Intelligence is more than IQ score Watch

LordCairo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Hi everyone,
Ok well it seems that as a society we are placing more and more emphasis on that number we like to either be depressed about or arrogant about.

However, intelligence is a diverse thing. Everyone is born with strengths and weaknesses would you all agree? YET, we like to put those with an iq score (at least two standard deviations above the mean) on a pedestal even though it does not prove whether they are intelligent or not…..

The score you get is limited by the 'intelligence' of the person who created the test. Not only that, but you can train yourself to easily increase your IQ score with practice.

People with high IQ scores I would say are 99.99% of the time, mathematically competent. Therefore it excludes people we would think exceptionally 'intelligent' who are NOT mathematically brained.

So what is intelligence? Is it common sense? Talent? Giftedness?

You can't have all three of them…. People with high IQ i have found to be rather shocking in the common sense department however their ability to think abstractly is impressive.

We tend to believe anyone with 'a' talent is intelligent despite them being either unable to tie shoe laces, remember where they put those keys, or tone deaf, dyslexic, creatively challenged etc….

My idea of intelligence would be someone who is able to take up any challenge whether that be learning how to draw, play a musical instrument, read, interpret, and carry on actions based on information like on a map, become mathematically competent, socially competent etc….

We can't call someone intelligent if they can memorise a book word for word and yet they a devoid of any creative or common sense can we?

We can call them talented I guess but not intelligent…. For me, intelligence is a global phenomom by which i mean you can take on any challenge and not only become competent, but excel.

It seems such people don't exist…. Maybe they do but I'm yet to find someone who can exel at any challenge they set themselves. For me, only these people deserve to be called intelligent.

Anything which you can become competent at without thinking like 'IQ tests' does not in my opinion make you intelligent in my eyes. However, if the reality is that you did well at your IQ test first time due to your ability to excel at any task/challenge, then i will say that your score reflected your intelligence in PART, but if you struggle with any other area whether it be languages, creativeness, music, or any other area apart from math, I would say you are talented, but not intelligent.

Intelligence is hugely misunderstood in my opinion…. Any one in possession of a brain that can learn the nitty gritty of any challenge and excel, you are intelligent, at least in my opinion.

I still think of intellectual capability as like a dark filter over your eyes. The more intelligent you are, the clearer the filter becomes, and if you have the ability to be an all round genius in any area of expertise, you see the world without any filter whatsoever…. You see the world as it is.

We should not become arrogant or depressed with our IQ scores. I would say most people are not intelligent, but possess a skill set/talent in which they can use to excel in a certain area.

Everyone has a talent however insignificant you might think it to be.

This is a very poorly written post so i apologise in advance. I am heavily dyslexic which impedes my fluidity of thought which is always evident by my written word.


Fascinating subject anyway!
0
reply
indigobluesss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Nice essay bro
0
reply
fajitamunch
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
You just did my English homework for me. Cheers bro.
0
reply
yo radical one
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
British society puts very little emphasis on IQ


It doesn't define what intelligence is, but it is a good indicator even if it is flawed - another great misconception I've noticed, is that people who are good at mathematics are generally good writers too rather than being only good at one thing like a savant.
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by LordCairo)
Hi everyone,
Ok well it seems that as a society we are placing more and more emphasis on that number we like to either be depressed about or arrogant about.
I haven't seen any evidence of this - while I would like this to be true, I haven't seen any evidence.

(Original post by LordCairo)
However, intelligence is a diverse thing. Everyone is born with strengths and weaknesses would you all agree? YET, we like to put those with an iq score (at least two standard deviations above the mean) on a pedestal even though it does not prove whether they are intelligent or not…..
I wouldn't say intelligence is a diverse thing. I would agree that everyone is born with strengths and weaknesses - some people are more skilled at sports than others, some people are more intelligent than others, and so on.

IQ - the g factor (general intelligence factor) - is the best way to measure what society generally views as intelligence.

(Original post by LordCairo)
Not only that, but you can train yourself to easily increase your IQ score with practice.
There's little evidence to suggest that you can train yourself to easily increase your IQ score. Children's brains are biologically more malleable, which is why their scores can fluctuate more, and which is why a couple of studies have purported to show increases in IQ in children. However, genetics plays more of a role after the age of around 16 or 17, meaning that it's very unlikely that IQ scores can be significantly increased after this time.

In addition, the studies on children only demonstrated a short-term gain in IQ, and the g factor, which groups together spatial intelligence, verbal intelligence, logic, and so on, was unchanged in these children, as this study points out [p.19]

(Original post by LordCairo)
People with high IQ scores I would say are 99.99% of the time, mathematically competent. Therefore it excludes people we would think exceptionally 'intelligent' who are NOT mathematically brained.
IQ measures more than just mathematical ability, and there's an abundance of evidence demonstrating that people who do well at one type of IQ test, say spatial IQ, will do better in verbal, mathematical and logical IQ tests.

(Original post by LordCairo)
So what is intelligence? Is it common sense? Talent? Giftedness?
The mental capacity to understand and learn and the efficiency with which this is done.

(Original post by LordCairo)
You can't have all three of them
Who says so? In any case, though, intelligence certainly isn't common sense. I'd call that 'smartness'.

(Original post by LordCairo)
We tend to believe anyone with 'a' talent is intelligent despite them being either unable to tie shoe laces, remember where they put those keys, or tone deaf, dyslexic, creatively challenged etc….

My idea of intelligence would be someone who is able to take up any challenge whether that be learning how to draw, play a musical instrument, read, interpret, and carry on actions based on information like on a map, become mathematically competent, socially competent etc….
Studies of intelligence have shown that people who are mathematically competent generally know how to read, are adept at playing a musical instrument and are good at carrying out actions based on information like a map (shown by spatial IQ). Thus, I'd say IQ fits the bill, to a large extent, even with your notions.

(Original post by LordCairo)
We can't call someone intelligent if they can memorise a book word for word and yet they a devoid of any creative or common sense can we?
You're probably correct here: memory isn't strongly correlated with IQ, although working memory is fairly well correlated with it. I'd say that people think that memorisation is a sign of intelligence because intelligent people generally do have more knowledge - they seek it out more than less intelligent people, therefore someone with a good memory, who would have more knowledge due to his or her memory, is seen as being intelligent, even when they may not be.

(Original post by LordCairo)
It seems such people don't exist…. Maybe they do but I'm yet to find someone who can exel at any challenge they set themselves. For me, only these people deserve to be called intelligent.
The word you're looking for is 'polymath', and a few of these people have existed.

(Original post by LordCairo)
Anything which you can become competent at without thinking like 'IQ tests' does not in my opinion make you intelligent in my eyes.
You do have to think for IQ tests, and your IQ won't improve by much at all over a long-period of time, and certainly not your g factor.

(Original post by LordCairo)
However, if the reality is that you did well at your IQ test first time due to your ability to excel at any task/challenge, then i will say that your score reflected your intelligence in PART, but if you struggle with any other area whether it be languages, creativeness, music, or any other area apart from math, I would say you are talented, but not intelligent.

Intelligence is hugely misunderstood in my opinion…. Any one in possession of a brain that can learn the nitty gritty of any challenge and excel, you are intelligent, at least in my opinion.
Again, there's a word that already describes someone who can put their mind to a multitude of challenges and excel - a polymath.

That's not to say that other attributes aside from intelligence/IQ aren't important: memory is one of them, as is rationality - being able to assess one's beliefs about the world in accordance with the evidence. While rationality is partially correlated with IQ, it's still not fully predicted by IQ alone as Professor Keith Stanovich has demonstrated.
1
reply
LordCairo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#6
Viddy9 I detect a slight egomaniac mentality with you which is a bit frustrating. This thread is not a point scoring fest. All you have done is try to prove I'm talking baloney when in fact I'm talking from what I have discovered, and also sharing my own thoughts on what intelligence is. You haven't thought about anything I've said at all…. Most of what you have talked about I already know. I would say I'm pretty clued up on this subject although you have decided I know less about this than you do without even knowing me! You haven't provided any ground for discussion at all with your point scoring attitude.


I haven't seen any evidence of this - while I would like this to be true, I haven't seen any evidence.


If you haven't seen it, fine, but you are not an authority on everything that is fact and true. It doesn't prove I'm wrong about this.


I wouldn't say intelligence is a diverse thing. I would agree that everyone is born with strengths and weaknesses - some people are more skilled at sports than others, some people are more intelligent than others, and so on.

IQ - the g factor (general intelligence factor) - is the best way to measure what society generally views as intelligence.


Self contradicting yourself. Of course intelligence a diverse phenomenon if we look at intelligence as most people do. I.E Someone who is an expert in their field. I would disagree about IQ being the best way to measure intelligence. After all it is something you can train yourself to be good at regardless of whether you are mathematically brained at all.

Oxford University have an interesting method of intelligence testing in their vetting process.


IQ measures more than just mathematical ability, and there's an abundance of evidence demonstrating that people who do well at one type of IQ test, say spatial IQ, will do better in verbal, mathematical and logical IQ tests.



Can you provide links to this? Math and logic are bound to be correlated however.


The mental capacity to understand and learn and the efficiency with which this is done.


I guess 'efficiency' constitutes intelligence here. Everyone has the ability to understand and learn SOMETHING regardless of their mental capabilities.


Who says so? In any case, though, intelligence certainly isn't common sense. I'd call that 'smartness'.


Experience says so. I'd call smartness a form of intelligence.


Studies of intelligence have shown that people who are mathematically competent generally know how to read, are adept at playing a musical instrument and are good at carrying out actions based on information like a map (shown by spatial IQ). Thus, I'd say IQ fits the bill, to a large extent, even with your notions.


You are basing your notions via generalising a few studies. Shocking does not even begin to describe how mathematically defected I am. However, my brother flew through his math A level with ease and yet I can play both piano and guitar and he cannot. Therefore, your sources are not fact.


You're probably correct here: memory isn't strongly correlated with IQ, although working memory is fairly well correlated with it. I'd say that people think that memorisation is a sign of intelligence because intelligent people generally do have more knowledge - they seek it out more than less intelligent people, therefore someone with a good memory, who would have more knowledge due to his or her memory, is seen as being intelligent, even when they may not be.


Knowledgeable people are knowledgeable people. Intelligent people generally do not seek out vast amounts of information for the sake of it. Having a an excellent working memory means nothing if what you hold in it for whatever brief moment you do cannot be used to solve any problems due to a lack of intellectual ability. I have an excellent working memory and i can hold lots of information in working memory but i couldn't put it to good use mathematically.


The word you're looking for is 'polymath', and a few of these people have existed.
??…. I know all there is to know about renaissance/polymaths but I declined to mention them due to me believing they are just people with a slightly more diverse range of interests that they excel at.


You do have to think for IQ tests, and your IQ won't improve by much at all over a long-period of time, and certainly not your g factor.
You have to think about IQ tests in so far as to know about and apply the 'rules' to answer the questions. IQ tests are a terribly flawed measure of intelligence.


Again, there's a word that already describes someone who can put their mind to a multitude of challenges and excel - a polymath.

That's not to say that other attributes aside from intelligence/IQ aren't important: memory is one of them, as is rationality - being able to assess one's beliefs about the world in accordance with the evidence. While rationality is partially correlated with IQ, it's still not fully predicted by IQ alone as Professor Keith Stanovich has demonstrated.


Again, you are making yourself look like an arrogant buffoon. Rationality is a product of intelligence. Ann Rand might be a person of interest to you. Jacob Bronowski is another possible person of interest.


















0
reply
KeepYourChinUp
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
An IQ is simply a number associated with ones ability to problem solve. Generally speaking the higher the IQ the better that persons ability to problem solve but it really isn't that accurate. Someone with 160 IQ might not be a better problem solver than someone with 170 but almost certainly someone with a IQ of 160 will be a better problem solver than someone with 100 IQ.

While it's not 100% accurate it's still a pretty good way to measure intelligence with regards to problem solving.
0
reply
TorpidPhil
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
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.
1
reply
Dev101
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by LordCairo)
Viddy9 I detect a slight egomaniac mentality with you which is a bit frustrating. This thread is not a point scoring fest. All you have done is try to prove I'm talking baloney when in fact I'm talking from what I have discovered, and also sharing my own thoughts on what intelligence is. You haven't thought about anything I've said at all…. Most of what you have talked about I already know. I would say I'm pretty clued up on this subject although you have decided I know less about this than you do without even knowing me! You haven't provided any ground for discussion at all with your point scoring attitude.


[/COLOR][/FONT]

If you haven't seen it, fine, but you are not an authority on everything that is fact and true. It doesn't prove I'm wrong about this.




Self contradicting yourself. Of course intelligence a diverse phenomenon if we look at intelligence as most people do. I.E Someone who is an expert in their field. I would disagree about IQ being the best way to measure intelligence. After all it is something you can train yourself to be good at regardless of whether you are mathematically brained at all.

Oxford University have an interesting method of intelligence testing in their vetting process.




Can you provide links to this? Math and logic are bound to be correlated however.




I guess 'efficiency' constitutes intelligence here. Everyone has the ability to understand and learn SOMETHING regardless of their mental capabilities.




Experience says so. I'd call smartness a form of intelligence.




You are basing your notions via generalising a few studies. Shocking does not even begin to describe how mathematically defected I am. However, my brother flew through his math A level with ease and yet I can play both piano and guitar and he cannot. Therefore, your sources are not fact.




Knowledgeable people are knowledgeable people. Intelligent people generally do not seek out vast amounts of information for the sake of it. Having a an excellent working memory means nothing if what you hold in it for whatever brief moment you do cannot be used to solve any problems due to a lack of intellectual ability. I have an excellent working memory and i can hold lots of information in working memory but i couldn't put it to good use mathematically.


??…. I know all there is to know about renaissance/polymaths but I declined to mention them due to me believing they are just people with a slightly more diverse range of interests that they excel at.


You have to think about IQ tests in so far as to know about and apply the 'rules' to answer the questions. IQ tests are a terribly flawed measure of intelligence.




Again, you are making yourself look like an arrogant buffoon. Rationality is a product of intelligence. Ann Rand might be a person of interest to you. Jacob Bronowski is another possible person of interest.


Yes, but he does not know your experience; where does he state that he thinks you are less smart than him about this topic. He is looking for fact not "experience". You don't know him in real life so how can you judge whether or not he is an "arrogant buffoon". He is not attacking your views just merely stating his own. No one has more jurisdiction than the other. Calm down ...
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by LordCairo)

If you haven't seen it, fine, but you are not an authority on everything that is fact and true. It doesn't prove I'm wrong about this.
I do not know what you mean by 'point scoring', but anyway, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that, "as a society, we are placing more and more emphasis" on IQ scores.

You have yet to provide any such evidence.


(Original post by LordCairo)
Self contradicting yourself. Of course intelligence a diverse phenomenon if we look at intelligence as most people do. I.E Someone who is an expert in their field. I would disagree about IQ being the best way to measure intelligence. After all it is something you can train yourself to be good at regardless of whether you are mathematically brained at all.
Someone who is an expert in their field will themselves have high IQ scores. Numerous studies have demonstrated that IQ is the best measure of job performance.

And, as I've already stated, there's no evidence at all that shows that you can train yourself to be good at IQ tests and sustain a higher g score.

(Original post by LordCairo)
Can you provide links to this? Math and logic are bound to be correlated however.
I can, see this study, for instance, or if you want a summary of the scientific consensus, see here and here.

(Original post by LordCairo)
Everyone has the ability to understand and learn SOMETHING regardless of their mental capabilities.
I agree, but some people have the ability to do this to a greater extent than others.

(Original post by LordCairo)
Experience says so. I'd call smartness a form of intelligence.
Experience is irrelevant. I'm interested in the facts, not personal anecdotes. The reason I distinguish between smartness and intelligence is that people can be intelligent but not apply it: I'd call the application bit of it 'smartness'.

(Original post by LordCairo)
You are basing your notions via generalising a few studies. Shocking does not even begin to describe how mathematically defected I am. However, my brother flew through his math A level with ease and yet I can play both piano and guitar and he cannot. Therefore, your sources are not fact.
As seen above, I'm not generalising: there is broad agreement about what I'm saying within the scientific community. Of course, it's not going to apply absolutely perfectly to every single person, and I'm not claiming that intelligence is solely genetic, which explains why your brother may have flown through his mathematics A-Level with ease.

(Original post by LordCairo)
You have to think about IQ tests in so far as to know about and apply the 'rules' to answer the questions. IQ tests are a terribly flawed measure of intelligence.
That is an assertion, and if you line the people who others think are intelligent up, and give them IQ tests, you're highly likely to find that they score highly on IQ tests. Concepts are given their definitions by society and IQ tests are the most accurate and reliable measure of what society considers as 'intelligence'. Again, see above.

(Original post by LordCairo)
Again, you are making yourself look like an arrogant buffoon. Rationality is a product of intelligence. Ann Rand might be a person of interest to you. Jacob Bronowski is another possible person of interest.
Ad hominem attacks are unnecessary. Ayn Rand is certainly not of interest to me - her laissez-faire capitalist ideas have been shown to be false time and time again. Why do you say Bronowski is of interest to me? Anyway, rationality is in part a product of intellignece, but the most intelligent people are certainly not always those who are more rational, as cognitive scientists such as Keith Stanovich have demonstrated.
0
reply
Skip_Snip
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
Most sensible people know IQ tests are a pile of rubbish. Don't worry about the score it gave you.
1
reply
Pseudocode
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Skip_Snip)
Most sensible people know IQ tests are a pile of rubbish. Don't worry about the score it gave you.
Anyone who has studied at postgraduate level in a relevant field will know they're a load of old tosh and completely worthless.
0
reply
Skip_Snip
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by Pseudocode)
Anyone who has studied at postgraduate level in a relevant field will know they're a load of old tosh and completely worthless.
Them, and a lot of other people
0
reply
Misovlogos
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
Intelligence is but what we call it, for it doesn't have meaning independently of what we call it. The upshot being that some external standpoint, a value or interest against which to make a contingent definition informative, is a condition of even approaching any consensus on the question. If that is the measurement of broad-based 'cognitive processing', then it stands to demonstration that any such unified psychological faculty exists.
0
reply
DErasmus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by Skip_Snip)
Them, and a lot of other people
I don't have a degree and i've always said they look like utter tosh. They appear to measure variables that they create which is why through a careful study of the questions one can elevate their score to such a high extent. I'm quite surprised however, as last time I had this conversation with a member on TSR I was dismissed and yet here there appears to be universal agreement. Perhaps this is because this is the philosophy section where like minded people congregate.
0
reply
Skip_Snip
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by DErasmus)
I don't have a degree and i've always said they look like utter tosh. They appear to measure variables that they create which is why through a careful study of the questions one can elevate their score to such a high extent. I'm quite surprised however, as last time I had this conversation with a member on TSR I was dismissed and yet here there appears to be universal agreement. Perhaps this is because this is the philosophy section where like minded people congregate.
I never post in the Philosophy section, I just happened to see the title in the recent threads and wanted to fling in my 2p worth.

I think people dismissive of your viewpoint are butthurt because they got high scores and want to wave their IQ-dicks.
0
reply
1drowssap
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by Skip_Snip)
Most sensible people know IQ tests are a pile of rubbish. Don't worry about the score it gave you.
(Original post by Pseudocode)
Anyone who has studied at postgraduate level in a relevant field will know they're a load of old tosh and completely worthless.
Although I largely agree with what both of you have said, I do think there is some use in an IQ test.
They can be used to distinguish people who have normal mental capacity, and those with some form of mental impairment. I think they used in WW1 or WW2, to sort these people into roles. I guess it is to prevent 'below average' intelligence from being assigned important tasks.
0
reply
Dexterous
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by R Dragon)
Nice essay bro
Liking the Troll Face Avatar
0
reply
indigobluesss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by H.Ibrahim)
Liking the Troll Face Avatar
Haha, thanks <3
0
reply
Nogoodsorgods
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
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.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (106)
17.24%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (64)
10.41%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (108)
17.56%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (92)
14.96%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (62)
10.08%
How can I be the best version of myself? (183)
29.76%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed