be puzzled since based on my results I was expected to be more stupid than I seemed to be...

And how do you have it with imagination? Again I have something I would describe as problem working with "external space". If I remember correctly it is close to what is called "Egocentric visualization" while allocentric is great. But there are exceptions in both categories for me that's why I used term "external space".

As for imagining some scene it feels like I get lost in my imaginations and then it takes me quite a while when I am "called back". As if I were the one describing the story/ watching the scene yet I can be present there...?

 

[Black Rose]

I am almost devoid of internal cognition.
I have no internal life at all, no imagination.
It is frustrating because I lack mental creativity.
I do not create things in my mind and I'm board allot.
I am unable to entertain myself in my own mind.

 

[Happy]

It could be after all Ne is your dominant function then...

I relate to "speeding up" the process by accessing old "thought experience".

140 is more than enough I believe. In my case when first tested they seemed to be puzzled since based on my results I was expected to be more stupid than I seemed to be...

And how do you have it with imagination? Again I have something I would describe as problem working with "external space". If I remember correctly it is close to what is called "Egocentric visualization" while allocentric is great. But there are exceptions in both categories for me that's why I used term "external space".

As for imagining some scene it feels like I get lost in my imaginations and then it takes me quite a while when I am "called back". As if I were the one describing the story/ watching the scene yet I can be present there...?

Accessing old 'thought experience' is a good analogy. I originally settled on INTP because I would spend around 6 hours a day just sitting on a chair, thinking, requiring no external stimulation. But I'm a definite extrovert and I'm Ne AF. I am glad I spent so much time thinking because I don't get to do that much anymore, but I always have that vast bank of 'thought experience' to reference.

I'm not really sure what you mean when you talk about imagination. But I am definitely a spatial thinker. Geometric shapes are conjured in my mind with no trouble. My pattern recognition skills are highly developed. My mind will connect a few dots and the rest will be intuited, then it'll shoot off to many possibilities. Imagination isn't really a problem for me. I'm a design professional so I kinda use it and develop it more than most. I would like to know what you mean by the question though, because I would like to analyse it. Maybe this thread isn't the right place though...

 

[Haim]

Even if IQ is the best crap we have(not) it is still crap, I will not base my constipation of realty on it, it is like knowing you are using "science" from 1000 years ago, better to ignore it.
By the way it is not science as it is very subjective and statistical based, don't be fooled statistics are worse than lie.

At best it measure one tool you have, and doing it badly as this is a test, unrealistic not useful situation and conditions.
What you do we the tools you have is far more important, there is one computer with less the processing of modern calculator that took us to the moon, other today PC is slow to load a web due to crap browser and viruses and ads in the webpage.

If we freeze time a brain has huge amount of dimensions of data, and it is changing all the time! , limiting it to the one dimensional IQ is not accurate at all, just to write this post I created neural networks with way way more data than 1000 numbers.

 

[Happy]

I am almost devoid of internal cognition.
I have no internal life at all, no imagination.
It is frustrating because I lack mental creativity.
I do not create things in my mind and I'm board allot.
I am unable to entertain myself in my own mind.

Aphantasia? I know someone with this. I find it immensely fascinating.

 

[Black Rose]

Aphantasia? I know someone with this. I find it immensely fascinating.

It has made it tremendously difficult for me to design A.I. because of it.

It is hard to know how the hippocampus works if I cannot see it.

I know that to form new memories it must store signals that are new.

But then how it connects them is hard to see (because I cannot see anything in my head)