What IQ differences really mean

[NiennaLadyOfTears]

IQ tests are either flawed or I come across as more intelligent than I really am. I consistently score around 75-80.

 

[Matt3737]

I agree with [MENTION=1678]Norton[/MENTION] that the term 'genius' is more of a social construct that recognizes intellectual accomplishments.

Isaac Asimov

Asimov was a long-time member and Vice President of Mensa International, albeit reluctantly; he described some members of that organization as "brain-proud and aggressive about their IQs."

In the upper echelons of IQ testing, it really becomes more of a social status symbol and competition mechanism. They are simply better than others at 'solving' IQ tests, but it does serve as a good approximation measure for intelligence.

 

[Gaze]

IQ tests are either flawed or I come across as more intelligent than I really am. I consistently score around 75-80.

I am not even sure what range differences really mean but they're not about lack of intelligence. Being intelligent is a fact imho, not a matter of "if". I guess, one of the negatives of intelligence ranges or testing is that it's too often used to describe what someone is supposedly not able to do rather than what they are able to do.

I think the problems with IQ are our fault as humans is that we use them more to label or define rather than benefit the human race. We use them to distinguish or set up hierarchies between ourselves than as bridges to help each other succeed. When people were being judged as less intelligent, it was an incorrect designation. It was saying, "you were not as good as or not capable of doing certain things as someone else or you're not able to function as everyone else on average." We focused less on ability and more on inability. To me, that's the problem with the description of IQ differences.

Differences in intellectual ability exist, it's how we see those differences which create those problems or issues we have with it.

 

[Matt3737]

IQ tests are either flawed or I come across as more intelligent than I really am. I consistently score around 75-80.

Since you play WoW, you probably would recognize the 'e-peen' social competition inherent within the game. IQ test are similar. I wouldn't say you're unintelligent, just that you are not interested in competing for a higher score. You don't take it seriously enough for it to validate.

 

[Norton]

Saying someone is required or obligated to accomplish great things just because they are genius...

I guess I don't feel obligated to call someone a "genius" just because he or she got a high score on an IQ test. I do believe that a true genius must accomplish great things to be so labeled. Getting a high score on an IQ test is not a great accomplishment. Now, it's quite possible that a true genius is likely to score high on an IQ test if you can induce him or her to take one.

 

[Gaze]

I agree with @Norton that the term 'genius' is more of a social construct that recognizes intellectual accomplishments.

Isaac Asimov



In the upper echelons of IQ testing, it really becomes more of a social status symbol and competition mechanism. They are simply better than others at 'solving' IQ tests, but it does serve as a good approximation measure for intelligence.

Real IQ differences exist whatever the social status, but being aware of IQ can be beneficial if it allows us to develop talents and abilities in motivating and supportive environments. This can make the concept of IQ better understood and capable of more productive time and investment.

Being told that you are smart, intelligent, brilliant, or genius may be nice but at its base, it doesn't tell you anything beneficial or useful about the type of intelligence you have. If someone tells me, "I have the ability or I am smart or intelligence" but stops there, it does nothing for me. I don't know what that means or how I should parlay that into more productive development of my intellectual abilities.

So, not a fan of the labels but again, the variations exist.

 

[invisible]

whether or not we say "i disagree with this use of the word genius" doesn't change that the word is commonly used in this context to mean something, right? we can't get rid of the concept just by insisting that we don't value it. obviously the test does measure something, as we can see by the fact that people score differently on it. we can statistically analyse the distribution of results and assign score groups based on frequency of those results.

 

[Gaze]

It feels like I've been over arguing a simple point. You know, it's not that important anyway.


But thanks to everyone who replied to this thread.

 

[invisible]

i thought it was interesting. i understand all of the conflicts but it does seem a waste that it is so fraught with anxiety that we can't make better use of it.

 

[Norton]

My final point is that intelligence unused is intelligence wasted. The number means nothing except as an access or bar to Mensa membership. Use your intelligence to do good in the world and make an impact on society. Be judged by your deeds, not a number. Ultimately, you are what you do.

 

[This]

I am sure that these tests play to the strengths of their creators. If I was to create a test that was supposed to judge intelligence, creativity or any other trait we as a society deem to be "good" it would most certainly bias my strengths I'm sure. Whether intentional or not.

Furthermore what this test measures is something that computers excel at. I certainly wouldn't consider my computer a genius even though it is very efficient at what it does.

 

[Peppermint]

I would disagree with there being a personal bias involved. The whole point of real IQ testing is to make it as standardized and broadly applying as possible. Mensa tests eliminate the need for language from their tests entirely, and sometimes even numbers, relying only on graphical images and testing pure pattern recognition. While this might bias the test toward people with good spatial abilities, it's not because of a personal preference.

 

[This]

It most certainly is biased in the sense of assuming that pattern recognition is a decent basis for overall intelligence. I would imagine that whoever came up with the idea of IQ tests or how they would work fancied themselves as quite intelligent and came up with theories that reinforced those assumptions.

 

[subwayrider]

Yes! I am SUPERIOR!

muahahaha

*cough cough*

That being said, "Intelligence Quotient" is only a name. In my experience, it tests your reasoning, arithmetic, and spatial skills. These can all be developed.

 

[subwayrider]

I dont even understand the question, or if a question was even presented. For instance there is no ? in the OP. I guess I fit into the dullness category.

Sorry, bro. We can't all be SUPERIOR.

 

[CAptain]

[TABLE="class: cms_table_wikitable"]
[TR]
[TH]84 - 116[/TH]
[TD]Normal or average intelligence [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[the]

Here is an example of an IQ test I took. I was in the math part and there was a symbol I didnt recognize. So I did not get the question right. The question was essentially that 4 was larger than 3 but I didnt understand the symbol and therefore scored less than I should have.

 

[Gaze]

Here is an example of an IQ test I took. I was in the math part and there was a symbol I didnt recognize. So I did not get the question right. The question was essentially that 4 was larger than 3 but I didnt understand the symbol and therefore scored less than I should have.

I think this is why they began to develop culture fair tests. These are tests where the tests aren't biased to any particular knowledge, experience, or background. So, anyone anywhere should be able to take the tests without any fear of bias or advantage.

 

[invisible]

i don't consider someone who has special gymnastics abilities to be a genius exactly. but if i discovered that they possessed these abilities at a young age i might be interested in supplying them with specialised education components. rather than just saying 'you've got these abilities. so what. you're no better than me.'

 

[This]

I think people are generally as smart as they want to be (baring the truly disabled) and that there is a direct correlation between effort and intelligence.