IQ Testing Measurement

[Old Things]

Why don't they just give an output of percent in the population? So, the average would be 50%. This seems much more streamlined and would make a lot more sense, and eliminate guesswork.

 

[fluffy]

IQ Percentile and Rarity Chart

www.iqcomparisonsite.com

 

[Old Things]

Right, I understand they do standard deviations and all that. They should IDENTIFY you by your percentage rather than your number.

 

[Hadoblado]

The presentation in flat numbers rather than percentiles exaggerates the differences at the tail ends of the scale.

If I told you two people were in the 99.62th and 99.96th percentile, you'd probably assume they're both approximately equally smart. But this is a 10 IQ difference.

If I then told you that two people were 100 and 110, you might think, given what I said above, that this 10 IQ difference can't be that big. The first is at the 50th percentile, the second is at 74.75.

I don't know if it's a good thing. Sometimes statistical stuff stays in archaic forms just because it's a pain to change and causes confusion. I don't know if the IQ number better represents a meaningful difference in intelligence, especially given a margin of error of 5 points.

Personally I think IQ is an information hazard. People really want to quantify their value, and I think this does unspeakable damage to discourse and self-worth. People who talk a lot about IQ almost uniformly do not understand what it really represents. Is serves an identity function for them, affirming them or confirming their self-doubt.

 

[fluffy]

@Hadoblado

Things would be simpler if we actually had a working model of intelligence instead of a relativistic comparison of who can do what better than others.

On standardized tests they put you in a position that states whether you were above or below a ranking that is determined by how many people completed tasks that require more cognitive load. Cognitive load so defined as how much information you can work with in a short timeframe. Yet that is only half of a modern test which otherwise is half crystalized half fluid intelligence. And this doesn't take into account creativity or the understanding one has aside from quantitative values which make the qualitative attributes less known.

A term used to describe fluid intelligence is situational awareness (the flexibility of cognitive load) often we can say how far away a person is from the norm using variance on a curve but this is not an absolute. Again this is what information a person works with in the moment but not the quality of what the person is doing with such information.

So we cannot tell on a curve how much information more 170 does from 155 only that there are 100 times fewer at 170 than 155 - if we had an absolute measure of information processing a curve would be unnecessary accept that a curve is telling you the distribution (number of people per group) of that level in a given population.

 

[Hadoblado]

Yeah it would. We're nowhere near that though. The precision of the tools in question just isn't there. Last I heard cognitive load theory isn't getting off the ground empirically despite how much sense it seems to make.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Personally I think IQ is an information hazard. People really want to quantify their value, and I think this does unspeakable damage to discourse and self-worth. People who talk a lot about IQ almost uniformly do not understand what it really represents. Is serves an identity function for them, affirming them or confirming their self-doubt.

I think its true, what you are saying here, Id agree, but then again one could easily see that intellect was always part of human species bias.
We thrive on knowing and problem solving, and always had a bias towards intelligence.

Also it seems adults have huge bias with IQ, especially when it comes to their children.
Given that success and ability to thrive come from being intelligent its near impossible to see how people can separate self worth and intellect.

I don't think anyone wants to be super slow, and I think most people would prefer being smart.

I do think there can be a toxic relationship with IQ, primarily if IQ becomes part of unyielding identity of a person, it can become a block to develop more abilities, or it can become inferiority complex.

I believe that those who have high IQ and base their identity around IQ, can become intellectually rigid and dumber as consequence of it. This is just my personal belief, but I noticed this even in life, that people who are clueless about IQ, but display high IQ traits, often seem more well rounded and way smarter, than their counterparts intellectually who have IQ kink.

 

[dr froyd]

The presentation in flat numbers rather than percentiles exaggerates the differences at the tail ends of the scale.

If I told you two people were in the 99.62th and 99.96th percentile, you'd probably assume they're both approximately equally smart. But this is a 10 IQ difference.

If I then told you that two people were 100 and 110, you might think, given what I said above, that this 10 IQ difference can't be that big. The first is at the 50th percentile, the second is at 74.75.

I don't know if it's a good thing. Sometimes statistical stuff stays in archaic forms just because it's a pain to change and causes confusion. I don't know if the IQ number better represents a meaningful difference in intelligence, especially given a margin of error of 5 points.

Personally I think IQ is an information hazard. People really want to quantify their value, and I think this does unspeakable damage to discourse and self-worth. People who talk a lot about IQ almost uniformly do not understand what it really represents. Is serves an identity function for them, affirming them or confirming their self-doubt.

isn't it the other way around though. 115 is just 1 standard deviation above mean, so it's actually quite average. Going from 115 to 130 however is insanely difficult

i mean, it's the percentile that matters, not the IQ

 

[fluffy]

The presentation in flat numbers rather than percentiles exaggerates the differences at the tail ends of the scale.

If I told you two people were in the 99.62th and 99.96th percentile, you'd probably assume they're both approximately equally smart. But this is a 10 IQ difference.

If I then told you that two people were 100 and 110, you might think, given what I said above, that this 10 IQ difference can't be that big. The first is at the 50th percentile, the second is at 74.75.

I don't know if it's a good thing. Sometimes statistical stuff stays in archaic forms just because it's a pain to change and causes confusion. I don't know if the IQ number better represents a meaningful difference in intelligence, especially given a margin of error of 5 points.

Personally I think IQ is an information hazard. People really want to quantify their value, and I think this does unspeakable damage to discourse and self-worth. People who talk a lot about IQ almost uniformly do not understand what it really represents. Is serves an identity function for them, affirming them or confirming their self-doubt.

isn't it the other way around though. 115 is just 1 standard deviation above mean, so it's actually quite average. Going from 115 to 130 however is insanely difficult

i mean, it's the percentile that matters, not the IQ

120 - 90
135 - 99
147 - 99.9
155 - 99.99
164 - 99.999
171 - 99.9999

People get confused by adding all those numbers up. It's easier to remember three digits

 

[Old Things]

The presentation in flat numbers rather than percentiles exaggerates the differences at the tail ends of the scale.

If I told you two people were in the 99.62th and 99.96th percentile, you'd probably assume they're both approximately equally smart. But this is a 10 IQ difference.

If I then told you that two people were 100 and 110, you might think, given what I said above, that this 10 IQ difference can't be that big. The first is at the 50th percentile, the second is at 74.75.

I don't know if it's a good thing. Sometimes statistical stuff stays in archaic forms just because it's a pain to change and causes confusion. I don't know if the IQ number better represents a meaningful difference in intelligence, especially given a margin of error of 5 points.

Personally I think IQ is an information hazard. People really want to quantify their value, and I think this does unspeakable damage to discourse and self-worth. People who talk a lot about IQ almost uniformly do not understand what it really represents. Is serves an identity function for them, affirming them or confirming their self-doubt.

isn't it the other way around though. 115 is just 1 standard deviation above mean, so it's actually quite average. Going from 115 to 130 however is insanely difficult

i mean, it's the percentile that matters, not the IQ

Yeah, that is what I was trying to say.

 

[dr froyd]

i guess since IQ is usually only used to brag about how smart people supposedly are, one should just use the frequency instead. So 115 is 1 in 6 and so forth

1: 115 6
2: 130 44
3: 145 741
4: 160 31574
5: 175 3488556
6: 190 1013594635
7: 205 781332343402

 

[Old Things]

I still think the percentage based on population is the best. That is the way Big 5 does it.

 

[ZenRaiden]

None of this actually tells you what IQ x means though.

Lets say x person says they have IQ 150.

What does that actually mean?

You can compare it to various other numbers, still does not tell you what actually IQ 150 means.

Only that somewhere on a test you did a puzzle and the other people did not do them.

But that still does not explain what it means. Specifically usually its verbal math logic puzzle.

 

[Old Things]

None of this actually tells you what IQ x means though.

Lets say x person says they have IQ 150.

What does that actually mean?

You can compare it to various other numbers, still does not tell you what actually IQ 150 means.

Only that somewhere on a test you did a puzzle and the other people did not do them.

But that still does not explain what it means. Specifically usually its verbal math logic puzzle.

It tells you you can solve verbal and logic puzzles better.

 

[fluffy]

i guess since IQ is usually only used to brag about how smart people supposedly are, one should just use the frequency instead. So 115 is 1 in 6 and so forth

1: 115 6
2: 130 44
3: 145 741
4: 160 31574
5: 175 3488556
6: 190 1013594635
7: 205 781332343402

Since 8 billion people exist on Earth roughly.

In the sample population one person is 194 and no higher score can exist.

 

[dr froyd]

if you get an IQ of 150+ the universe immediately deposits a million dollars into your bank account, gives you a promotion at work, a luxurious home, and a hot wife

 

[Old Things]

if you get an IQ of 150+ the universe immediately deposits a million dollars into your bank account, gives you a promotion at work, a luxurious home, and a hot wife

LOL.

 

[ZenRaiden]

It tells you you can solve verbal and logic puzzles better.

It should tell us more, because what you are saying - we can learn that even from schools don't need IQ test then. We can just look at kids solving problems in schools.
This would tell us that if a kid got As its probably more intelligent.

 

[Old Things]

It tells you you can solve verbal and logic puzzles better.

It should tell us more, because what you are saying - we can learn that even from schools don't need IQ test then. We can just look at kids solving problems in schools.
This would tell us that if a kid got As its probably more intelligent.

That makes things very ambiguous. Science is about empirical observation, not theorizing on who is smart and who is not.

 

[ZenRaiden]

That makes things very ambiguous. Science is about empirical observation, not theorizing on who is smart and who is not.

Science is all about theorizing tho.

More importantly IQ was attempt at figuring out who has most potential to solve a problem, with no respect to prior experience.

So if you take Tony and Timmy both can be smart. Tony has F grade in math. Timmy has A grade in math. Yet when you give them IQ tests Tony scores 150 and Timmy scores 120.

 

[ZenRaiden]

My question was simple what does IQ tell us really?

 

[Old Things]

Science is all about theorizing tho.

It's not fundamentally about that, tho. It is fundamentally about observation in the real world, and theories only work to supplant that.

So if you take Tony and Timmy both can be smart. Tony has F grade in math. Timmy has A grade in math. Yet when you give them IQ tests Tony scores 150 and Timmy scores 120.

There are other factors involved in grades, such as work ethic and motivation, which it does not measure.

 

[fluffy]

My question was simple what does IQ tell us really?

The relative position of a person with regards to their ability compared to others.

 

[dr froyd]

i just randomly recalled that i was reading a book recently that had an interesting quote from the pioneer of IQ-tests, Alfred Binet:

A few modern philosophers... assert that an individual's intelligence is a fixed quantity, a quantity which cannot be increased. We must protest and react against this brutal pessimism... With practice, training, and above all, method, we manage to increase our attention, our memory, our judgment and literally to become more intelligent than we were before.

 

[ZenRaiden]

There are other factors involved in grades, such as work ethic and motivation, which it does not measure.

Yeah true, keep going with that thought tho, you have not finished it.....

The relative position of a person with regards to their ability compared to others.

There are million ways to categorize people in different comparing scales by ability.
Grades, SAT, literacy, swimming skills, memory, etc.
Why do we have IQ test though?

 

[ZenRaiden]

i just randomly recalled that i was reading a book recently that had an interesting quote from the pioneer of IQ-tests, Alfred Binet:

A few modern philosophers... assert that an individual's intelligence is a fixed quantity, a quantity which cannot be increased. We must protest and react against this brutal pessimism... With practice, training, and above all, method, we manage to increase our attention, our memory, our judgment and literally to become more intelligent than we were before.

Most people believe that brains can be trained, the question was always just how much it matters in the end...... lots of different ideas and view points on this.

 

[fluffy]

The relative position of a person with regards to their ability compared to others.

There are million ways to categorize people in different comparing scales by ability.
Grades, SAT, literacy, swimming skills, memory, etc.
Why do we have IQ test though?

Usually in these kinds of tests they only measure specific things.

The goal of measuring in IQ is to find the generality of all abilities together often denoted as the g factor.

The theory is the if you are good at one task you should be good at other tasks. Therefore those tasks correlation to each other has a correspondence to what high ability should be best at. For instance doing well at putting complex shapes together is more g loaded than tying shoes. This predicts what other tasks you will do best at whereas tying shoes almost predicts nothing at all.

So in the end the score is predicting where you are at next to an average in doing complex tasks overall.

 

[Hadoblado]

The presentation in flat numbers rather than percentiles exaggerates the differences at the tail ends of the scale.

If I told you two people were in the 99.62th and 99.96th percentile, you'd probably assume they're both approximately equally smart. But this is a 10 IQ difference.

If I then told you that two people were 100 and 110, you might think, given what I said above, that this 10 IQ difference can't be that big. The first is at the 50th percentile, the second is at 74.75.

I don't know if it's a good thing. Sometimes statistical stuff stays in archaic forms just because it's a pain to change and causes confusion. I don't know if the IQ number better represents a meaningful difference in intelligence, especially given a margin of error of 5 points.

Personally I think IQ is an information hazard. People really want to quantify their value, and I think this does unspeakable damage to discourse and self-worth. People who talk a lot about IQ almost uniformly do not understand what it really represents. Is serves an identity function for them, affirming them or confirming their self-doubt.

isn't it the other way around though. 115 is just 1 standard deviation above mean, so it's actually quite average. Going from 115 to 130 however is insanely difficult

i mean, it's the percentile that matters, not the IQ

Yes, but in terms of the raw number of people you perform better than, that one standard deviation can mean a quarter of the population of the earth or it can mean a handful.

 

[fluffy]

i just randomly recalled that i was reading a book recently that had an interesting quote from the pioneer of IQ-tests, Alfred Binet:

A few modern philosophers... assert that an individual's intelligence is a fixed quantity, a quantity which cannot be increased. We must protest and react against this brutal pessimism... With practice, training, and above all, method, we manage to increase our attention, our memory, our judgment and literally to become more intelligent than we were before.

Early interventions can help young people.

Binet was tasked with finding ways to increase performance of kids needing extra help.

The problem is that everyone reaches a peak, this peak is like athleticism. Some people just are better at sports than others given the same amount of training. For instance gymnastics begins at age 3-4 to complete in the Olympic games. No matter how hard you trained begining at age 4 will always out compete a person who began at age 12 but then you must only compare that selection of 4 years olds that began training at that age and some will be better than the others. This is why relative comparing is the concept to understand because the 4 yo gymnast will not exactly be a bodybuilding or swimming prodigy. The brain is trained for one thing doesn't make transferring that skill automatically possible.

The potential of people has to do with many factors including age health motivation and interests in what they are doing. Yet it's possible that someone can be good at all things with higher potential than others. These tests don't measure potential at the middle where averages cancel out. They can indicate high ability if one is extremely good at a task when the likelihood of doing poorly is extremely low.

 

[dr froyd]

all i remember from IQ tests is that it's a bunch of induction problems, like what's the next number in the sequence 1, 2, 4, 16, 32

the answer is probably 64, but that's just because some MENSA jerkoff likes geometric series. There's no mathematical or logical argument that says the correct answer is 64.

rationality quotient is much better

 

[fluffy]

all i remember from IQ tests is that it's a bunch of induction problems, like what's the next number in the sequence 1, 2, 4, 16, 32

the answer is probably 64, but that's just because some MENSA jerkoff likes geometric series. There's no mathematical or logical argument that says the correct answer is 64.

rationality quotient is much better

I am not sure if mensa IQ tests are normed.

Each question should predict the other questions in the case of difficulty on a culture fair iq test.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Usually in these kinds of tests they only measure specific things.

The goal of measuring in IQ is to find the generality of all abilities together often denoted as the g factor.

The theory is the if you are good at one task you should be good at other tasks. Therefore those tasks correlation to each other has a correspondence to what high ability should be best at. For instance doing well at putting complex shapes together is more g loaded than tying shoes. This predicts what other tasks you will do best at whereas tying shoes almost predicts nothing at all.

So in the end the score is predicting where you are at next to an average in doing complex tasks overall.

So is it fair to say that IQ is ability to generalize rules of puzzle to fit a logical outcome given that we have constraints on pattern?
In other words the less information you have and the more you can mine information out the smarter you are?

 

[ZenRaiden]

rationality quotient is much better

Yes, its important too. I am not rational.
I am more often irrational and intuitive than rational.
But I can be logical to a fault, yet my logic won't be Te, but Ti.
So I will look at principals overall rather than any kind of logic.
Hence IQ puzzles in real life are not something I would gravitate to.
For example sometimes I looked up solutions to IQ puzzles(guilty don't shoot) only to laugh at the result, because it made me realize all I had to do to get it wrong was overlook some obvious pattern that would have been clear to be had I noticed(luck).
But if I overlook it solving the puzzle suddenly becomes supper hard.

So you have to consistently make right kind of assumptions in IQ tests.
I don't think that means mensa puzzles are meaningless, but I do think there is certain level of puzzle solving capability that diverges from actual rational and using mind to solve real life puzzles.

Hence why you can have people with IQ 200 say the dumbest things ever.

What I am trying to say is that the more we go up in IQ the more ways the brain can invent ways of putting 2 and 2 together.

 

[dr froyd]

well rationality quotient is based purely on things you can deduce. I.e. things that have a definite, logical answer. In fact the questions are designed (at least from what I've seen) so that the answer is counter-intuitive, so that using an instinctive pattern-based approach quickly becomes susceptible to cognitive biases.

IQ tests are pretty much the opposite - they encourage you to lean into your cognitive biases instead of thinking. And as you say, you have to make the right assumptions about what the author felt was the "correct" pattern. To me this has little to do with practical problem-solving in real life.

 

[fluffy]

Usually in these kinds of tests they only measure specific things.

The goal of measuring in IQ is to find the generality of all abilities together often denoted as the g factor.

The theory is the if you are good at one task you should be good at other tasks. Therefore those tasks correlation to each other has a correspondence to what high ability should be best at. For instance doing well at putting complex shapes together is more g loaded than tying shoes. This predicts what other tasks you will do best at whereas tying shoes almost predicts nothing at all.

So in the end the score is predicting where you are at next to an average in doing complex tasks overall.

So is it fair to say that IQ is ability to generalize rules of puzzle to fit a logical outcome given that we have constraints on pattern?
In other words the less information you have and the more you can mine information out the smarter you are?

Not sure if I am understanding.

Rules usual have a basis in reality otherwise they be arbitrary, random and not predictable.

So you have many sets of objects that go together which requires more information to be processed not less.

A simple question would be how do you tie your shoes and then a demonstration.

A complex question would be take this object apart and put it back together (the object having twenty parts you never seen before)

If you never tied your shoes before it would be difficult. If you cannot hold all twenty parts in mind at the same time then more difficult.

This is why memorization is inadequate to solve problems. You are given a total amount of information to work with at increasing quantities. It then becomes difficult to do all the combinations.

What I concluded is that perception is the main part of intelligence, to see all outcomes of all attempts. Then you are actually trying to get a result from a given outcome. In these tests they look for how much you can put together in you head to get the outcome of the rule. But once rules exceed a given amount these tests break down as too many solutions exist that become viable. Like how there are many ways to build computers but you need a certain amount of working memory to begin with. Past 150 these tests are meaningless. The answers become too numerous (not one right answer exists) and so afterwards it's all about the perception of outcomes at greater distances.

 

[kuoka]

soure - Does IQ Really Predict Job Performance

Recent studies show a lower positive correlation. The one from the link shows 0.2 to 0.3 correlation in real life performance. For a correlation of 0.25 that would mean IQ only accounts for 6.25% difference in performance. This would suggest that high IQ provides a small advantage.


I believe that high IQ mostly gives a learning advantage. If a 120 IQ person and a 150 one were studying quantum physics with the same effort, the 150 IQ person would grasp the concepts faster.

When it comes to real work and applying knowledge the impact of high IQ is much lower. A lot of the work requires competences that IQ tests don't measure such as conscientiousness (working hard), planning skills, organization skills, social skills (emotional intelligence), creativity (not measured by IQ).


After watching a number of ultra high iq people (150+ iq) in interviews or on game shows over the years I noticed a few patterns. They are frequently introverted, most of them have low conscientiousness and poor social skills, their one on one skills are passable, but their teamwork skills suck.

Being introverted is a disadvantage at work, low conscientiousness is a huge disadvantage as is the lack of social skills. This generally erases most of the advantages conferred by high intelligence.

i just randomly recalled that i was reading a book recently that had an interesting quote from the pioneer of IQ-tests, Alfred Binet:

A few modern philosophers... assert that an individual's intelligence is a fixed quantity, a quantity which cannot be increased. We must protest and react against this brutal pessimism... With practice, training, and above all, method, we manage to increase our attention, our memory, our judgment and literally to become more intelligent than we were before.

Nice find. A lot of success in difficult tasks comes from maintaining long focus on a problem over many hours and days. This is something not measured by IQ, but is very important in most domains. Experience and good system for solving problems is very important for success.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Rules usual have a basis in reality otherwise they be arbitrary, random and not predictable.

Exactly when I have rules that predict reality or approximate it I have a model, if that model is so logical and so perfect that is 1 to 1 with reality have a model theory, that allows me to know things, that those with more poor modeling don't have.

How do I know what is real. I have rules that when I apply them I get to see outcomes that conform to my predictions.

The higher IQ the more robust modeling I can make, the more predictions I can make the smarter I can benefit from my prediction, the more I get done in reality with less effort, the more I can do with less effort in less time, the more intelligent I am.

However not all things can be done quickly. Lots of people for example can equate intellect with speed. However in real life somethings, especially very valuable things like building pyramids takes years of hard work and planning. So it would not be IQ that lets me built pyramids alone.
Lots of things require hard work so that means lots of people with high IQ who only do things for quick results will always be beaten by people who put in the work and are more focused.
This means you can get 100 IQ billionaires and 160 IQ idiots who live in moms basement.
The point is tho every time higher IQ people model the world they get to be more closer to reality overall, with higher resolution.

The other problem is that we cannot use max capacity of our brain 24 7, we need a break hence why IQ tests are 20 or 60 or few hours long, but if you had a untimed IQ test you might get different results entirely.

What happens in reality though is that human intellectual work gets spread out over time of months, years, even decades before humans can contribute to society in major way which means you have to work consistently on some things for 1000s of hours.

Conversely some people with lack of focus would have to work 10 times as hard as people who can focus.

 

[fluffy]

When it comes to speed that's a consequence of seeing all the parts fit together at the same time.

You can try all possible ways of putting things together really fast but that's not what is happening. Everything is happening at once nonlinear (the pattern recognition does multiple comparisons)

Anything complicated you make requires understanding the underlying dependencies. Airplanes can be built in many ways but it takes time to know how all the parts work together you don't just slap randomly together hopefully getting it to fly. Design must take into account the interactions between them which increases when having more complexity involved. It is just easier for high IQ people to see all the interactions making them look faster when they are not actually trying out great numbers random designs that fast.

So they see the complex solution for a getting a result faster the brain is not actually faster. What happens then is that some high IQ people find everything easy and get board. Or they never had to work hard and the first time they encounter a difficult problem they fail and give up forever. This really has to do with personality because high IQ doesn't make you work hard or less hard. It does determine what you can get done in a short timeframe.

I have projects I have been working on for years. This gives me a certain perspective on the problems I am working with I would not have if I had solved them right away. Only if I had to make them I have strengths and weaknesses. They don't automatically get done right away. But this exemplify my point that people choose to go with problems above their ability based on personality. Skills can match the hardness of a person goals or not. It depends on ones goals how easy or difficult it is for that person and if they don't give up.

 

[Old Things]

After watching a number of ultra high iq people (150+ iq) in interviews or on game shows over the years I noticed a few patterns. They are frequently introverted, most of them have low conscientiousness and poor social skills, their one on one skills are passable, but their teamwork skills suck.

Why are you describing me in brutal detail?

Spoiler

Note: I don't have a high IQ.

 

[Old Things]

My Verbal Comprehension Index is quite high. My Perceptual Reasoning Index is pretty good too. But my Processing Speed Index and Working Memory Index are far below average. I think one of them was "borderline." Still, I took the IQ test on no sleep the night before, and they estimated my IQ at 114. Wish I had slept the night before, because that was definitely not my peak. I answered every question on the "similarities" verbal test, but IDK how common this is, or if that is normative or not. When I took the RAVLT, I did not get many wrong answers, meaning I remember most of what they said. After the test, the administrator of the test told me I did better than they would have.

 

[ZenRaiden]

When it comes to speed that's a consequence of seeing all the parts fit together at the same time.

Right, so the higher IQ the more parts you can see all at once?

Ill just point out everyone is comfortable saying IQ is just a number on a scale.

Seems rather ridiculous claim.

 

[fluffy]

When it comes to speed that's a consequence of seeing all the parts fit together at the same time.

Right, so the higher IQ the more parts you can see all at once?

Ill just point out everyone is comfortable saying IQ is just a number on a scale.

Seems rather ridiculous claim.

What the test is and what it tries to measure are two separate things.

Intelligence tests can measure intelligence poorly doesn't mean intelligence doesn't exist.