Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Does IQ matter?

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think IQ should never be correlated with intelligence and that there's no use to knowing your IQ whatsoever.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    (...) The brain is a plastic organ, and you can get smarter. (...)
    This. A reason why I don't have a high esteem for IQ tests and results. The brain is structured in a way to learn new things every day, if we want to. Moreover - and that is another reason - I think that an IQ test is not able to consider the varieties of intelligence. It is too surficial. *
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kallisto)
    I think that an IQ is more than measuring tasks in a test. In my opinion true intelligence shows when it is needed to solve a problem in a creative way. Thus intelligence also means to do right things to achieve your goal. Intelligence is quasi the potential to get good ideas in a moment of time. But I am not talking about a test, I am talking about real life.*
    I completely agree with you. I suppose to some extent, the abstract reasoning portion of IQ tests measures solving problems in a creative way.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    IQ predicts a lot of stuff. People on here tend to say it's useless because they don't know what they're talking about.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarkEnergy)
    I completely agree with you. I suppose to some extent, the abstract reasoning portion of IQ tests measures solving problems in a creative way.
    Abstraction is nice, but useless if people are not able to transfer abstraction thoughts in practice. People who are working well on papers are not able to work well in practice necessarily.*
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No, because quite often IQ seems to be negatively correlated to common sense
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    IQ predicts a lot of stuff. People on here tend to say it's useless because they don't know what they're talking about.
    I suppose, but how much of the predictions are down to correlation rather than causation? For example, the article says "People with a lower-than-average IQ (between 75 and 90) are more likely to drop out of secondary school, go to prison, and live in poverty"
    Couldn't that just mean a person grew up in poverty, had less support during their studies, lived in a bad area and got in with the wrong group of people, etc

    Although, the article also says genetics make up an estimated 40-80% of a person's IQ but maybe the remaining environmental 20-60% has a large detrimental effect.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kallisto)
    This. A reason why I don't have a high esteem for IQ tests and results. The brain is structured in a way to learn new things every day, if we want to. Moreover - and that is another reason - I think that an IQ test is not able to consider the varieties of intelligence. It is too surficial. *
    There are clearly specific cognitive facets of intelligence. But functional significance is much more important.
    Practical tasks I think tend to be very useful.
    I would only be concerned with IQ if someone has a head injury in that there may be impairment.
    In the clinic intelligence is often estimated firstly by level of education (years in education, full time) and work role, and a number of other factors. There is a tool that clinicians use but I have forgotten the name.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarkEnergy)
    I suppose, but how much of the predictions are down to correlation rather than causation? For example, the article says "People with a lower-than-average IQ (between 75 and 90) are more likely to drop out of secondary school, go to prison, and live in poverty"
    Couldn't that just mean a person grew up in poverty, had less support during their studies, lived in a bad area and got in with the wrong group of people, etc

    Although, the article also says genetics make up an estimated 40-80% of a person's IQ but maybe the remaining environmental 20-60% has a large detrimental effect.
    I think that experiences really are the determining factor, assuming reasonable genes.
    Though clear some problems are highly heritable - OCD brain dysfunction for instance; but I think these often can be mitigated. May in a way depend on a sort of 'cognitive reserve' or positive adaptation you generate via your experiences (positively programming your brain).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    IQ predicts a lot of stuff. People on here tend to say it's useless because they don't know what they're talking about.
    In what way?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think IQ is quite important. I was made to do an IQ for school when I was 15, and a few of us got into Mensa, me included. Everyone who got in performs well socially. For me, the IQ test basically confirmed something I was already partly aware of, that I was of above average intelligence. I think that, without that motivation of knowing I can achieve better I would have performed worse in my GCSE's because my grades were already slipping down at that time. I do NOT believe however, that IQ determines how well you perform at school. My grades at GCSE were all passes, but I didn't get all A's and A*'s.

    IQ doesn't change once you reach a certain age, and, even as a child, it isn't very likely to change dramatically. If I took another IQ test in 50 years, even though I would be wiser and more knowledgable with better experience, my IQ might only change 1-2 points perhaps. If a longitudinal study was done on 15 year olds with top 2% IQ's, most likely, they would do better in life than those with average IQ's.
    I read somewhere that emotional intelligence is more important than IQ, and that if you have high IQ, but a very low emotional intelligence, you aren't going to go very far in anything, but I'm not sure about the reliability of this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    In the real world, they just represent a number and nothing more. It's a mostly unstandardised system with many different types of tests. The online ones are unregulated and are sometimes based on present knowledge or fact-recall rather than processing power, memory etc. Many also include time-limits which can also prevent people from even getting to the more challenging tasks in the first place. Implying that if you process a question slightly slower, you are less intelligent.

    Richard Feynman, one of the greatest Physicists ever only obtained an IQ score of 125. More than likely because the test was leaning towards verbal skills rather than logic. You would expect him to be way above 150.

    Another problem I see with them is that they only show your ''intelligence'', at a fixed point in time. If intelligence was fixed, then nobody would be able to get better at subjects like Maths and there would only be a small number of Doctors and Scientists in the world. People wouldn't be able to learn how to solve problems with increased complexity.

    Most of them only measure Logic, Memory and Verbal Skills. How do Psychologists know that only these 3 factors make up Intelligence? They don't. They do not test Musical Skills or Creative thinking. Now Mozart never took an IQ test for obvious reasons but he is one of the most celebrated composers of all time. I wouldn't really call him stupid even though he didn't study traditional subjects like Maths or Science. Could you have written ''Rondo Alla Turca''?

    Honestly I think some talent helps a lot in life but I consider a good work ethic to be more important. Most Employers won't care if you have an IQ of 100 or 150. All they see is if you get a first, 2:1 or 2:2. In most subjects, you will not get a first by sitting on your backside!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by epage)
    I read somewhere that emotional intelligence is more important than IQ, and that if you have high IQ, but a very low emotional intelligence, you aren't going to go very far in anything, but I'm not sure about the reliability of this.
    I feel like this might have some merit. I've never done an official IQ test, but my life so far would certainly suggest that either I am a rather exceptional (not meant to be a positive adjective here) anomaly, or I have a significantly above average IQ (what with my grades, my subject, and performance in other standardised tests which tend to correlate). However, my ability to rule my emotions and self-motivate is lackluster to say the least, and although I'm doing well in university, I have essentially failed socially, not through a lack of understanding of people (I'm excellent at that "reading the mind in the eyes" thing and similar crap and pretty good at other tests supposed to assess your emotional intelligence with regards to others, rather than yourself), but through defeatism, overthinking and general neurosis. Furthermore I have failed, at least thusfar, to do certain things generally necessary to obtain any degree of success (or even a reasonable standard of living..), e.g. get proper work experience, due to, once again, a lack of self-motivation, and poor emotional strength in general. I think good abstract intelligence combined with woeful emotional intelligence can be somewhat destructive, as you become very good at finding loopholes and coming up with arguments as to why this or that won't work, i.e. defeating yourself.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    IQ is good for attempting to capture any potential case of learning/cognitive difficulties but after that, it's all about how well you do on tests.

    It's by no means a reliable predictor of success nor is it a predictor of how 'smart' you are (as in, taking all the various forms of intelligence and bundling them together).

    Imo, the only people who care about IQs are people who are insecure about them.

    I think I got 135 as a kid or something, don't really know and don't really care.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I had a mock TSA test once in school. I got below average.

    The head of the year told me that there was no point practising for a test of your intellectual capacity and IQ, and perhaps I shouldn't apply for this subject.

    There was no taking into account enviroment, fatigue.... Let alone the fact that students do practise the TSA, which can improve their scores because they learn the timing and the feel.

    I knew this but I still felt so dispirited at the teacher's words.

    The measure of IQ is restrictive and should in no way be used to told what a person's capibility is.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    IQ is everything
 
 
 
Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.