Is IQ a valid measure of human intelligence?

[Ex-User (14663)]

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)

You're creating too many imaginary obstacles for yourself.

The first method people use to self-handicap is when they make a task harder for themselves in fear of not successfully completing that task, so that if they do in fact fail, they can simply place the blame on the obstacles rather than placing the blame on themselves.
[...]
The second way that people self-handicap is by coming up with justifications for their potential failures, so that if they do not succeed in the task, they can point to their excuses as the reasons for their failures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-handicapping

 

[HDINTP]

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)

Ahh. How do you live with that. How do you compensate?

It would frustrate me greatly since that is an ability I value the most...

However I admire you greatly for that...

 

[Happy]

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)

Haha I think most of the reason you have trouble designing AI is because it's a fucking ridiculously complex endeavour. You probably need to work on the problem as a part of a team because with your 'deficiencies' (read: untapped gifts) you would provide an entirely new perspective to the problem.

As someone with a reasonably high functioning brain, I can tell you that as far as I know, nobody can see anything inside their head. Hopefully that eases you anxiety about it.

 

[Cogitant]

-Animekitty
I haven't said this before, but I've read your posts and find your perspectives refreshing and always different. I appreciate you sharing your unrestrained spin on reality.

-Ahtu

<--This, this was the most accurate, comprehensive, objective and informative reply I've yet come across...

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...

Oh my, I just read this. Appreciate your feedback.
It's just my opinion, however, and no more valid than any others.

​

 

[Turnevies]

I just encountered a link http://polymatharchives.blogspot.be/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html, according to which yes, IQ is a valid measure of intelligence, but from when you start approaching 140, you 're getting screwed because people won't understand you and society isn't built for you.

 

[Cogitant]

I just encountered a link http://polymatharchives.blogspot.be/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html, according to which yes, IQ is a valid measure of intelligence...

'IQ' is a valid measurement from a modern, Western perspective, yes.
It has many applications.

But from when you start approaching 140, you 're getting screwed because people won't understand you and society isn't built for you.

-I suppose that is why some of us are here now on this website.

+From that PoV, one could regard (x/200) x>/=140 perhaps as a social disability (although some have clearly turned it to their advantage)

 

[Happy]

The ones that survive the imprisonment that is the education system (where they don't belong) - they'll be fine. Until then though, life will be hard, and many won't make it.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I just encountered a link http://polymatharchives.blogspot.be/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html, according to which yes, IQ is a valid measure of intelligence, but from when you start approaching 140, you 're getting screwed because people won't understand you and society isn't built for you.

Oh god.. that article is exactly the sort of stuff I'd expect to be written by IQ aficionados.

What they did in the article is to find that the mean and standard deviation of the IQ in elite professions are about 125 and 7 respectively, and then they divided the density of that distribution by the population distribution (mean 100 and standard deviation 15), and say:

we can calculate the relative probability that a person of any given IQ will enter and remain in an intellectually elite profession. We find that the probability increases to about 133 and then begins to fall. By 140 it has fallen by about 1/3 and by 150 it has fallen by about 97%.

This is definitely the dumbest thing I have seen in quite some time. Of course, when the variance in IQ among the general population is bigger than IQs in elite professions, then the ratio they are talking about will always look like this:

[bimgx=350]https://intpforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2922&d=1497716887[/bimgx]

Oh look, it's decreasing up to some place "around 133" (actually 131.96) and then decreasing!

You can decrease the mean population IQ to 10 and get a similar result (the peak will be at 157 instead). And also, it's no surprise that higher-level positions will have a smaller variance in IQ, because they clearly exclude people with IQ 80 and stuff like that. In fact, the standard deviation of IQ in the part of population with IQ > 120 is about 6.13.

I don't know if these people are just full of shit on purpose, or if they are just clueless about what they are doing.

 

[Black Rose]

the average person in elite professional jobs will peak at IQ 133 so let's say x people at 133 are elite professionals. 1/3(x) of people at 140 will be elite professionals. and 3/100(x) of people at IQ 150 will be elite professionals.

The point is that people with super high IQ are less likely to be in jobs requiring high intellect because they are socially inept. only 3 out of 100 people with IQs of 150 will have a job as an elite professional in comparison to a person with an IQ of 133. If your IQ is 133 you are 30 times more likely to have a job in an elite profession than a person who is 150 IQ.

That was my understanding of the article.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

the average person in elite professional jobs will peak at IQ 133 so let's say x people at 133 are elite professionals. 1/3(x) of people at 140 will be elite professionals. and 3/100(x) of people at IQ 150 will be elite professionals.

The point is that people with super high IQ are less likely to be in jobs requiring high intellect because they are socially inept. only 3 out of 100 people with IQs of 150 will have a job as an elite professional in comparison to a person with an IQ of 133. If your IQ is 133 you are 30 times more likely to have a job in an elite profession than a person who is 150 IQ.

That was my understanding of the article.

Well, that's the interpretation, but the way they arrived at those figures makes no sense.

What they should look at is the quantiles of IQs in the samples. As they write, in a sample of 80 medical students there was someone with an IQ of 149! If you pick 80 random people from the general population, the chance of seeing someone with IQ of 149 is about 4%. This just shows that medical studies attract very high IQs – i.e. the opposite of what the article argues.

 

[Black Rose]

The article was about the isolation people with really high IQ's experience.

Assortative mating, in humans includes a strong tendency to choose a spouse who is in the same IQ range. At a maximum, IQ difference cannot exceed Hollingworth's 30 points and preferentially should be within Simonton's 20 points. For the 100 IQ person 80-120 IQ contains about 80% of the population and not much thought about intelligence is neccesary when choosing a mate. However, the 150 D15IQ percent will find that less than 0.4% of prospective mates are in the proper intellectual range. Because of this, IQ becomes a significant limitation on mate selection.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I'd agree with the social-isolation part of the article, but their attempts at doing math are comically misguided.

 

[Minute Squirrel]

IQ is the best measurement we have for intelligence so far. It is definitely some what valid. I suppose it depends on what you call intelligence and how you define it.

I think the better question would be if intelligence is a valid measure of human worth.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

IQ is the best measurement we have for intelligence so far. It is definitely some what valid. I suppose it depends on what you call intelligence and how you define it.

I think the better question would be if intelligence is a valid measure of human worth.

I guess an even more fundamental question is whether intelligence is something that only exists in terms of specific effects (career/academic achievement, how fast you can do mental calculations, etc), or whether it is in fact some general and universal property of things. Like, if aliens landed on earth, would it make sense to compare their IQ to ours.

 

[Auburn]

^ It's far less abstract or philosophical, guys.

Whenever an ambiguous term like "intelligence" gets thrown around, suddenly people act as if it's something we can't define or that is wishy-washy. That's not the concern of IQ.

If you want to debate the more philosophical definition of intelligence, fine, but don't conflate that with IQ being equally ambiguous in its definition as you are. IQ uses a very straightforward definition for its "intelligence" -- which may or may not be your laymen use of the word but it is properly defined nonetheless.

As I mentioned earlier, IQ essentially tests a kind of mental bandwidth. Think of it like teraflops:

Estimates say the human brain operates at about 1,000 teraflops or 1 exaflop, which is 100 times more than the best supercomputers atm.

But for example in the future an A.I. superintelligence may have an IQ of over 1,000 if their ability to process floating point operations increases beyond ours. What that means is they can think, process, hypothesize, mentally simulate (etc) things at far greater speeds and capacities than present humans can.

By that measure, it would be entirely possible to measure our IQ versus that of an alien species. Most likely theirs will be far higher than ours presently is.

~~~~

What causes some people to have more efficient cognitive processing than others is unknown, though signs point to biology. But what is verifiable is that there are indeed differences in the efficiency of people's cognitive processing of multi-variable problems.

And the more efficiency in processing they have, the more things they can (at least mentally) "do." How that translates into practical, real world success is a more complicated matter. Intellectuals have had it bad in certain periods of world history, other times it's better for them, depending on the social value places on those qualities.

The question of human worth is an ethical one, while the question of IQ is an more objective one. I agree that IQ =/= success, but it measures what it measures.

 

[Minute Squirrel]

^ It's far less abstract or philosophical, guys.

Whenever an ambiguous term like "intelligence" gets thrown around, suddenly people act as if it's something we can't define or that is wishy-washy. That's not the concern of IQ.

If you want to debate the more philosophical definition of intelligence, fine, but don't conflate that with IQ being equally ambiguous in its definition as you are. IQ uses a very straightforward definition for its "intelligence" -- which may or may not be your laymen use of the word but it is properly defined nonetheless.

As I mentioned earlier, IQ essentially tests a kind of mental bandwidth. Think of it like teraflops:

Estimates say the human brain operates at about 1,000 teraflops or 1 exaflop, which is 100 times more than the best supercomputers atm.

But for example in the future an A.I. superintelligence may have an IQ of over 1,000 if their ability to process floating point operations increases beyond ours. What that means is they can think, process, hypothesize, mentally simulate (etc) things at far greater speeds and capacities than present humans can.

By that measure, it would be entirely possible to measure our IQ versus that of an alien species. Most likely theirs will be far higher than ours presently is.

~~~~

What causes some people to have more efficient cognitive processing than others is unknown, though signs point to biology. But what is verifiable is that there are indeed differences in the efficiency of people's cognitive processing of multi-variable problems.

And the more efficiency in processing they have, the more things they can (at least mentally) "do." How that translates into practical, real world success is a more complicated matter. Intellectuals have had it bad in certain periods of world history, other times it's better for them, depending on the social value places on those qualities.

The question of human worth is an ethical one, while the question of IQ is an more objective one. I agree that IQ =/= success, but it measures what it measures.

Sure, but what I was saying was that if ones definition of intelligence differs from IQ then it wouldn't be considered valid to that person.

Unless of course you weren't actually refrencing me in which case you should just ignore this.

 

[Black Rose]

Can anyone see this video?
I am having trouble seeing videos on the forum.

Aphantasia: A life without mental images
​

https://youtu.be/Rp6TfNXbJ4M

 

[washti]

sorry but no I cant see any videos on forum

 

[HDINTP]

Can anyone see this video?
I am having trouble seeing videos on the forum.

Aphantasia: A life without mental images
​

https://youtu.be/Rp6TfNXbJ4M

No but it worked a few days ago then stopped

 

[ZenRaiden]

IQ stands for intelligence quotient. It doesnt stand for human intelligence. Human intelligence goes beyond what IQ measures. But IQ does measure a very important aspect of human cognition.

 

[Black Rose]

My new blog post

In the brain when pathways fold back into themselves then that is how thinking occurs. It is like I said with some people being able to handle huge amounts of information. If the pathways loop into themselves then signals can recursively generate new information. The Manga Naruto has over 76 volumes. The author had to create an entire universe history with dozens of characters and also to draw them. Such creativity is internal feedback. The more signals that can be directed the smarter you are. Mental manipulation happens because of directing signals into a work space keeping track of multiple items. It is like juggling. Many objects are tracked at the same time. So this means loops keep everything in mind. Refreshing the memory to store the information. Getting the information to be directed to the right areas of the brain so as different areas work together, the information is transformed simply by sending the signals received from perception into association areas to know what will happen if items are manipulated in certain ways. Much like Ram in computer stores data, rearranges it, then produces a result. The brain does this by pathways. And learning is simply changing the direction of those pathways. The pathways determine creativity (internal folding feedback) and how much information can be manipulated, almost like a powerful computer. The complexity of the wires directing the signals determines intelligence. Your intelligence is determined by how information flows in your brain and your ability to learn by changing the direction of how it flows.