The value of IQ

[Hadoblado]

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?

 

[redbaron]

0

 

[Nymus Anon]

It's really not, it just measueres your ability to recognize patterns and such, and you need much more than that for today's world, and there are other ways of being intelligent than the way iq determines intelligence.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I'd say the value is really what you wish to make of it. What happens if you put a bunch of high/low IQ people in the same room? If they copulate? If you separate/teach students according to IQ? If you set IQ limits for job and government positions?

I guess I'd like to know more about how and why does general intelligence vary if humans are considered to be mostly the same in DNA. And if you "over-expose" the factors would it result in superhuman intelligence or a "spoiling" of sorts.

 

[Happy]

Measuring for research. Limitations ensue.

Beside that, nope. Nothin.

 

[nanook]

the value is money. meaning survival.

while other deeper definitions of intelligence (maturity, wisdom, introversion, EQ) would just make you feel good (possibly vain), IQ could make u feel safe.

 

[AndyC]

I wouldn't say it's necessary to know one's score, beyond that it has plenty of applications. It's a general indicator that covers a broad range of intelligence but is not always accurate in the areas it manages to cover even after repeated trial. It's our best shot at testing large samples of people and come to decisions based on how an individual compares.

 

[Black Rose]

Intelligence is the application of understanding. I want to know my limitations and so I need to make relative comparisons. Knowing the place a person is at better helps me in social interactions and complimentary goal pursuits. You can't push someone to do something they are currently incapable of so the growth of development is contingent on the time and effort to improve their performance. To cooperate it is not necessary to know any specific number but it is necessary to know what the other person understands to mediate miscommunication. In that way, the benefits of knowing their relative intelligence are that one can better explain one's self and ask relevant questions. Everyone has weak and strong areas but overall social skills can help us know how to make them complementary when evaluating personal and societal achievement. Temple Grandin says about kids "look what they can do not what they can't".

https://youtu.be/fn_9f5x0f1Q

 

[Architect]

If I had a low score it would affect my self esteem, likely leading to poorer performance in life as I would (to some degree) feel intimidated by my mediocrity.

If I had a high score, it would insufferably inflate my ego, likely leading to poorer performance in life as I would (to some degree) coast on the laurels of my perceived intelligence.

In practice studies have shown that people vastly inflate their idea of their own abilities. So therefore, I decided to judge my abilities purely on what I'm able to physically accomplish (papers written, awarded patents, programs written, etc).

Therefore, having a particular measure of my abilities (IQ) has no upside and only potential downside. So I've never had it measured. The attention on this board with the number seems like a childish obsession.

PS The biggest idiot relative of mine was one who was insufferably proud of his MENSA membership. His main accomplishment in life was being a HR executive.

 

[Black Rose]

The attention on this board with the number seems like a childish obsession.

I can only think of how the matrix architect scoffed at Neos hope. And that means the feeling I get from you is the arrogance you say intelligent people have. The Oracle was much more accepting.

 

[Black Rose]

https://youtu.be/NfJn3td0Gr8

 

[Architect]

I can only think of how the matrix architect scoffed at Neos hope. And that means the feeling I get from you is the arrogance you say intelligent people have. The Oracle was much more accepting.

Just as people think of you as a girl because of your avatar, people likewise think I'm arrogant because of my architect avatar. I did an experiment once and used a much softer, F dominant (Peter Sellers as Chauncey Gardner). Predictably, people's responses to me became softer and more open.

All is not as it may seem in the Matrix.

 

[Black Rose]

Just as people think of you as a girl because of your avatar, people likewise think I'm arrogant because of my architect avatar. I did an experiment once and used a much softer, F dominant (Peter Sellers as Chauncey Gardner). Predictably, people's responses to me became softer and more open.

All is not as it may seem in the Matrix.

You are right that a number can have negative effects but the only negative effects I had was that no one would explain what the number meant. I placed no value on the number. I wanted to understand it. I don't see myself as childish but I realize that some here may be.

 

[crippli]

For fun? Solving a problems does give satisfaction. The problem is imo the meaning/value one might add to the IQ test. I think it would be a non issue if one disregarded it's potential value. Maybe divided the test further and discussed each challenge. With focus on that instead of some form of big picture ultimate categorization through a somewhat arbitrary number in that context.

Like Einsteins riddle. I think it's similar. And creates quite the uproar. Probably because the claim of coming from Einstein, and only 2% can do it. Taking those two points away it would be little else then a riddle.

The thing is that I've been exposed to a lot of RL people in recent years. They are obsessed with meaning. It's like some things have great meaning, and other things a huge threat to this meaning. Drives me nuts. Where do they get this feeling of meaning from? Based on what?

What if IQ is not a problem, because intelligence is irrelevant? Maybe if it is a little fun, that is all there is to it.

Or even, what ruins the planet, the perceived measure of intelligence or stupidity? What if the tests are all wrong, and it's the opposite?

To find that out one may imagine oneself to be a God, checking the planetary health. And from the God perspective decide what is smart and stupid behavior. Would the result line up with the established IQ?

How do you know it's measuring what it says it does? How do you get from a puzzle to superior overall ability?

 

[Niclmaki]

Just as people think of you as a girl because of your avatar, people likewise think I'm arrogant because of my architect avatar. I did an experiment once and used a much softer, F dominant (Peter Sellers as Chauncey Gardner). Predictably, people's responses to me became softer and more open.

All is not as it may seem in the Matrix.

Whoa, I never thought about the judgements people make based on anothers avatar. It seems so obvious now that you said it. People make quick (and hard to change) judgements based on how you look IRL, so I should have known it would be the same online.

I never "transmog" (change appearance) of my armout in World of Warcraft and took tons of flak and hate for it. I never saw the point because it doesn't affect gameplay in any way, and is a redious process -also costs ingame currency-.

You juat blew my mind Mr.Archie

 

[Rixus]

I usually hear the voices of the avatar - except for those who's pictures I've seen. So I sort of hear The Architect from The Matrix speaking, and sort of expect the complex language that goes with it. I actually just find it amusing to use that persona because no one else I know in RL could follow what The Architect was saying in that scene, and yet I understood it perfectly. Years later I discovered why - it was written by an INTP and of you listen to the dialogue in all of their work, this is quite obvious. So I find it amusing and fitting to see on an INTP forum.

 

[Shieru]

If I had a low score it would affect my self esteem, likely leading to poorer performance in life as I would (to some degree) feel intimidated by my mediocrity.

If I had a high score, it would insufferably inflate my ego, likely leading to poorer performance in life as I would (to some degree) coast on the laurels of my perceived intelligence.

i wonder if this sort of outcome is inevitable? it seems rather unhealthy for one to place their feeling of self-worth on a (non-empirical) measurement of their abilities. and being that, by my best understanding, the phenomenon of intelligence is largely a manifestation of one's development, it doesn't make too much sense to see IQ as a permanent nor complete description of one's traits. at best it's an approximation of how developed one's rational faculties are in the moment, at worst of how well you listened in math class (really depends on the test!)

so why would this particular assay end up meaning so much? i think this is greatly influenced by society's need to utilize it as a way of organizing people into educational programs, etc. very much like how MBTI has become a widely known indicator of 'personality type'. it's more a matter of social functionality than it is about accuracy. but since the IQ number has become synonymous with 'intelligence', it's used as a quantifier for a person's overall potential in life.

what a way to degrade one's humanity :/

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.

 

[Black Rose]

i wonder if this sort of outcome is inevitable? it seems rather unhealthy for one to place their feeling of self-worth on a (non-empirical) measurement of their abilities. and being that, by my best understanding, the phenomenon of intelligence is largely a manifestation of one's development, it doesn't make too much sense to see IQ as a permanent nor complete description of one's traits. at best it's an approximation of how developed one's rational faculties are in the moment, at worst of how well you listened in math class (really depends on the test!)

https://youtu.be/e-oRgaNUNpI

 

[QuickTwist]

If I had a low score it would affect my self esteem, likely leading to poorer performance in life as I would (to some degree) feel intimidated by my mediocrity.

If I had a high score, it would insufferably inflate my ego, likely leading to poorer performance in life as I would (to some degree) coast on the laurels of my perceived intelligence.

In practice studies have shown that people vastly inflate their idea of their own abilities. So therefore, I decided to judge my abilities purely on what I'm able to physically accomplish (papers written, awarded patents, programs written, etc).

Therefore, having a particular measure of my abilities (IQ) has no upside and only potential downside. So I've never had it measured. The attention on this board with the number seems like a childish obsession.

PS The biggest idiot relative of mine was one who was insufferably proud of his MENSA membership. His main accomplishment in life was being a HR executive.

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

 

[redbaron]

Yeah except if you achieve actual things then it means something unlike the pointless number.

Achievement is also relative to the individual - each person can and should ideally define what they value and strive to achieve. IQ limits scope and imposes exaggerated value to an arbitrary test of one's ability to meet the expectations of said arbitrary test.

It's dumb.

People who place importance on IQ are probably low achievers. If you don't achieve things, it's not your IQ holding you back unless you're at the lower end of the bell curve (like <80).

 

[QuickTwist]

Yeah except if you achieve actual things then it means something unlike the pointless number.

Achievement is also relative to the individual - each person can and should ideally define what they value and strive to achieve. IQ limits scope and imposes exaggerated value to an arbitrary test of one's ability to meet the expectations of said arbitrary test.

It's dumb.

People who place importance on IQ are probably low achievers. If you don't achieve things, it's not your IQ holding you back unless you're at the lower end of the bell curve (like <80).

I've never met someone who was very well accomplished who didn't think they were the shit for doing so. Have you met someone who achieves a lot who doesn't think they are the shit?

 

[redbaron]

I've never met someone who was very well accomplished who didn't think they were the shit for doing so. Have you met someone who achieves a lot who doesn't think they are the shit?

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.

 

[QuickTwist]

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.

You're completely wrong or you have a different definition of arrogant than I do.

 

[Black Rose]

redbaron is the shit

 

[redbaron]

You're completely wrong or you have a different definition of arrogant than I do.

arrogant
adjective
"having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities."

I've seen a lot more ignorant people claiming superiority over others than people who're actually highly competent. In work and in hobbies.

People who're competent are usually as competent as they are because they're capable of self-reflection, learning, improvement over time and also knowing their own strengths and weaknesses.

In other words, they know what they're good at and what they're not and as a result, they don't have an exaggerated sense of their own importance or ability because if they did, it would actually lower or limit their potential.

~

I mean if you disagree, give me an example of arrogance that I can work with. Is Architect being arrogant? Am I?

 

[Black Rose]

I mean if you disagree, give me an example of arrogance that I can work with. Is Architect being arrogant? Am I?

You are a fun person.
But any sense of criticism can trigger people.
The intentionality is important but so is the perceptions we have of other.

 

[redbaron]

You are a fun person.
But any sense of criticism can trigger people.
The intentionality is important but so is the perceptions we have of other.

Sure, but this general pattern is pretty clear to see. In rockclimbing, good rockclimbers are rarely arrogant, they're actually humble because they realise that it can be quite dangerous and they're good because they know their limits, they think about what they're doing and they aim to do it properly.

Conversely, newer or average rock climbers are usually arrogant, do dumb shit, overestimate their abilities or how difficult a climb might be - end up in dangerous situations and then often brush it off like it's cool. That's the exaggerated sense of ability that you call arrogance.

There's people who're proud of their accomplishments, or confident in their ability to do a task. But when that stems from years of experience, practice and continued success, it's not arrogance. It's not arrogant for someone who can make a claim to being the best in the world at something to say, "I am the best in the world" - because arrogance is relative to the person making the claim.

 

[Black Rose]

People have insecurities.

If someone is interested in IQ and another person points out that the reason may be an insecurity then that person may look at that person as arrogant because they don't know how hard it is to be in the position the person with that interest is in. So it may be that a person has achieved allot but if they take that accomplishment and use it as proof they are superior then yes they are arrogant. You can be accomplished and humble but there are actually people that don't give a shit about others and that means they exude superiority. Being accomplished is no sign of moral development. This is why there is the meme of CEO's being psychopaths. You can't judge character based on accomplishment.

 

[QuickTwist]

arrogant
adjective
"having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities."

I've seen a lot more ignorant people claiming superiority over others than people who're actually highly competent. In work and in hobbies.

People who're competent are usually as competent as they are because they're capable of self-reflection, learning, improvement over time and also knowing their own strengths and weaknesses.

In other words, they know what they're good at and what they're not and as a result, they don't have an exaggerated sense of their own importance or ability because if they did, it would actually lower or limit their potential.

~

I mean if you disagree, give me an example of arrogance that I can work with. Is Architect being arrogant? Am I?

People who don't achieve a whole lot do NOT think they are great or superior people. People who DO achieve a lot DO think they are BETTER THAN OTHER PEOPLE. I measure arrogance by how they view themselves in comparison to other people.

 

[Shieru]

Sure, but this general pattern is pretty clear to see. In rockclimbing, good rockclimbers are rarely arrogant, they're actually humble because they realise that it can be quite dangerous and they're good because they know their limits, they think about what they're doing and they aim to do it properly.

Conversely, newer or average rock climbers are usually arrogant, do dumb shit, overestimate their abilities or how difficult a climb might be - end up in dangerous situations and then often brush it off like it's cool. That's the exaggerated sense of ability that you call arrogance.

the premise of this reminds me of what's been discussed in this thread. ignorance to the scope of a topic can lead one to overestimate their knowledge/ability. on top of this, noobs often feel they have something to prove (because who wants to be seen as a fool; someone with lesser developed abilities whose likely to make mistakes?) as you mention, on the other side of experience, one is likely to have faced their own limitations and therefore developed a more humbled view of their self. it doesn't always work out this way, of course, but in general i think you're correct in your observations of this pattern.

Achievement is also relative to the individual - each person can and should ideally define what they value and strive to achieve. IQ limits scope and imposes exaggerated value to an arbitrary test of one's ability to meet the expectations of said arbitrary test.

^ agreed.

People who place importance on IQ are probably low achievers. If you don't achieve things, it's not your IQ holding you back unless you're at the lower end of the bell curve (like <80).

i don't know if this is true. many different people believe in the concept of IQ, it's really a social meme ingrained in us from an early age. take Architect as a present example; as he describes, he's focused on achievement and rates his self-worth based on actual manifestation. but he still places meaning on IQ, he's avoided the test because of how it might affect his self-perception.

i've also met quite a few overachievers who bragged constantly about their IQ, GPA, job titles, etc. i think it's a cultural thing (or more frankly, a failure of culture), as i mentioned in my previous post.

 

[Grayman]

People who don't achieve a whole lot do NOT think they are great or superior people. People who DO achieve a lot DO think they are BETTER THAN OTHER PEOPLE. I measure arrogance by how they view themselves in comparison to other people.

How dare you adhere do the actual definition! You are so overconfident it sickens me!

http://wikidiff.com/overconfident/arrogant


I think redbaron used some kind of urban dictionary...

 

[TAC]

I believe the metrics that are considered when determining ones IQ are valuable tools for the individual they apply to (I.e rote, comprehension, abstract reasoning, processing speed). Knowing why your IQ is what it is is more important than what it is. Knowing where your strengths and weaknesses lie helps you grow intellectually set the bar on learning curves. Ultimately if you know where you are weak, you can develop systems to minimize your weaknesses.

 

[redbaron]

People who don't achieve a whole lot do NOT think they are great or superior people. People who DO achieve a lot DO think they are BETTER THAN OTHER PEOPLE. I measure arrogance by how they view themselves in comparison to other people.

Then that's not the definition of arrogance.

If someone is good at something, they're qualified and correct to say that they're better than the other person at that thing in some contexts, or to simply be proud of their achievement. It's not arrogance, it's true.

What makes it arrogant is when other people are put down for their lack of achievement, or when the assumption is made that one is also better at XYZ unrelated activity as a result of success in another. e.g. "I have a PhD in physics, so I know how ecology works!" or, "my IQ is higher than yours, so I know better!" or, "I'm an INTP -
the most logical type, so what I'm saying is logical!"

The key point is that this is an exaggerated sense of self-importance, relative to one's actual achievement or ability.

To accurately sum up your own abilities as effective and to consider yourself talented at a task, isn't arrogance if you actually are good at something.

I agree, people who achieve a lot, who think they're better than other people as a whole, are probably arrogant. People who achieve a lot, who think they're better than other people in the areas they've achieved and excelled in, are justified in their belief.

The thing that makes something arrogant, is when someone's sense of ability or importance is exaggerated. Not all pride in one's work or confidence in ability is arrogance. It's healthy and positive to be happy with your achievements and abilities.

 

[QuickTwist]

Then that's not the definition of arrogance.

If someone is good at something, they're qualified and correct to say that they're better than the other person at that thing in some contexts, or to simply be proud of their achievement. It's not arrogance, it's true.

What makes it arrogant is when other people are put down for their lack of achievement, or when the assumption is made that one is also better at XYZ unrelated activity as a result of success in another. e.g. "I have a PhD in physics, so I know how ecology works!" or, "my IQ is higher than yours, so I know better!" or, "I'm an INTP -
the most logical type, so what I'm saying is logical!"

The key point is that this is an exaggerated sense of self-importance, relative to one's actual achievement or ability.

To accurately sum up your own abilities as effective and to consider yourself talented at a task, isn't arrogance if you actually are good at something.

I agree, people who achieve a lot, who think they're better than other people as a whole, are probably arrogant. People who achieve a lot, who think they're better than other people in the areas they've achieved and excelled in, are justified in their belief.

The thing that makes something arrogant, is when someone's sense of ability or importance is exaggerated. Not all pride in one's work or confidence in ability is arrogance. It's healthy and positive to be happy with your achievements and abilities.

My point is that people's general attitude toward life (and what they are good at) influences how they compare themselves to others in a general sense rather than specifically what skills they think they possess.

 

[redbaron]

My point is that people's general attitude toward life (and what they are good at) influences how they compare themselves to others in a general sense rather than specifically what skills they think they possess.

Obviously. But how does that mean that 'people who achieve things are arrogant'?

These two things you've said don't follow from or relate to one another, so there's an in between that you aren't explaining.

 

[QuickTwist]

Obviously. But how does that mean that 'people who achieve things are arrogant'?

These two things you've said don't follow from or relate to one another, so there's an in between that you aren't explaining.

People who achieve a lot of things general attitude towards life is that they think they are superior to other people. I don't see how it is difficult for you to understand this.

 

[Black Rose]

People who achieve a lot of things general attitude towards life is that they think they are superior to other people. I don't see how it is difficult for you to understand this.

Maybe but what matters if they care about others or not.

 

[Grayman]

Maybe but what matters if they care about others or not.

Im good for that as long as there is something in it for me.

 

[Grayman]

People who achieve a lot of things general attitude towards life is that they think they are superior to other people. I don't see how it is difficult for you to understand this.

They dont think they are superior. They know they are superior because thats the truth as is evidenced by their success.

 

[QuickTwist]

They dont think they are superior. They know they are superior because thats the truth as is evidenced by their success.

I disagree. We are all made out of the same shit. What we accomplish in life means pretty much nothing to the universe.

 

[Grayman]

I disagree. We are all made out of the same shit. What we accomplish in life means pretty much nothing to the universe.

Then why bother arguing discussing or even pondering since nothing you do means anything? Your argument that nothing matters doesnt matter.

 

[QuickTwist]

Then why bother arguing discussing or even pondering since nothing you do means anything? Your argument that nothing matters doesnt matter.

Because we exist to do so.

 

[redbaron]

People who achieve a lot of things general attitude towards life is that they think they are superior to other people. I don't see how it is difficult for you to understand this.

Nono, I understand your argument - it's just that I don't agree. You're also backtracking from your earlier claim that these people are arrogant, downgrading it to, "they think they're superior to other people" - but that doesn't necessarily make someone arrogant.

Assume you're a great tennis player, and you think you're athletically superior to most other non-athletes. Is this arrogant? I don't think so. I think it'd be arrogant of me to assume that I'm as gifted or capable as Rafael Nadal, and that if he thinks he could beat me with his shoelaces tied together, I'd admit he probably fucking could.

You're essentially grouping people into a big general category where achievement almost automatically entails arrogance - I think you've realised either that you were wrong, or that you worded it poorly and that's why you've changed your wording and approach to this discussion.

But the original claim you made was along these lines:

People who don't achieve a whole lot do NOT think they are great or superior people. People who DO achieve a lot DO think they are BETTER THAN OTHER PEOPLE. I measure arrogance by how they view themselves in comparison to other people.

What I'm curious about is where you find these people, because outside of some choice people with narcissistic tendencies I see lots of examples every day of people with low ability who haven't achieved a great deal, constantly over-estimating their abilities relative to others. They're more liable to boast about their abilities, or berate others for their apparent lack of ability, than are the people who're actually competent at their chosen task.

 

[QuickTwist]

Nono, I understand your argument - it's just that I don't agree. You're also backtracking from your earlier claim that these people are arrogant, downgrading it to, "they think they're superior to other people" - but that doesn't necessarily make someone arrogant.

Assume you're a great tennis player, and you think you're athletically superior to most other non-athletes. Is this arrogant? I don't think so. I think it'd be arrogant of me to assume that I'm as gifted or capable as Rafael Nadal, and that if he thinks he could beat me with his shoelaces tied together, I'd admit he probably fucking could.

You're essentially grouping people into a big general category where achievement almost automatically entails arrogance - I think you've realised either that you were wrong, or that you worded it poorly and that's why you've changed your wording and approach to this discussion.

Nope. My position has not changed.

 

[redbaron]

Feel free to provide examples or answer any of the questions instead of just dodging them then, rather than arrogantly assuming your inherent correctness.

 

[QuickTwist]

What I'm curious about is where you find these people, because outside of some choice people with narcissistic tendencies I see lots of examples every day of people with low ability who haven't achieved a great deal, constantly over-estimating their abilities relative to others. They're more liable to boast about their abilities, or berate others for their apparent lack of ability, than are the people who're actually competent at their chosen task.

My argument isn't that people who aren't as good at something don't overestimate their abilities. Its that people who have achieved a lot think of themselves as superior. The two are not mutually exclusive. So while some people who are not as proficient at something might have a tendency to be overconfident, this doesn't mean that people who achieve a lot don't think that they are superior to other people.

I can't think right now, my head is doing this weird thing that it does every once in awhile where I can't calm my mind down enough. Like my eye's are hyperactive and I can't focus.

 

[Black Rose]

Yes we are all equal in Gods eyes but we all are different and we should not think little of others for being who they are.

 

[QuickTwist]

Feel free to provide examples or answer any of the questions instead of just dodging them then, rather than arrogantly assuming your inherent correctness.

Cute.

I really don't care that much. Think I am wrong if you want. I have my own perspective and I am entitled to it.

 

[Grayman]

People who aquire more tend to view themselves as more valuable. Maybe thats what you you are seeing. I don't think any kind of achievement leads to arrogance. Fame money and power perhaps but what about other things like discovery, saving lifes, or curing a disease?

 

[redbaron]

My argument isn't that people who aren't as good at something don't overestimate their abilities. Its that people who have achieved a lot think of themselves as superior. The two are not mutually exclusive. So while some people who are not as proficient at something might have a tendency to be overconfident, this doesn't mean that people who achieve a lot don't think that they are superior to other people.

I can't think right now, my head is doing this weird thing that it does every once in awhile where I can't calm my mind down enough. Like my eye's are hyperactive and I can't focus.

Which is basically the opposite of what you said before.

:/

Cute.

I really don't care that much. Think I am wrong if you want. I have my own perspective and I am entitled to it.

lmao