This thread is permanently archived
are IQ tests actually reliable?
| They measure how well you can do an iq test that moment, reliably. Test groups given a little cash beforehand do better, people told they're expected to score high do better than those who aren't, etc...
Scores might be related to useful abilities in real situations, i don't know whether they ultimately are, but if so there are huge error bars
| Iq is overrated
| Depends, psychological tests should have some kind of reliability, but not online tests
| Yes.
| Nope.
| >>771199 im trying to apply for a job and they require me to take this iq test and screenshot them the results
| >>771210
Oh. Are you tryna become a cop in America? Because then it's easy. Just click buttons at random. That way you won't go over the limit.
| >>771230 lol it's a virtual assistant. idk why they need the results but they need me to go through with it. I scored 131 but idk if that's high or not.
>>771246 yikes
| >>771277
If you score 131 on the mensa application test you're part of the top 2%. Who knows how virtual assistant companies grades their test scores though.
| They're not.
| Reliable for what they are, at least the "proper" ones are. There definitely is a correlation between IQ test results and general intelligence. However, these tests still definitely do not provide the full picture.
| I wonder who they score to give them low IQ, there's gotta be some truth to that "2% of the population" but anyone who have a below-average intelligence is probably struggling enough just to survive, forget about passing some random test that'll tell them they're stupid
| IQ is the best tool we have to determine intelligence. If you can determine patterns in IQ tests, then there is a good chance you can determine other patterns in real life. That way you can see opportunities that other people just can't comprehend. Of course, that would also mean that people with high IQ should be richer, healthier, more empathetic, and more successful.
And the data shows exactly that.
| >>771318
This comment is really funny to me, because I have a friend who consistently scores the exact same number on official IQ tests. I think it's 138 he has, which is very comfortably in the top 2%.
But I also have a friend who did the same test and didn't get a number because the result screen said that the program doesn't yet know how to score test results that are that low.
So, well, that literally happened to someone I know, right before my eyes.
| From my understanding iq tests have a problem if you're unfamiliar with any of the concepts it asks it isn't a measurement of your intelligence but knowledge, so basically they may be useful if you understand everything on it but not so much if you don't
I believe this bites people who went to shitty schools the most
| >>771342 The famous imaginary data that says the opposite of what experts agree on.
IQ is mostly crap, has some uses but it doesn't do anything accurately.
And success and all that shit comes mostly from environment, family and luck, and has nothing to do with intelligence.
IQ tests were initially created to detect lacks of "intelligence", not to *measure* intelligence. And even at that, it's quite inefficient.
| >>771443
People with high IQ tend to underestimate their relatively high capabilities when comparing themselves to others. I said the same thing as you did before joining mensa and found out that it was a very common mindset among members before they started testing themselves.
>>771342
Sorry, scoring high on IQ tests does not mean that you're more(or less) likely to become successful, richer or healthier.
| well score, rather!!
| >>771478
132. As in, I barely made it.
I did more tests as a member, after I got diagnosed with ADHD and got pills for it, and scored 146 both times. I dunno what my real score is but I certainly never feel like the smartest person in the room lol.
| >>771477
> Sorry, scoring high on IQ tests does not mean that you're more(or less) likely to become successful, richer or healthier.
Sorry, not sorry.
https://www.businessinsider.com/facts-you-dont-want-to-know-iq-2011-11?IR=T#for-each-one-point-increase-in-a-countrys-average-iq-the-per-capita-gdp-was-229-higher-and-can-go-up-to-468-higher-for-each-additional-point-7
| >>771494
Sorry, that's not a scientific study. It is a non-peer reviewed article written by and for an online magazine named APS, and it still doesn't show what you claim it does, which is:
>that people with high IQ should be richer, healthier, more empathetic, and more successful.
It claims that a countrys economy is stronger if the average IQ test score is higher, but it doesn't present any data, and it doesn't say anything about where the wealth is distributed.
| >>771494 I'm not trying to shit on you but it is very funny that you are trying to prove that IQ measures something important by comparing it to GDP, when even the person who created GDP has said that GDP is a bad measurement of anything important.
| Why is everyone being so childish over all of this? It's pathetic. Just calm down. Everyone.
| >>771513 they literally have their sources after each statement. I can share you Sci-Hub links on the studies themselves if you want to. But it's just silly.
| >>771529 this issue is very important. If IQ is a more or less reliable predictor of a person's life (which it is) then this opens up a lot of political issues. Our society is built upon the notion that every human is the same, and the person's fate is just a matter of hard work and socioeconomic factors. If it is just not the case then what should we do? Just pretend to not notice?
| >>771560
>they literally have their sources after each statement.
No. They *dont*. The "source" is the online magazine called APS that I mentioned earlier and they haven't presented any data whatsoever.
You didn't even bother to read the full article yourself before accepting it as fact... wtf dude?
| >>55d4cd
If you have Sci-Hub data that APS isn't posting or mentioning then please share them here.
>what should we do?
We should have an open mind and don't believe anything until we have enough information to make a sound decision. A random article about a country's GDP and IQ correlation is not proof that people with high IQ should be richer, healthier, more empathetic, and more successful.
| >>771594 you ARE aware that the link is pointing to just one of the facts of the "11 Uncomfortable Facts About How IQ Affects Your Life", right? And here I am being accused of not bothering to read the full article...
Well, anyway. APS (Association For Psychological Science) is a proxy for a popular peer-reviewed journal called, surprise-surprise, Psychological Science (https://www.resurchify.com/impact/details/13468).
| So, why APS didn't include any data for their article? Because it is under a paywall. This data you want to check is not free.
Or at least it shouldn't be free. God bless sci-hub.
https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611407207
| > We should have an open mind and don't believe anything until we have enough information to make a sound decision
Of course. I tried my best to form my opinion based on the empirical evidence. I pointed to the media article because it was easier than aggregating sci-hub links, and most people don't care anyway.
| If you still have doubts (or too "open-minded" to check peer-reviewed studies for yourself before claiming "scoring high on IQ tests does not mean that you're more(or less) likely to become successful, richer or healthier"), then we can continue this discussion tomorrow. I really need to work.
| >>771609
Dude, you owned youself several times over.
The study still isn't peer-reviewed despite you claiming that it is.(who reviewed it?)
A correlation between a nations GDP and IQ scores is not proof that people with high IQ should be richer, healthier, more empathetic, and more successful. You keep ignoring this obvious statement for some reason. I get the feeling that you're more interested in winning random Internet arguments than actually proving your point. It's dumb.
| >Make off-handed ill-educated statement
>Get's asked to evaluate
>Links an article that talks about something completely different and PRETENDS it proves your point
Why do people do this? Is it an ego thing? This shit should stay in /new/.
| >>771608
>I tried my best to form my opinion based on the empirical evidence.
This is you operating at your best? L M A O @ u
| >>771612
Can you, like, scroll up? Why do you bring up this GDP thing once again? https://www.businessinsider.com/facts-you-dont-want-to-know-iq-2011-11?IR=T
| Health:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4659286/
Income:
https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2007.02.003
Success:
https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/20628656
| You can derive these three from the first source but whatever.
| >>771563
It isn't the case, and it's never been. IQ is the least of your worries when it comes to that shit. Capitalism isn't fair. I mean, it fucks over neurodivergents, people with handicaps, people with mental illness, any sort of minority, anyone who's born into a worse economy and I could go on and on.
My man, making it in the world has never been about "hard work" or any other bs like that. It's about either being born lucky or being stuck underneath those who were.
| Like, it also doesn't matter if IQ matters or not, because IQ does not mean you're smart. It's a measurement purely for understanding logic stuff. Of course that gives you a slight edge, but people still vary greatly, high IQ or not. It's never been "equal opportunity" for anyone. That shit doesn't exist, especially not in society how it is today, and IQ a couple numbers up or down on a test is the least of your worries with that shit.
| >>771631 I don't think it is correct to call capitalism unfair. Yes, it is retarded, but the cause of it is our retarded human nature. We are not built to be efficient in a societies of that scale. That's why things are not nice and capitalism is still there.
| >>771637
Uh, yes. It is inherently unfair. It's a hierarchy. Hierarchies are not meant to be fair, and they never will be fair. Don't act like anyone can become rich.
And, yeah, people like to call a lot of things "human nature". People in capitalist society are greedy because it's a system that punishes everyone who isn't. When you give rewards to people who are greedy and treat others like shit then of course they're gonna do that because the only other option is to stay under.
| But, I'm gonna stop myself there. I don't wanna act like some /new/ cunt. It's just a topic that I'm very passionate about, as I've seen first hand, over and over and over again, how unfair the system is.
| >>771665
>People in capitalist society are greedy because it's a system that punishes everyone who isn't
True, but also people are inherently greedy even without capitalism, always putting self first and never being content with just what they have if they can get more (sometimes even if they can't). And that's okay.
| >>771665
I don't really get this /new/ thing. If you want to discuss something then why not? As long as we are civil about it, I don't see any problem.
From my perspective, capitalism is not a mysterious villain that forces everyone to be greedy. It is a word that describes a set of rules about our society that most people accept. The other side of greed is efficiency. People will choose a manufacturer that produces the best phone and not the best working conditions.
| This system is not about how to make every human happy. It is about how to get more for less. And you and I are participating in this game. So, there is nothing unfair about it. It is just what it is.
| >>771673
I guess that's fair. I don't really see this getting uncivil, so I guess I'll continue.
>>771673 >>771674
I'm not calling it some mysterious villain, but what I will call it is a system that's used for systematic oppression, which it is. It's a system that gives almost all power to very few people, and those people have it really good while the rest, especially minorities, suffer heavily for their benefit, living under their rules and getting fucked over if they don't.
| >>771671
Sure. Some people might be. But the current system only encourages it and rewards them for it. A better system where it's harder to fuck people over out of greed or there's very little to no incentive for it would be a lot better over all, and would make things a lot more fair.
And when I say fair I mean everyone having a chance. When I say capitalism is inherently unfair, I mean that in capitalism only very few select people have actually good opportunities.
| Yes, we're all forced into playing the same game, but in this game people don't have the same rules and some people have overwhelming advantages from the start while others have so many disadvantages from the start that they will never get the opportunity to move up.
So, circling back to the topic this started on, IQ is a very small but still valid example of that. People with a lot of it have it slightly better, people with little of it have it worse.
| Like, IQ is mostly a genetic thing. That means that some people are smarter than others just like some people are higher than others.
| I genuinely don't understand.
| My other point is, we have capitalism because we are greedy, and we are greedy because we are humans. Those very few that oppress the world are also just a bunch of lucky humans. They hold power just because the rest of the world believes in that power. You can almost say that people want to be oppressed because otherwise, we would revolt a long time ago.
|
| >>771682 >>771683 >>771685
If we, for example, have a system that isn't based on economy, or a system that doesn't pretend like everyone is equal.
Having low IQ doesn't mean you can't do anything. There's still tons of stuff people with low IQ can be skilled at. But because the way to get jobs within this system isn't by being good at it but my sitting through years of "tests" that test everything except for your actually skills at said thing, it's extremely hard.
| You don't need to be super smart to do a lot of stuff, but the school system still tests you on stuff that you don't need to know to do the job you're aiming for but that you need to be smart for, and that fucks them up leaving them with either no job or very low pay.
Like, the friend of mine I mentioned very early in this thread who has very low IQ is amazing at carpentry, but he struggles with school because it tests him on tons of stuff that isn't carpentry.
| >>771687
And, no. I'm sorry. You need to do a bit of history research.
>They hold power just because the rest of the world believes in that power. You can almost say that people want to be oppressed because otherwise, we would revolt a long time ago.
I'm trying to say this very nicely, because it's not your fault that you haven't been thought this, but that is a very ignorant statement. That's what the politicians tell you, but it's not the case according to history.
| First off, being oppressed isn't a choice. If you revolt against the government you get killed. They own the police, the military and can ruin your life of end it with the snap of a finger because they control the system we live in.
Then there's also the fact that capitalism is built on slavery. It's a system that was created alongside slavery. That's not something the common folk had a choice in. It's not like the majority of people wanted capitalism. It's always just been the 1%>
| So it's not that they have the power because the rest of the world believes in that power. They have that power because their ancestors slaughtered, abused and oppressed massive amounts of people and built a system that put them at the top and everyone else at the bottom. It's because they created systems to enforce their rules and keep people from working against them and called it "ensuring safety" and "protecting civilians".
| Bump
| >>da425c
Can you shut the fuck up? Like, read thread title and SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.
No one cares about your savior complex. READ TITLE AND FUCK OFF
| >>772067
Aw. I'm sorry for continuing the conversation I was told was okay to continue and that was related to the current topic. My apologies. I should have stuck with the title and not the actual conversation in the thread.
Also, I recommend learning big words before using them.
https://www.healthline.com/health/savior-complex#how-it-affects-you
| Ah such is the threads of /u/. Someone just asked innocently about a certain topic then it rapidly escalates. Great to be here
Also to answer your question OP, IQ test can be reliable to some degree but shouldn't be something you solely depend your worth on. Some can be bad at analytical problems but is much more inept to process real life things. Hope that helps
This thread is permanently archived
| ?