Hunchman801 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:13 pm
Well that must have been their definition of intelligence then. The goal of IQ was always to measure intelligence.
Aiming to measure intelligence doesn't mean they really measure that. More on that later.
Hunchman801 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:13 pm
Of course intelligence is determined both by genetic and environmental factors. It doesn't change the fact that it can be measured, provided we can define it. And that's where things get tricky...
Oh there are positions that claim intelligence has a fixed biological limit as in, your genetics are the big part that essentially decides your intelligence and others who say (besides mental disabilities) intelligence on every level is available to all.
I think this issue is about is intelligence fluid or fixed. Looked into it myself in the past. Not aaaallll tooo much though x3.
Hunchman801 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:13 pm
Why not? It aims to measure the
g factor, usually referred to as general intelligence. Is it a good proxy for actual intelligence? Well, there's no one answer to this, because there's no one definition of intelligence. At least the g factor correlates positively with academic achievement, job attainment, income and job performance, for what it's worth. But then again you can score highly with regard to general intelligence and yet have a poor social intelligence (it's sometimes the case with autists), while others have a lower g factor but high social intelligence (think street smarts). There's so many facets to intelligence that it makes it tricky to define, and how can we even agree on a measurement if we don't agree on a definition first?
I'm aware of g-factor which is just another system developed from the attempts at measuring intelligence. Social intelligences is usually referred to as EI (emotional intelligence)
Like how "people with high EI" would avoid certain phrases in social environment or how they interact on an emotional social level. I think I gave a link to it.
g-factor, besides it's obvious predictive power on certain aspects of success, isn't necessarily the best indicator as the links I showed explained. The tests might be biased, might favour those from specific backgrounds, might focus on areas you happen to be weaker while other tests would have uses areaa you are better at (a test for universal skills is really hard to make) and more to point out.
Idk, I know the link is like, a lot of text but worth reading.
more on my wording later
Hunchman801 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:13 pm
Well of course they have, because of the importance of environmental factors with regard to general intelligence.
that wasn't my point. They kinda claimed that the country essentially reached the limit as of now. However, we do know of methods that would result in higher IQ results but are less joyful and probably even more options you can look into that don't take away joy. So I see that point they made as just wrong.
I feel like explaining that IQ progress isn't linear would already be a better approach but oh well.
Hunchman801 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:13 pm
We would probably still believe those things if it weren't for all the scientific discoveries and widespread information. It's just that despite those, people nowadays still manage to believe stuff like the crap you mentioned.
Even in past there existed people who attempted scientific method, they just got hated on. I mean you know how science and the religious heavy world weren't friends I think x3.
Also, looking into if all of those modern issues are really low IQ people may show that it's not necessarily IQ but other factors that cause these.
I mean we know of indoctrination, we know of intelligent people who really said bs and so on and so forth.
Also, must say, a big chunk of the insane views comes from USA/popularized in USA. USA being a country many studies happen... meh.
I think it's very easy for us to say "they must be dumb to believe X" if maybe there is much more to it. So is a few of a physicist who thinks that stupidity in flat earthers may not be the most prominent factor but it's not my point in debating that, rather bring awareness of it having other causes.
Now to my "laters" I mentioned
These tests, as much as they desire to measure intelligence, often fail to truly show your IQ but a potential hint at where you might end up.
Online IQ tests I would already strongly advise against. IQ tests or tests aiming for g-factor (which have a strong overlap) are usually something you pay to get into a group of people for an IQ test and they are just overall more reliable tests with the research behind them.
I said it provocative that these shouldn't be taken seriously and not seen as really measuring your intelligence as while they have a considerable accuracy for certain aspects,
1. a favoured position is fluid intelligence, meaning this test would be a moment capture rather than showing your real capabilities.
2. It may have used areas you were weak at
3. Had a bad day
4. You used a shitty source to test
5. Questions and tasks were culturally missing you, screwing your data over.
and more points.
I get that people care about IQ but I hope people here don't fall into this mindset.
What matters are the things you do, you show, you live for.
If your arguments are great in what you love and want to promote, maybe you just work better with intrinsic motivation.
Maybe the typical way of testing is just not for you but irl you found your own way.
We have g-factor, IQ, EI and probably more I couldn't remember or haven't looked into yet. This isn't by any means a clear subject and as you said, defining it is a problem.
One last thing, being successful in school, workplace and whatnot can have very little to do with your intelligence and often it's suspected that those that do well on IQ simply have good conditions. Obviously not always but just mentioning that.