Does IQ really determine intelligence?

[stefan80302]

i don't thinkg they should be written at all.
All they are usefull for are arguments.

 

[stefan80302]

or is it
all they are usefull for is arguments
someone correct me

 

[dekoi]

So much emphasis on intelligence capability. Most prosperous people have low IQ's anyway. Why take tests that will only urge immodesty and an arrogant personality? If you’re going to take an IQ test, hopefully you keep it to yourself. :) But that is just my subjective statement.

(no pessimistic behavior was meant)

 

[selfAdjoint]

Most prosperous people have low IQ's anyway

For everyone from poor up to almost rich, there is a strong correlation between IQ and income. In fact IQ predicts income better than papa's income or social class; that research was reported in The Bell Curve.

For the really rich, the correlation fails; they get their money in other ways than by being smarter than the next guy.

 

[stefan80302]

For everyone from poor up to almost rich, there is a strong correlation between IQ and income. In fact IQ predicts income better than papa's income or social class; that research was reported in The Bell Curve.

For the really rich, the correlation fails; they get their money in other ways than by being smarter than the next guy.

Not to be rude but you would not say that unless you are rich and are trying to keep your, I'm just born better, dream alive. Today intelligence plays no role in success, JFK had an IQ of 119, John Gotti had an IQ of 110, and don't even make me say Bush's IQ. I think today more than any other time there is plenty of evidence of how unimportant IQ is, what is important for success ,however, are motivation, connections, and sometimes luck.

 

[recon]

Not to be rude but you would not say that unless you are rich and are trying to keep your, I'm just born better, dream alive. Today intelligence plays no role in success, JFK had an IQ of 119, John Gotti had an IQ of 110, and don't even make me say Bush's IQ. I think today more than any other time there is plenty of evidence of how unimportant IQ is, what is important for success ,however, are motivation, connections, and sometimes luck.

Do people really see Bush as successful? Why did you have to give examples of a Mafia Boss and Presidents as successful people? Anyway, their job does not require a high IQ but, rather, other factors are involved, i.e. as you said, connections, luck, etc. With political careers, IQ doesn't seem to play much of a role. And it really shouldn't, otherwise the politician wouldn't act in the interest of most of the people with average intelligence. One would not elect a president of profound intelligence (IQ 180) because (s)he would not be able to relate to the general population. I think what you meant by 'success' in your post is fame, in which case, luck has a pivotal role.

I actually prefer to look at certain business people and scientists when it comes to looking at successful people. While IQ testing definitely isn't accurate, it gives reasonable predictions for a person's ability for most of the population. Bill Gates wouldn't be where he is today with an IQ of 110; I think he would need at least an IQ of 140 and a whole lot of ingenuity (which is not the same as IQ).

Can you give a few examples where a person of an IQ of less than 100 has been successful in business and science?

 

[dekoi]

Recon: since you seem more knowledgeable in this field, what would you say is the average IQ among the successful american or world population? Again, not just average of the general population; i mean the general among the successful. Any predictions?

Also, what would an average IQ be for a 17 year old male?

 

[dekoi]

I also do not understand why some say IQs of 119 (like JFK) are not very high. That is considerably above average. I find http://www.highiqsociety.com/ to be the best IQ Test, because it is not generous like others. If you have taken another test and have received a score higher than 150, i suggest you take this test.

It goes like something resembling this system:

below 100 = below average (of all ages)

100 = average

100 - 115 (above average, yet normal)

115 - 125 (above average; intelligent)

125 - 140 (very intelligent)

140 and up = extreme genius


I believe Aristotle had an IQ of more than 190. And Einstein about 160.

Everybody thinks that Albert Einstein's IQ was very high, but this is definately not the case, his adult IQ was just above 160. He was definately a genius, but this was not primarily due to his IQ, but his amazing level on transcendental thinking. Transcendental (= raised, sublime) thinking means that he can raise his thinking (i.e. the paths it takes) above the ordinary level. Basically it means that he was extremely creative and imaginative. An IQ score is a combination of brainspeed and brainpower. You have a certain amount of time to take an IQ test, but if you don't mind the time and just make the test and take more time than allowed, you can score up to 30 points higher. So Albert Einstein's IQ was just above 160 (which is also very high) but he takes his time and he raises his thinking to an amazing level and then you can compare him to somebody with an IQ of 200. So Einstein had a lot of brainpower but his brainspeed compared to brainpower was low.

---

I hear (not sure if it was on this forum) that the maximum points which you can increase during your lifetime is 20 (if an effort is put in) and about 5 for a regular life style. is this factual?

 

[recon]

According to the definition of IQ, the average IQ would be 100 for the world's population. As Orion1 wrote in his previous post,

Intelligence Quotient: (IQ)
. a number indicating level of intelligence, obtained by multiplying the mental age by 100 and dividing by the chronological age.

I_q = \frac{100 A_m}{A_c}

A_m = \frac{I_q A_c}{100}

This would take into consideration everyone below, at, or above the poverty line. It would also take into consideration different cultures, each with different emphasis on education.

As you can see, quite inevitably, studies have shown that people below the poverty line have lower IQs on average, not because the reason they are poor is because they were stupid in the first place, but because they never really have the opportunity to develop their intelligence to the fullest potential.

I don't quite understand what you mean by 'successful', but I am assuming you are talking about people who are above the poverty line. I don't have any figures (even if there were figures, you should not really believe them) but people who are affluent definely fare better than poor people.

By the age of 17, IQ should have developed to its full potential and doesn't get any better. As far as I know, IQ does not differ from gender to gender. However, since some developing countries place a greater emphasis for males to have an education, some tests may show males to have greater intelligence.

If you look at the definition for IQ, the average IQ, taking into account all 17-year-old males, SHOULD be 100. This figure is inherent to any age group not withstanding racial, cultural and socioeconomic factors.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Not to be rude but you would not say that unless you are rich and are trying to keep your, I'm just born better, dream alive. Today intelligence plays no role in success, JFK had an IQ of 119, John Gotti had an IQ of 110, and don't even make me say Bush's IQ. I think today more than any other time there is plenty of evidence of how unimportant IQ is, what is important for success ,however, are motivation, connections, and sometimes luck.

Anecdotes don't mean a thing compared to studies with large sample sizes. I am not rich, although I made good enough money before I retired, and I don't use IQ for putting others down. But facts are facts, and it's sad to see how many find mental tricks to keep themselves from looking at facts.

 

[stefan80302]

Do people really see Bush as successful? Why did you have to give examples of a Mafia Boss and Presidents as successful people? Anyway, their job does not require a high IQ but, rather, other factors are involved, i.e. as you said, connections, luck, etc. With political careers, IQ doesn't seem to play much of a role. And it really shouldn't, otherwise the politician wouldn't act in the interest of most of the people with average intelligence. One would not elect a president of profound intelligence (IQ 180) because (s)he would not be able to relate to the general population. I think what you meant by 'success' in your post is fame, in which case, luck has a pivotal role.

I actually prefer to look at certain business people and scientists when it comes to looking at successful people. While IQ testing definitely isn't accurate, it gives reasonable predictions for a person's ability for most of the population. Bill Gates wouldn't be where he is today with an IQ of 110; I think he would need at least an IQ of 140 and a whole lot of ingenuity (which is not the same as IQ).

I would have to disagree with you recon. In my personal experience mathematics, business, and science have been easy to comprehend and use since they all relly on clearly stated strategies. On the other hand understanding people and more especially convincing people(hint) has been one of the hardest things i have had to do in life. Politicians and mafiosos are good examples of individuals who have understood people and have learned how to manipulate them. Hence, the fact that these people (JFK and Gotti) have had about average IQs tells me that there are other factors at play besides their intelligence. Further on, from personal experience i agree with you that some business people are very intelligent; however, just like in any other line of work there always are plenty of non intelligent people who run companies and do very well. Maybe its luck, or a sixth sense, but i personally don't think iq has to very much to do with it. Notice i don't rule out the fact that you need smarts to be in business but i don't think that smarts are just math or logic which iq measures.
But please don't take anything i say personally one thing i know for sure in life is that i know very little, I'm just trying to learn.

 

[recon]

I also do not understand why some say IQs of 119 (like JFK) are not very high.

The reason why JFK is said not to have a high IQ is because this kind of IQ is not uncommon. The chances of having an IQ of 119 is around 1 in 9. Compare this to having an IQ of 160, which has a rarity of 1 in 11,000.

I hear (not sure if it was on this forum) that the maximum points which you can increase during your lifetime is 20 (if an effort is put in) and about 5 for a regular life style. is this factual?

The main reason why you can 'increase' your IQ score is because it is possible for someone to learn to do well at IQ tests. This can drastically boost your score, even up to the extent of increasing your score at an IQ test by 20 points. Your intelligence does not really increase in this case.

On the other hand, a child who has received little nutrition will score better at an IQ test after receiving adequate nutrition. If you are already eating good and are not being oppressed in any way, the chances are that you are not going to be able to increase your intelligence.

 

[recon]

Hence, the fact that these people (JFK and Gotti) have had about average IQs tells me that there are other factors at play besides their intelligence.

I don't think I said anything in my previous post about IQ playing an important role in being a politician.

With political careers, IQ doesn't seem to play much of a role.

 

[stefan80302]

I don't think I said anything in my previous post about IQ playing an important role in being a politician.

yes what I'm saying is that it is hard to understand people, politicians understand and manipulate people, politicians don't have high IQs, hence iq doenst play much role in success and comprehension,

 

[hypnagogue]

yes what I'm saying is that it is hard to understand people, politicians understand and manipulate people, politicians don't have high IQs, hence iq doenst play much role in success and comprehension,

The stat that selfAdjoint posted was that IQ is correlated with income. Politicians don't make all that much, and mob bosses don't have their income on the books in the first place. Nothing you've said so far is inconsistent with this statistic.

If you wanted to dispute this point, what you'd want to do is find a flaw in the sampling method, or find a faulty assumption made by the author in his statistical analysis, etc. What you wouldn't want to do is hand-wave about specific cases. That kind of argument is extremely weak precisely where statistical arguments are extremely strong (rigorous mathematical methods, large sample sizes).

 

[Evo]

What about scientists? They have high IQ's, yet people in technical sales with average IQ's make on average $100,000 to $250,000 per year and more. Perhaps people with very low IQ's won't make much money without hitting the lottery, but unfortunately most professions which require high IQ's do not pay well.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Evo, these are still just impressions, and they don't stack up against the statistics. Of course the correlation isn't 100%, but it's higher than the correlation for any other well-known sociological quantity with income. Actually the technical statement is stronger: IQ is significant even when you control for those other varaibles. You can only make that kind of statement if you have a large sample, and those researchers did.

 

[juju]

Hi All,

IQ is not an adequate measure of intelligence. It does not measure the ability to learn over time and it does not measure the ability to self-correct over time.

juju

 

[recon]

Hi All,

IQ is not an adequate measure of intelligence. It does not measure the ability to learn over time and it does not measure the ability to self-correct over time.

juju

Do you have a personal vendetta against IQ or something? In case you have not noticed, there isn't a lot of us who have posted on this thread who believe in the validity of IQ tests. You could have provided us with links to studies made by scientists regarding this, however.

 

[juju]

Hey Recon,

My point of view is not predicated on anyone's statistical studies. It comes from my own experience.

There are those who do not have a real high IQ, but would run circles around those that do, in any real world situation. This is often called street-smarts.

IQ measures only intellectual capacity. Again, from my own experience this is subject to large changes over time.
Questions (and types of questions) that can't be answered one day, can be answered on another.

juju

 

[selfAdjoint]

Hey Recon,

My point of view is not predicated on anyone's statistical studies. It comes from my own experience.

There are those who do not have a real high IQ, but would run circles around those that do, in any real world situation. This is often called street-smarts.

IQ measures only intellectual capacity. Again, from my own experience this is subject to large changes over time.
Questions (and types of questions) that can't be answered one day, can be answered on another.

juju

You seem to confuse IQ with education or accumulated experience, as indicated by your statement that mental capacity shows large variation over time. One of the definitions of IQ is the ability to solve new problems and learn new ways of doing things. The IQ tests are based on this idea.

 

[juju]

Hi selfAdjoint,

The idea I was getting to is that if you take the SAME IQ test, say five years apart, you will do much better the second time around than if you took a different version of the test.

This seems to be related to the number and strength of neuronal connections in the brain.
If this is true, then IQ must be related to something else. It seems that this something else must be genetic and this is a very dangerous conceptual area.

juju

 

[selfAdjoint]

Are you sure of this effect? IQ is regarded by sociologists as one of the most stable of measured variables, measured IQs of adults not varying more than an average 5 points over a considerable span of time. Of course they don't usually give exactly the same questions the second time; that could confuse IQ with good memory!

 

[juju]

Hi,

My ideas about this effect come from self-observation.

I have taken short pseudo IQ tests (similar questions to normal IQ tests but no time limits and many fewer questions).

Months later I have seen similar questions that I had no idea of how to go about solving or answering the first time around, but the method seemed obvious the second time.

From this I conclude that there must be some level of subconscious learning associated with IQ test results.

An alternative explanation is that the total state of the body brain matrix is involved in access to certain brain structures used to solve problems, and how you "feel" affects results.

If IQ is related to a basic unchanging thing, this must relate to brain structure in general, which is set by genetics plus early programming that can't be changed.

The implication is that the average IQ of a population can be increased with the right early age programming.

juju

 

[Eternelle]

Online IQ tests, self-administered tests from books, most school tests and the majority of workplace/selection tests are fun and a good talking point but they are not a reliable measure of IQ. Not to mention that a properly administered IQ test is limited anyway because it only provides a snapshot of that moment in time – it’s not a label for life.

Having said that, IQ is the most accurate predictor of academic and job success.

For an IQ score to be accurate and meaningful certain conditions apply. The IQ test must be reliable and valid (e.g., Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale-III, Stanford-Binet-IV etc).

Test administrators have specific training to administer that particular test. Trained administrators are usually registered psychologists. Both the WAIS-III and SB-IV are administered to only one person at a time, and take approx 45-90 minutes to complete.

Raw scores are not provided to the test taker or the organization (school, company etc) that required the testing, as raw scores can be extremely misleading. Instead the raw scores are interpreted by a psychologist who will provide a meaningful IQ score and interpretation to the organization.

The WAIS scores include an overall IQ score, a verbal IQ, performance IQ and 11 scaled subtest scores. An IQ score is essentially meaningless alone – many things can affect an individual’s score, it becomes more meaningful when accompanied by a repeat IQ score and other measures of ability and potential.

WAIS-III and SB-IV scores are not comparable, nor can an IQ test taken a few years ago be compared with an IQ test taken today.

All psychological tests (IQ, MMPI, EQ, Rorschach, Aptitude etc) are highly vulnerable to abuse. This happens when tests are administered and scored by people who are not trained test admin/analysts. For example, a psychologist will be alerted by incongruent scores (i.e., >15 pt between verbal and math score) and explore why this has occurred. The untrained administrator does not have the knowledge to understand how their own behaviour can affect the tester nor the statistical knowledge to recognize scoring errors.

Eternelle

 

[Chi Meson]

This is soooo close to being an exactly 3 year old necropost. Is this a record?

Will we see Eternelle again? IF so, Welcome Eternelle!

What were you googeling so as to bring you to Physics forums?

 

[Eternelle]

LOLOLOL

Oh my gosh - that is so funny - "necropost" is a wonderful neologism! I hope 3 years is a record - I strive to avoid the mundane.

I was actually responding in another discussion forum about IQ - one which was as equally riddled with misconceptions as this thread. I had googled the WAIS - R because I could not recall the exact subscales of that particular IQ test. I found this thread and ended up forgetting about the other and responding to this one, not noticing the date of the last posting...

It appears I know vast amounts about standardized testing (I'm a psyc grad student) - but clearly need to work on the timing of my posting..

Have a good one

Eternelle - Undertaker of Necroposts

 

[Chi Meson]

I was actually responding in another discussion forum about IQ - one which was as equally riddled with misconceptions as this thread.

This particular forum, "General Discussion," is where we come to yak about things we don't know about. Check out the tensor sub-forum if you want to be impressed.

 

[animalcroc]

When I was in elementary school I was consistently selected by my teachers to take an IQ test to join the GATE (gifted and talented education) program. Each year, for three years, I took the test and did not make the cut. There were people who made the cut and were in my class. I knew them and always thought my "intellectual capacity" was much higher than theirs. It turns out I have been the only one to progress through calculus (they couldn't handle it) and on to higher math, and academic excellence in general. In fact, I have a natural talent for derivations and proofs, even something most of my peers at UCSD don't.
I don't know how much weight to give IQ tests nor do I understand what they measure.