The value of IQ

[QuickTwist]

Which is basically the opposite of what you said before.

:/

How is it the opposite? I never claimed that people don't overestimate their abilities. I claimed that people who achieve a lot think of themselves as superior.

 

[redbaron]

How is it the opposite? I never claimed that people don't overestimate their abilities.

There's a word for that.

 

[QuickTwist]

With achievements, you have the same problem: people who achieve much get arrogant and people who achieve little have poor self esteem.

If you are talking about this, than LOL, yeah you really don't understand my position at all. People who act overconfident generally have poor self esteem.

 

[Black Rose]

I think Quick Twist is viewing this as a matter of the warrior. The warrior is skilled and can dominate in anything he gets good at. Thing is that when you are good at something and know you can do it better than others and think you are the shit that only applies to warriors. Diplomats do things in a much different way. They get good at helping people so when they do they don't say I am better at helping others than you are. Instead, they view everyone as valued and so when a person is skilled that skill is something to be proud of. But pride, when channeled in a healthy way, is psychologically beneficial as in self-esteem. People with low self-esteem will be arrogant about their skills but those who are honorable have high self-esteem and their skills benefit others rather than reflect the person's insecurities.

 

[redbaron]

[bimgx=220]http://getintopc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/merriam-webster_dictionary.jpg[/bimgx]

 

[Grayman]

Which is basically the opposite of what you said before.

:/



lmao

He seems to be equating arrogance to one's inherent 'self worth' as opposed to viewing it as a measure of ones abilities. People often tie the two together believing their self worth is greater than someone elses because their abilities/ accomplishments in general are greater.
Quicktwist believes all self worth is equal and therfore belieing that accomplishing more makes you worth more is arrogance.

 

[QuickTwist]

I think Quick Twist is viewing this as a matter of the warrior. The warrior is skilled and can dominate in anything he gets good at. Thing is that when you are good at something and know you can do it better than others and think you are the shit that only applies to warriors. Diplomats do things in a much different way. They get good at helping people so when they do they don't say I am better at helping others than you are. Instead, they view everyone as valued and so when a person is skilled that skill is something to be proud of. But pride, when channeled in a healthy way, is psychologically beneficial as in self-esteem. People with low self-esteem will be arrogant about their skills but those who are honorable have high self-esteem and their skills benefit others rather than reflect the person's insecurities.

Diplomats can be just as arrogant. Being diplomatic - all that means is that you know how to use people to further an agenda.

I am not viewing this through the lens of a warrior. I am viewing this in the view that accomplishing shit boosts your ego. Take any person who has accomplished a lot in their life. They are almost certainly are not going to have poor self esteem. We are no longer talking about IQ, but about what you accomplish, which, yes there is overlap, but its not a correlation coefficient.

 

[QuickTwist]

He seems to be equating arrogance to one's inherent 'self worth' as opposed to viewing it as a measure of ones abilities. People often tie the two together believing their self worth is greater than someone elses because their abilities/ accomplishments in general are greater.
Quicktwist believes all self worth is equal and therfore belieing that accomplishing more makes you worth more is arrogance.

Yes, this.

 

[redbaron]

He seems to be equating arrogance to one's inherent 'self worth' as opposed to viewing it as a measure of ones abilities. People often tie the two together believing their self worth is greater than someone elses because their abilities/ accomplishments in general are greater.
Quicktwist believes all self worth is equal and therfore belieing that accomplishing more makes you worth more is arrogance.

Yeah I get that, but that's stupid for a few reasons. In fact, it might just be stupider than what I thought his initial arguments were.

 

[Black Rose]

Diplomats can be just as arrogant. Being diplomatic - all that means is that you know how to use people to further an agenda.

True and but also I have known diplomats that were selfless and had no agenda other than compassion.

I am not viewing this through the lens of a warrior. I am viewing this in the view that accomplishing shit boosts your ego. Take any person who has accomplished a lot in their life. They are almost certainly are not going to have poor self-esteem. We are no longer talking about IQ, but about what you accomplish, which, yes there is overlap, but it's not a correlation coefficient.

Ego can be boosted but it is also possible that achieving something can lead to ego death because once a person realized they were worth something as a person they realized it was important to be humble.

 

[QuickTwist]

True and but also I have known diplomats that were selfless and had no agenda other than compassion.

Being a diplomat only means you work with people to accomplish something. If someone had those characteristics I would say they are selfless and not really a diplomat. Politicians are diplomats. Everyone is a diplomat in some way. It just means you negotiate with people.

Ego can be boosted but it is also possible that achieving something can lead to ego death because once a person realized they were worth something as a person they realized it was important to be humble.

If that happens to someone, its only because it was laying dormant in them the whole time. Accomplishing said thing was just the catalyst.

 

[AndyC]

I'm gonna go back to the definition: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.

I think the distinction between importance and abilities should clear this mess up.
Importance: "the state or fact of being of great significance or value"
Ability: "talent, skill, or proficiency in a particular area."
If you look closely, the two concepts are quite different.
Or: "used to link alternatives"
If you give it a bunch of thought, you'll notice the or allows us to exclude one concept from another.
For example, in this post, I am portraying arrogance by patronizing you with dialogue and unnecessary elaborations of basic concepts. I am revealing an exaggerated sense of my abilities.
Exaggerated: "My point"
Has the clearing of the mess been successful?

 

[ummidk]

Well if nothing else, the value of threads about IQ is apparent.

 

[crippli]

I'm gonna go back to the definition: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.

I think the distinction between importance and abilities should clear this mess up.
Importance: "the state or fact of being of great significance or value"
Ability: "talent, skill, or proficiency in a particular area."
If you look closely, the two concepts are quite different.
Or: "used to link alternatives"
If you give it a bunch of thought, you'll notice the or allows us to exclude one concept from another.
For example, in this post, I am portraying arrogance by patronizing you with dialogue and unnecessary elaborations of basic concepts. I am revealing an exaggerated sense of my abilities.
Exaggerated: "My point"
Has the clearing of the mess been successful?

Maybe. If I understood that you wrote correctly. Stating your IQ can not be considered arrogant per definition, correct?

 

[AndyC]

Maybe. If I understood that you wrote correctly. Stating your IQ can not be considered arrogant per definition, correct?

The act of doing so given an arrogant intention would reveal their arrogance. So it may be correct given the context that there is no arrogant intention. But as a statement, "Stating your IQ can not be considered arrogant per definition" would be incorrect unless I am misinterpreting what you mean by "per definition".

 

[AndyC]

That post is relevant to the argument between a few users and doesn't directly link to the question at hand.

 

[Black Rose]

The difference between stating facts and exemplifying values.

 

[crippli]

The act of doing so given an arrogant intention would reveal their arrogance. So it may be correct given the context that there is no arrogant intention. But as a statement, "Stating your IQ can not be considered arrogant per definition" would be incorrect unless I am misinterpreting what you mean by "per definition".

To nitpic, the definition you wrote says "own sense". Strictly speaking an IQ test would be others measure. That's what i'm wondering, if external, somewhat objective measure can be considered "exaggerated sense of one's own"?. Rather then just irrelevant if brought up out of context? I'm asking because I think most would consider it arrogant, if brought up, almost regardless of context. I guess it depends on what is meant with "own sense". I read that as more of a feeling not grounded in anything substantial. So maybe depends on validity of IQ score.

 

[Rixus]

I think this argument boils down to two perspectives of the manifestation of the same thing in different ways.

I think it's simply a question semantics as both points are true - Red Baron is absolutely correct about this effect and it's something which we can observe every day. If you use the internet, you will consistently see people who have read the Wikipedia article and/or a single blog post on a subject and belief they know more than someone with a PHD in the field. I have customer's that frequently claim to know more about my job than I do (and I'm sure everyone experiences the same thing), you see "cowboy" builders trying to accomplish jobs that are beyond their abilities and making a dangerous mess of it. The majority of new drivers experience an accident within their first year of driving as they believe their newfound skills mean they do not have to adhere to road safety rules or speed limits and do not pay attention. I see people who have read a few articles on the internet claiming that a diagnosis by a professional doctor is incorrect. I barely go a day without someone informing me they could run the government better than the current administration despite having no knowledge of the complexities of national and international economics. We all see these things regularly and I don't think we can argue that the assertion that it exists and is commonplace is in any way incorrect.

This also slides into unrelated subjects as we see people claiming (in the context of the thread's original premise) that they have a higher IQ and therefore you should concede to their knowledge or understanding of a subject. I recall my stepfather claiming that because he could destroy me in a game of chess he was clearly wiser and smarter and my academic abilities meant nothing. Much like Red Baron, I too have referred to this as arrogance but by the dictionary it is referred to as overconfidence. Personally, I think this is irrelevant because I think the dictionary definition of arrogance is simply another manifestation of the same.

Which leads me into QuickTwist's equally valid point. It sounds to me like he is referring to the tendency of the richer or more successful to believe themselves inherently superior. The example that pops into my head is in Titanic - the 1st class believing they have more right to survive because they are simply better. This is in fact the dictionary definition of arrogance - I just believe that psychologically it is the same thing. Taking ones knowledge that one's expert knowledge or position makes them superior is simply the sliding effect I was talking about. In that case, this belief slides into their general self perception for the same reason.

I think there's also an element of seeing it from the other perspective. It can appear arrogant when someone actually is better at something than you are, and they correct you or discount your opinion because of this. Which is, I suppose, another aspect of it. If you believe yourself superior, why bother listening to these inferior people? But the danger of knowing this is possible is when you wonder - what if they are right because they know more about this and you are the annoying arrogant one claiming to know more than they do? Which is not meant as an insult or anything. It is a possibility we all have to consider in every debate we have.

 

[AndyC]

To nitpic, the definition you wrote says "own sense". Strictly speaking an IQ test would be others measure. That's what i'm wondering, if external, somewhat objective measure can be considered "exaggerated sense of one's own"?. Rather then just irrelevant if brought up out of context? I'm asking because I think most would consider it arrogant, if brought up, almost regardless of context. I guess it depends on what is meant with "own sense". I read that as more of a feeling not grounded in anything substantial. So maybe depends on validity of IQ score.

Yes, you're right, I had a feeling it said that, but couldn't be bothered to check and responded as if otherwise. No, I agree with you in that regard and would have responded with the validity of IQ like you have addressed, sorry about that. Although I think it could do with some clarification. Scratch the validity of IQ, I didn't even bother reading everything you said, who even cares anymore, it's relatively simple so let's move on. One more edit, I suggest waiting a while before reading a post of mine because I will continue to edit it. Yes, it is arrogant to give oneself a higher score than they would get objectively and is seen as arrogant if stated out of context for it could be interpreted as an inflated sense of value. It could also be arrogant to state it if it is insensitive to the feelings and insecurities of those around you.

Rixus has solved the mess by elaborating upon the two distinct concepts of arrogance. Thankyou lord

 

[TheManBeyond]

Yes. Most people I know that have achieved something aren't arrogant about it. I don't even think Architect is arrogant if that's what you're implying.

In fact I'd say that arrogance is more often a trait of the ignorant than the competent.

I don't consider myself an arrogant but when people start analizing my achievements I feel the need to punish them.
The other day at job one coworker who has been hired for relatively little time, still more time than me started questioning my laboral experience just because I said some things about the way I think work should be. I was hoping that they reduce the hours, increase the salary and said smth like I want to work less, everyone does so.
Then he started saying I probably didn't know much about the laboral market, here I fired up and talked all about my 4 last jobs, how much I earnt and what my skills were, about my travels, education, etc.
Anyone who happened to be there at that moment would have thought I was a giant prick.
But no one knew this same guy was acussing me of using autotune in one of my band songs last week.
You see some people are super clairvoyant, and sometimes you need to put order and some limits.
I also have noticed how some people just conform with working a big tv channel, I wonder if it makes them more socially attractive? Certainly I have noticed how everyone want to hear about my job, all my friends are like wow big deal. While I just don't care. As long as I earn enough money. Competition is needed, there has to be smth else out there. Bigger.

But I try to be a humble guy.

 

[Minuend]

WAIS type IQ can be used to map out brain damage and other neurological issues (though, probably to limited accurate degree)

Mensa type IQs. Do they use these to determine if they should advance a child in class or give him more challenges? I guess ideally people should be like "gee, this kid's good at math, let's give him advanced math", but I guess it might not be like that in practice

I guess mensa type IQ can in some cases make it easier for people to find friends and people they get along with. Maybe there's slightly higher chance of finding someone you like being with, as a mensa person, in a mensa group- compared to a random one. Kinda like there might be a higher chance someone scoring intp would get along with another intp rather than someone scoring estj (even when tests are inaccurate). Anyway, if people find some friends, have some fun and don't think mensa = masterrace, then I don't find it problematic.

Intelligence is more of a spectrum than a linear thing, so IQ tests tend not to give an accurate image. For me, when I hear someone's IQ score, I tend to see that together with the person as a whole. It's just one aspect (or one aspect complexitied into several aspects), one that doesn't tell me what I want to know about a person to pass judgment of it.

i think the whole way this topic is treated, and how it relates to self-worth, is yet another symptom of the soulless modern mindset. human beings are treated as machines, and the intellect is lauded above all other functions in the psyche. there is no room for those who don't fit into the system, those who manifest intelligence in unexpected ways. if we're nothing but cogs, then our efficiency is our worth. we are our job title, and earn our existence through occupational achievement.. it's no wonder rates of depression in industrial countries are off the charts! our meaning and worth are defined for us, and only consider the intellect, leaving out the whole rest of the human system.

Yes.

It can be a very direct consequence of how you raise your child. I don't know if you've read about it, but how you praise your child greatly influences how he sees himself. If you tend to praise a child based on how well he does, tell him he's doing well and maybe mentioning how smart he is based on a good result, then he will start associating his result with how smart or dumb he is. So even in a bright kid, when he starts getting challenged and having problems, he will start thinking he's stupid because he's not doing well. In my culture, this is the most common way of raising children, and probably one that leads to young people becoming increasingly depressed and burned out. (I was raised like this and had pretty severe doubts about myself and my worth and intelligence when I got older and had difficulties with academia)

One alternative, is praising effort. If someone does well you don't tell him he's bright, you tell him he must've worked hard and praise that. This makes children more easily cope with challenges without feeling like their self worth and intelligence is questioned. Actually, I think I saw someone claiming studies also makes people handle depression better when they are raised like this. So how you raise your child in something that seems trivial has quite severe consequences

Sorry about the edits, so many faults

 

[Grayman]

Im more humble than you all! IQ discussions are for losers and Im a loser but not because im humble and that means im morally superior but not because im humble.

 

[AndyC]

What does one's value of IQ have to do with morals?

 

[ZenRaiden]

Yep IQ is important. I hear there are countries that forbit using IQ test in interviews for a job. However IQ test can tell you few things. FIrst of all if you can handle information load. THere are jobs where with low IQ you simply cant be good. Many jobs have tests that are in effect just the same as IQ tests in principal, but with a specific slant towards the specialisation. In other words if you are air force pilot you might get a test where they test your cognitive skills, I believe its an IQ test, but they might as well just give you a similar test. Given the tremendous hazards associated with this job its important to know that the person can handle the work load. Lifes are at risk here, not just pilots life.

However because IQ doesnt measure everything an airforce pilot will undergo a huge battery of test in addition to IQ tests, to make sure they will not break down mentally or fail to handle stress.

 

[Rebis]

My IQ is big, you dumb dumb.

 

[peoplesuck]

I long time ago I read a study that followed gifted children and from what the study showed, higher iq doesnt mean more fulfillment or happiness. But they did tend to have more prestigious jobs.
iq matters more if you want to make a bigger impact with less effort. With the right amount of effort and intention I think most things are in everyone s reach

 

[Kormak]

My IQ is big, you dumb dumb.

 

[Rebis]

My IQ is big, you dumb dumb.

View attachment 4588

Yin-yang, all about that balance br0.

 

[scorpiomover]

IQ has been talked about a lot on this forum. I think the way it's talked about is a subversion of the intention behind measures of intelligence, but also does those pursuing objective measures of their intelligence a disservice.

If you think it's important to pursue IQ, can you explain why?

It's a number. Numbers are often useful.

E.G. someone's blood pressure for risk of a heart attack.
Their blood glucose level for risk of a diabetic coma.
Their height for buying clothes.

IQ should be seen as a guide for a person to consider which types of careers the person might enjoy and be good at. Not a hard and fast rule, and certainly subjects should have the right to dispute other people's erroneous beliefs about themself. But in general....people with a 100 IQ would not enjoy being indoors solving 3-dimensional differential equations all day long.

 

[scorpiomover]

IQ has been talked about a lot on this forum. I think the way it's talked about is a subversion of the intention behind measures of intelligence, but also does those pursuing objective measures of their intelligence a disservice.

If you think it's important to pursue IQ, can you explain why?

It's a number. Numbers are often useful.

E.G. someone's blood pressure for risk of a heart attack.
Their blood glucose level for risk of a diabetic coma.
Their height for buying clothes.

IQ should be seen as a guide for a person to consider which types of careers the person might enjoy and be good at. Not a hard and fast rule, and certainly subjects should have the right to dispute other people's erroneous beliefs about themself. But in general....people with a 100 IQ would not enjoy being indoors solving 3-dimensional differential equations all day long, while building a house would sound productive. Conversely for someone with a 150 IQ, building a house would sound very boring, compared with solving the equations of physics underlying all of reality.

 

[Rebis]

IQ has been talked about a lot on this forum. I think the way it's talked about is a subversion of the intention behind measures of intelligence, but also does those pursuing objective measures of their intelligence a disservice.

If you think it's important to pursue IQ, can you explain why?

It's a number. Numbers are often useful.

E.G. someone's blood pressure for risk of a heart attack.
Their blood glucose level for risk of a diabetic coma.
Their height for buying clothes.

IQ should be seen as a guide for a person to consider which types of careers the person might enjoy and be good at. Not a hard and fast rule, and certainly subjects should have the right to dispute other people's erroneous beliefs about themself. But in general....people with a 100 IQ would not enjoy being indoors solving 3-dimensional differential equations all day long, while building a house would sound productive. Conversely for someone with a 150 IQ, building a house would sound very boring, compared with solving the equations of physics underlying all of reality.

It's more apt for IQ to be a measurement of how fast you can detect patterns and abstract data, which is the main application of the test. Speed and execution (in opposition to prospection) play a huge role in scoring. I haven't found there's necessarily a correlation with extremely high IQ and competency, after 115 or so it seems relatively straightforward for anyone to attain a degree in STEM fields, a few points higher for Msc and a 125-126 for PHDs. Really it's an equation of:

Latent ability (IQ) + conscientiousness + miscellaneous (interest)= competency

I've met a few people with IQs of 150, they are generally interested in deeper subjects but it doesn't mean they have the conscientiousness or discipline to persavere through the nitty gritty to ascertain knowledge. They are human, entertained by games giving out dopaminergic bursts, they can enjoy simple things with complexity and challenge inside of them. Plus an IQ of 150 is getting towards inaccuracy it's a far out-lier on the bell curve. Most knowledge that has been gathered has the purpose to be communicable to a wider audience so after 125 (which really isn't rare, that's like 3-4% of the population) I can't see any field that's hard to penetrate given the time.

The problem people have with IQ is one of a contrarians:


The average person assumes they're more competent than they seem, otherwise they wouldn't execute on the goal.


1: person takes IQ test to validate their own precognition of their abilities
2: person does not feel score reflects their competency

therefore they think IQ is in accurate test.

The problem with this is people don't factor in that IQ was never meant to assess intelligence as a whole, it was extrapolated to create a standardised model which could determine the speed at which someone could learn, thereby inferring that someone can elevate the competency hierarchy because they learn at a certain rate.
If you understand the precedent and the point of its evaluation people shouldn't be annoyed at the result. It is you defining your abilities based on an IQ test, not the IQ test defining your abilities. Standardized models are needed for obvious reasons.

People compensate all the time, they adjustment a drowsy morning with coffee, a sleepless night with more sleeping hours, a harder topic with more study hours.

 

[Rebis]

I really hate this topic, parroting after parroting. It's everywhere and anywhere, yet no one actually tries to understands its original purpose and how a person is evaluated under the model. That is all you need to understand why the model exists instead of waging an all-out war against what you define as an incomplete model: it's not an incomplete model, it's a standardized model to represent a prominent factor in intelligence to generalise your competency, it does not attempt to take individual circumstances into account, nor evaluate creativity, prospectivity, even more complex vector patterns in rotation matrices.

IQ can be evaluated, Intelligence cannot. We use IQ because it can be assigned a numerical value, which is a composite of your intelligence.

Ban all IQ posts because my brain is going to explode if I hear about it again.

I can assure you that the predominant factor of someone's career would be their interests, and this is supplemented by IQ. Knowledge is very much categorical with little differences in conceptual, Formulaic and logical reasoning. If someone with an IQ of 150 is interested in people and the nuance of humans they won't have an interest for chemistry, or physics. If they're a naturalist even more, they won't consider models outside of their objective reality.

 

[Black Rose]

IQ - manipulating complex datasets

 

[Rebis]

IQ - manipulating complex datasets

Yes, no one else needs to state their opinion.

Kitty concluded it.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I think the farce that is IQ starts with it's un-abbreviated term. "Intelligence quotient."
We should honestly be using intelligence as a noun, as are security agencies. One can gain intelligence through knowledge. A well read person is an intelligent person. An intellectual person is one that seeks knowledge. IQ may have been an accurate name for it when it was used as a tool for discrimination, such as with the Nazi's, but that hasn't really been the case for a good time. (Although there is still a classist component if you ask me.)

Just because one is an intellectual does not mean that they are clever. Sure you could argue correlation but regardless it's still not the same thing. I feel like "smart" should be the composite general term for what people mean when they say intelligence. Smarts are accounted for with the g factor and when it comes to general cognitive abilities.

Regardless, one could simply practice IQ tests and before you know it Mensa considers them a genius. Everyone has innate talents within them, some people are better at certain things than others. IQ and IQ societies are just things that people of some capacity have latched on to for one reason or another.

A human life shouldn't be summed up in two, three, or in my case 4 digits. For that I entrust the MBTI way more than I do IQ.

 

[scorpiomover]

It's more apt for IQ to be a measurement of how fast you can detect patterns and abstract data, which is the main application of the test. Speed and execution (in opposition to prospection) play a huge role in scoring. I haven't found there's necessarily a correlation with extremely high IQ and competency, after 115 or so it seems relatively straightforward for anyone to attain a degree in STEM fields, a few points higher for Msc and a 125-126 for PHDs. Really it's an equation of:

Latent ability (IQ) + conscientiousness + miscellaneous (interest)= competency

People with very high IQs tend to be really awful at spotting patterns in systems with similar properties to things like dating, building a wall, or growing things, which, if you look at nature, tends to be the majority of systems.

But people with very high IQs tend to be very good at detecting patterns in systems like solid-state physics, problems that tend to be hurdles in industrial science that hold back corporations from coming up with a slightly faster smartphone and a new headache tablet.

If a corporation is working at developing a new product, normally, their competitors are working at developing the product. Whoever gets there first, gets the biggest advantage, and so a large part of corporate profits is about speed of development. So speed of pattern detection is vital for corporations.

But when it comes to understanding maths or physics, or chemistry or biology or psychology or any part of STEM, the most important thing is ACCURACY, and so speed is not only mostly irrelevant, but it often leads scientists to jump to the wrong conclusions, which has got a lot of people killed and/or caused a massive amount of harm.

So from a POV of intelligent pattern-detection, you want to throw out speed and only keep in pattern detection of the types of patterns and systems that are common IRL.

What we have, is a system designed to produce the next generation of scientists that work in industry for corporations, helping to develop new technology that will make those corporations trillions of dollars.

IQ is part of that system, and was designed to identify highly-useful people for that system.

In the past, corporations took over a lot more than just paying people. Someone like Einstein or Turing would have been given digs (a room in university dorms), been a regular at a university dining hall where a cook would cook meals for all the students in the college, been invited to university mixers where he could meet friends and a girlfriend, and so on. They were the special ones without which the scientific understanding that made new gadgets that corporations would sell for billions, would not exist. Their ideas would be handed to others who would develop them into products.

But then as technology developed, round about the middle of the 20th century, things changed. Corporations switched from showing a preference for employing people like Alan Turing or Albert Einstein, and seemed to prefer employing people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates, people who didn't seem to have a monumental breakthrough in theory like Relativity or Computing theory, but were great on spotting applications of products that could make billons of dollars for corporations, and had the motivation to make it happen.

The old IQ system was simply not designed to measure the new desirable traits of modern corporations. But, they still want people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates, and so they need people who have a high IQ score, but need to see more than that in them.

 

[Rebis]

Ed

 

[Black Rose]

manipulate and create

both are about putting things together

manipulate is the complexity of steps needed to be taken (frontal lobes)
create is perception detailing imagination often artistic

 

[Rebis]

People with very high IQs tend to be really awful at spotting patterns in systems with similar properties to things like dating, building a wall, or growing things, which, if you look at nature, tends to be the majority of systems.

The only inference that would indicate this to be true is people with IQ can operate under more complex abstractions which means they do not have to atomize everything in order to understand it which naturally helps with the complexity of their understanding.

But people with very high IQs tend to be very good at detecting patterns in systems like solid-state physics, problems that tend to be hurdles in industrial science that hold back corporations from coming up with a slightly faster smartphone and a new headache tablet.

They have a propensity for mathematical logic which is a heavy component of an IQ test but that doesn't mean they actually apply themselves. The ability to learn abstractions fast is not the sole property these corporations are looking, they want a show of application not just a marking for potential. A lot of corporations aren't innovators, they've already set up a business model predicated on consistent cash flow and marketing products which aren't inherently complex to design. IQ is nothing without knowledge, and operating under abstractions in this complex world requires application of intelligence.

If a corporation is working at developing a new product, normally, their competitors are working at developing the product. Whoever gets there first, gets the biggest advantage, and so a large part of corporate profits is about speed of development. So speed of pattern detection is vital for corporations.

It really depends on the product, most corporations do not directly compete with each other instead they specialise in one area (As we can see with OEMs in car parts, Tech companies) and other companies specialising in digital services. There's less room for direct competition unless it's in an emergent market, Tech start ups are usually bought up by microsoft and google because the tech that applies that idea is easily replicable, software isn't particularly unique either. These starts up don't directly compete with silicon valley, in recent memory TSLA has emerged well in Silicon valley, and now we're seeing George Hotz compete against TSLA for Self-driving cars with Komma AI.

But when it comes to understanding maths or physics, or chemistry or biology or psychology or any part of STEM, the most important thing is ACCURACY, and so speed is not only mostly irrelevant, but it often leads scientists to jump to the wrong conclusions, which has got a lot of people killed and/or caused a massive amount of harm.

So from a POV of intelligent pattern-detection, you want to throw out speed and only keep in pattern detection of the types of patterns and systems that are common IRL.

What we have, is a system designed to produce the next generation of scientists that work in industry for corporations, helping to develop new technology that will make those corporations trillions of dollars.

IQ is part of that system, and was designed to identify highly-useful people for that system.

This doesn't illustrate the full picture: Learning scientific concepts and terminology will take up most of your time, moving to a corporate environment you may have to learn software to apply your knowledge like Mathematica, Maxim or Even R and Python for automated scripts. The accuracy part is detemined by machines, it is the easiest component because accuracy is assessed by an application of a formula, which in itself is a set of procedures which anyone can follow. IQ is important precisely because it predicts mastery/competencyof a subject better than any other variable, not because of accuracy. Fluid Intelligence also helps with adaptability to a corporate environment consistently changing with tech.

You'll never see people get a job with a high IQ especially in a STEM field. Corporations want a demonstration of applied intelligence rather than a lucky genetic mutation. When we consider over a threshold of 125 conscientiousness is a big driver in most companies, there are very few innovation hubs. I can imagine silicon valley is full of highly bright individuals combined with conscientiousness, NASA CERN SpaceX, agencies of that caliber. Still, it's a lifestyle of working long hours and constantly refactoring products, which some very bright individuals may see the flaws with this system and prefer something that allows them to grow personally.

Corporate wants two things from an individual:
-Competency
-Subservience

It is best not for a low IQ individual to manage a High IQ one, because they might not have the ability to understand the individual and this will cause some internal problems. If you have an individual who's competent and conscientiousness, they will work under someone who is superior all day because they strive to be better. This also ensures a certain loyalty to the company from that person.

In the past, corporations took over a lot more than just paying people. Someone like Einstein or Turing would have been given digs (a room in university dorms), been a regular at a university dining hall where a cook would cook meals for all the students in the college, been invited to university mixers where he could meet friends and a girlfriend, and so on. They were the special ones without which the scientific understanding that made new gadgets that corporations would sell for billions, would not exist. Their ideas would be handed to others who would develop them into products.

ut then as technology developed, round about the middle of the 20th century, things changed. Corporations switched from showing a preference for employing people like Alan Turing or Albert Einstein, and seemed to prefer employing people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates, people who didn't seem to have a monumental breakthrough in theory like Relativity or Computing theory, but were great on spotting applications of products that could make billons of dollars for corporations, and had the motivation to make it happen.

There's a role for an innovation and application. Turing created the precedent for computational models through Finite State Machines like Turing Machines. He then was able to create computers that could compute other Turing Machines, making them Turing complete. It's the same with pure mathematics, there isn't much of a corporate function because the knowledge hasn't trickled down from the geniuses to be applied in modern society.

Innovation just occurs on different levels of abstractions: Einstein completely destroyed physics as they knew it with General and special relativity and light-wave duality, Turing completed a computational model that ensured logical completenes and delved into things like the role of deception in intelligent machines (turing test). These created the fundamentals of a subject, while corporations applied that theory to make a profit. It hasn't really changed exactly, there is still a tonne of research done by companies worldwide we just have a better educated workforce, specialisation of tasks and less fundamentally revolutionary ideas that don't sit on a bound of knowledge.

I'm too sure on the point they were given special cooks, with the exception being when they were both in the advanced institute for mathematics in princeton. Turing didn't have a terrible social life and he wasn't paraded around the place, he wasn't seen as bright as his other classmates like his school friend Christopher, he got rejected from cambridge on two occasions and kept to himself, same with Einstein really they weren't one for flattery. Corporations always wanted people like Bill Gates and Elon Musk, that never changed but these individuals are entrepeneurs and visionaries, they weren't going to be some corporate lackey for their lives. Corporations want lackeys, and super geniuses don't make good ones because they're probably at a level of competency where they can create their own company and then sell it down the line.

The old IQ system was simply not designed to measure the new desirable traits of modern corporations. But, they still want people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates, and so they need people who have a high IQ score, but need to see more than that in them.

 

[Hadoblado]

To be clear, I was asking why people seem to be obsessed with it beyond its value in predicting academic and occupational success, as well as cognitive decline/deficits.

It's not as bad as it was, because a lot of the people who talked about IQ have left us. At the time, it seemed to me like it was people's insecurity expressing itself directly.

People don't talk about their blood-pressure relentlessly, nor do they constantly retest it if they don't like the result. People don't have strong opinions about blood-pressure like the ones that frequently underly discussions about IQ.

 

[Black Rose]

IQ and intelligence could be correlated and if they are correlated they overlap.

The intersection of IQ and intelligence makes it worth discussing because why not.

It is important to know what intelligence is/how it works and that means the overlap is important.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

To be clear, I was asking why people seem to be obsessed with it beyond its value in predicting academic and occupational success, as well as cognitive decline/deficits.

It's not as bad as it was, because a lot of the people who talked about IQ have left us. At the time, it seemed to me like it was people's insecurity expressing itself directly.

People don't talk about their blood-pressure relentlessly, nor do they constantly retest it if they don't like the result. People don't have strong opinions about blood-pressure like the ones that frequently underly discussions about IQ.

People won't see blood pressure as something completely under their control. A good IQ test basically a skills test, which most people will associate with a direct causation of themselves, and if they don't, then it's because they thought about it, because they have a high IQ. Am I making sense? It's an easy trap to fall into I guess.

A musician, even if they were innately talented, has spent tons of hours working on developing their skills, and are in fact constantly working towards improvement. Not saying that ego headed musicians don't exist I'm just trying to reason this out.

IQ and intelligence could be correlated and if they are correlated they overlap.

The intersection of IQ and intelligence makes it worth discussing because why not.

It is important to know what intelligence is/how it works and that means the overlap is important.

Yes this is why I said there is a classist component. High income areas with more resources vs low income areas with no reasources, gee fucking whiz I wonder why the poor have such low IQs, biggest mystery of the fucking universe..

 

[Black Rose]

IQ adjusts for income shouldn't it, they are doing statistics improperly if it does not.

(poverty does lower IQ but being rich can't really increase the ability to manipulate complex datasets beyond the limit (I see no way of raising my IQ that way, become high income))

 

[Daddy]

It's truly probably not important because a large part of intelligence involves all the myriad ways that people can adapt to things that IQ doesn't take into account. But IQ does seem to gauge an ability to recognize patterns and think logically. And that might be valued in academia and certain jobs for weeding out candidates. But that can probably be learned and improved for most people anyway, similar to studying and getting your SAT or GRE scores up.

But how many people want to be told their mental capacity isn't high? So it's important that everyone scores a high IQ, even though that makes it nothing more than an ego booster. So it's important, but it's also pretty stupid.

IMO. I don't know that much about IQ to be fair and only seen the online tests, so maybe the professional ones do a good job of measuring intellectual capacity, but I'm skeptical.

 

[redbaron]

C I T A T I O N

N E E D E D

 

[EndogenousRebel]

The whole premise of a standardized test (IQ do vary) is that everyone is taking the same test. The SAT tried to implement an adversity score, but I haven't been following that closely.

A child from a higher income neighborhood would have more attention, more prep, more chances to learn conceptual tools that would help him solve problems.

I have sat in classes where there are over 30 students and one teacher (not legal). Mind you this is not college, no one is paying to be there and likely everyone there doesn't want to be there. It's mayhem. SAT prep? "Just go on khan academy" as fucking if.

I'm writing anecdotally and my own personal reasoning. What I'm saying is not illogical. If you want to call into question what someone is saying then you should at least say exactly what it is you are challenging.

 

[scorpiomover]

To be clear, I was asking why people seem to be obsessed with it beyond its value in predicting academic and occupational success, as well as cognitive decline/deficits.

Occupational success => being paid more money.

There are less and less well-paid jobs, due to them being replaced with automation or workers in poorer countries that are willing to work for much lower pay. So there's more competition for the better-paying jobs.

So a lot of college students, particularly young men, figure that if they can come up with a clever argument that might persuade employers that they are the ones worth promoting, then they'd have a much better chance of getting the top jobs.

They are just practising their arguing skills here, for when they get into the workplace. They figure that if they can persuade posters here, then they'll have a good chance of persuading their employers when they get into the job market.

It's not as bad as it was, because a lot of the people who talked about IQ have left us. At the time, it seemed to me like it was people's insecurity expressing itself directly.

A lot of the users graduated university and got into the workplace.

In the workplace, BS arguments are a waste of time, when their employers are paying for their time, and so those BS arguments are actually costing their employers real money. So they very quickly get told to shut up and do something useful, or they will get fired and replaced with someone who actually does something worth talking about.

So then those posters realised that all of their clever-sounding ideas just made their career prospects worse, and turned to doing other things that were more beneficial to their life.

Either that, or they got a girlfriend, who occupied their time with more pleasurable pursuits.

Why it was more common a few years ago, was because a few years ago, we were only a few years into the consequences of the Credit Crunch, which caused most Western countries' job markets to be that much harder.

The Credit Crunch was a massive shock to the high-earners. So even a few years on, a lot of people had still not accepted the reality that the job market had changed massively.

We're 10 years in now. So the reality that things are so bad that you can't just argue your way into a job, has sunk in to a LOT more people.

People don't talk about their blood-pressure relentlessly, nor do they constantly retest it if they don't like the result. People don't have strong opinions about blood-pressure like the ones that frequently underly discussions about IQ.

Employers aren't putting "must have high blood pressure" on their want ads.

 

[Rebis]

It's truly probably not important because a large part of intelligence involves all the myriad ways that people can adapt to things that IQ doesn't take into account. But IQ does seem to gauge an ability to recognize patterns and think logically. And that might be valued in academia and certain jobs for weeding out candidates. But that can probably be learned and improved for most people anyway, similar to studying and getting your SAT or GRE scores up.

But how many people want to be told their mental capacity isn't high? So it's important that everyone scores a high IQ, even though that makes it nothing more than an ego booster. So it's important, but it's also pretty stupid.

IMO. I don't know that much about IQ to be fair and only seen the online tests, so maybe the professional ones do a good job of measuring intellectual capacity, but I'm skeptical.

I've done two proper ones: Catell III B I think it was called and culture fair.

They measure your ability to recognise patterns, this is quite time sensitive. This is through vector matrices, rotational positions, syllogisms, reasoning chains(If B is A, and some Cs are B is some Cs necessarily As) INT usually score high but the prospective function in INTPs really weakens the decision making required for fast decisions.

Having said that people assume that IQ tests online can't accurately assess your IQ: "Go get a psychologist that's the only way" No, it isn't. I done it in a room with 20-30 more people with a supervisor that directed us through the sections. You do need to weed out the actual good tests, they're under different names like cognitive performance tests (Mathematical/verbal/inductive reasoning), I had a link for a spectacular one done by Xavier Jouve it was kept in a git repository.

Try and look for one in a github repos, think of it as going through the layers:
If you go for the first search on google, it's probably going to be dumbass questions "Nickel + quarter", while if you dig deep into the core elements of these tests you might be able to find one.

Having said that, it's only important to test your speed to learn imho. That itself is useful, but obviously doesn't define your capabilities. Some people are conditioned to analyse everything that is said, even the most mundane while others are fast and impatient, jumping in head first. Speed and prospection are on opposite sides of the cognitive stack.

 

[Daddy]

Having said that, it's only important to test your speed to learn imho. That itself is useful, but obviously doesn't define your capabilities. Some people are conditioned to analyse everything that is said, even the most mundane while others are fast and impatient, jumping in head first. Speed and prospection are on opposite sides of the cognitive stack.

See that's what gets me. Some people definitely seem to have more patience and put more thought into stuff and would do better on an IQ test than someone that doesn't want to or can't. And if an IQ test can qualitatively measure that difference, that's fine. But it doesn't tell you if that someone is putting all their cognitive potential into the test or not; or if they have had the proper academic background to get their highest score. Someone may just score bad because it's not what interests them or they don't really care about it or don't have the academic background for it.

Then you could argue the test doesn't measure certain aspects of intelligence, such as how well someone can deal with and adapt to a given environment or deal with the people around them, including knowing how to trust people, get good information, and not get screwed over. Someone with Aspergers for example could be the next Einstein, but maybe they would not at all be suited to running for President or being a social figurehead for some organization or similar type of leadership. And maybe they can't deal with people very well, which is a big factor in running most businesses or in getting people to help reduce overhead and costs, making business deals, etc.