Intelligence is more than IQ score

Holding up an IQ test result as a way of demonstrating intelligence is like saying that you're cleverer than Stephen Fry just because you always beat him at chess.

I think people dismissive of your viewpoint are butthurt because they got high scores and want to wave their IQ-dicks.

Despite being in the top 1% in terms of my score, I agree that IQ tests are complete rubbish. They aren't accurate representations of intelligence by any means.

To the OP, it isn't really about how good you are at maths. It's about how good you are at answering questions quickly (mental agility) - nothing more.

No, people dismissive of his viewpoint include the majority of relevant experts in the field of psychology. IQ tests aren't perfect by any means, but they're the most accurate and reliable measure of what society considers to be intelligence that we know of. Unless you have evidence in favour of your speculation, I think people dismissive of what the American Psychological Association and others have to say are "butthurt" because they took an IQ test and got a lower score than they were expecting, or because they know that they probably won't have a high IQ.



The majority of relevant experts in the field of psychology disagree with you. IQ tests aren't perfect, but they're the most reliable and accurate measures of intelligence that we have. In other words, those who are considered intelligent by others will generally do better on IQ tests than those who are considered less intelligent.

Furthermore, IQ tests are the best predictor of job performance that we have, and also correlate highly with school performance and educational achievement.

You can measure mental agility. I have a friend who got into Cambridge to do Maths and his IQ is 102. He's one of the cleverest people I've met irrespective of that.

However, I never claimed that IQ tests were perfect, but they do measure all-round general intelligence quite well.

How are you deciding that they measure all round intelligence quite well? (if you're not using the circular reasoning 'because they measure IQ don't they').

When used in conjunction with some other criteria?

Why not regard that other criteria as far more important? And an IQ test as less meaningful than a General Studies A-level?

How are you deciding that they measure all round intelligence quite well? (if you're not using the circular reasoning 'because they measure IQ don't they').

Viddy already covered this well and no social knowledge and the knowledge of customs is quite distinct from intelligence as it relates more to EQ (empathy quotients). I imagine your problem OP is that you assume that IQ tests are just like any test you sit at school. They are not. They are (good ones) not to test your knowledge in anyway and so a ignorant 18 year old can easily have the same IQ as a very well-read 70 year old, yet the difference in knowledge between the two is vast. This is becuase intelligence =/= knowledge. Anyone can gain the maximum amount of knowledge that their memory allows over an infinite amount of time but intelligence is to do with how quickly and efficiency someone can do that, the level of motivation to do that that they have and also, I think, the maximum amount that their memory allows them.

Common Sense > Academic Ability

The amount of brilliantly academic people I know who lack any kind of common sense is .. concerning.

Having to remind them that microwaving the beans still in the can, is probably not a great idea.

IQ tests have a lot to do with the knowledge received from a basic education though. IQ tests shouldn't measure knowledge, but they do. They are very culture-dependent.

True - as I stated in my last post, intelligence is only mildly correlated with rationality, and even then only in certain circumstances. Intelligent people aren't any more likely to be spontaneously rational, which is why you have to remind them that it is irrational to microwave the beans still in the can.

I suppose there are arguments for and against rationality > intelligence, I probably learn towards rationality being slightly more important than intelligence.




You're generalising. There maybe are some IQ tests which could be argued to measure very basic education, but some, such as Raven's Progressive Matrices, are not culture-dependent at all. Further, as I stated above, IQ tests are also correlated quite well with Elementary Cognitive Tasks, which certainly aren't culture-dependent.

While intelligence is quite difficult to define, society generally deems certain people as being more intelligent than others. In schools, the intelligent pupils are usually fairly easy to pinpoint, and those who we would expect to do better on IQ tests will typically do better on IQ tests, and we expect them to do better on IQ tests because we regard them as more intelligent. As 52 experts on intelligence declared: “Intelligence is a very general capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test‑taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—‘catching on’, ‘making sense’ of things, or ‘figuring out’ what to do. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well”.

In addition to that, IQ tests don't just measure one ability, but multiple abilities i.e. spatial, working memory and verbal abilities. Studies have consistently found that these abilities correlate with each other, indicating the existence of a general intelligence factor, g. Additionally, IQ has been found to correlate well with certain types of Elementary Cognitive Tasks (ECTs), suggesting that processing speed, inspection time and attention span may in part explain differences in IQ (see here and here, for example.)

IQ, meanwhile, is very important. It is the best predictor of job performance and occupational attainment. It correlates very highly with academic success - this study, for instance, looked at IQ and GCSE results. It has also been found that those with higher IQs have lower rates of mortality, even when controlling for other factors.

Of course, there are certain other characteristics that are important. Rationality, for example - the ability to hold beliefs in accordance with evidence and achieve one's goals as efficiently as possible - is only mildly correlated with IQ in certain circumstances, as Professor Keith Stanovich's work, among others, has shown. But, as can be seen above, the importance of intelligence, as measured by IQ, should not be downplayed.

For further reading, I'd recommend going here, here and here.

How could you possibly prove that? It's impossible to find someone who hasn't been affected by their culture.

'G' intelligence... hmm
I'm really really shocking with certain things, and deemed intelligent in other areas.
In the instance of computation: I can play chess well, but I'm rather bad with numbers. I can't remember names (takes me forever), but I have a very good knowledge of words.

Surely 'intelligence' depends on the development of specific cortical areas: lack of or increased development mediated by experience? lesions or other neurological abnormalities, unoptimisation?

You also maintain significant neuroplasticity as you age, so surely 'intelligence' isn't all that stable of a construct... at least until later life when neuroplasticity reduces significantly?

If I did a test when I was younger, I would have scored miserably (was good at PlayStation though). Now I score at least average or above in most measures.

IQ tests have a lot to do with the knowledge received from a basic education though. IQ tests shouldn't measure knowledge, but they do. They are very culture-dependent.