<p>Well, my IQ didn’t even get me into a “gifted” program when I was five or six. I took the Stanford-Binet IQ test and didn’t score well enough for them. </p>
<p>Come junior and senior year, I had great grades, got a 2400 on my SAT, and got into Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. </p>
<p>I don’t know what to make of what I just said, but perhaps it shows that hard work is much more important than so called intellectual ability.</p>
<p>IQ is definitely not meaningless. That seems like the new fashionable line everyone likes to repeat to seem sophisticated and above “crude and shallow” measurements of objectified intelligence. Silverturtle puts it well with his Nobel laureate note above.</p>
<p>A better statement is that IQ is not meaningless, but it is also far from everything. It is not a perfect measurement of intelligence, as is nothing, because there is no perfect or unanimously accepted way to define intelligence. IQ is indeed fairly correlated with what would commonly be held to be intellectual achievements (i.e. winning a Nobel prize), but after a certain point, drive, determination, serendipity, and many other factors determine your fate along with IQ. Many of the discoveries that bagged their discoverers Nobel prizes were the result of luck as well as skill - a combination of opportunity and the ability to capitalize on that opportunity was what won them the prize. If you could not comprehend the fundamental principles of chemistry, for example, regardless of how many opportunities came your way in that field, you would never be able to utilize them. In the same light, even if you could comprehend chemistry better than any other person in the world, it is far from certain that you’ll ever be placed in a position where the opportunity to shatter ground in that field will arise.</p>
<p>The term “genius” is not defined with reference to IQ in the best recent professional literature in psychology. For names of categories bounded by various IQ scores, according to different authors (who don’t agree with one another), see </p>
<p>[Springer</a> Publishing: IQ Testing 101 - Kaufman, Alan S. - 9780826106292](<a href=“http://www.springerpub.com/product/9780826106292]Springer”>http://www.springerpub.com/product/9780826106292) </p>
<p>an excellent new book by an acknowledged expert on IQ testing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, the same thing happened to me! :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quoted for truth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree. Regardless of exact definition, most people agree that intelligence isn’t accumulated knowledge. So, if IQ isn’t meaningless in testing intelligence, then one person’s score shouldn’t be affected by their degree or the amount of knowledge they’ve acquired. </p>
<p>If you simply compare the IQ of Nobel laureates with the average IQ, how do you know that the test isn’t simply measuring acquired knowledge rather than intelligence? After all, the average person didn’t study academia for 10 years and then live in that world for another 20 years.</p>
<p>If we agree, then the statement should read (where X is the years of research experience the average Nobel laureate has):</p>
<p>“If IQ were meaningless, there would be as many Nobel laureates with IQ’s greater than (the average Ph.D researcher with X years of research experience in the same field) as there are Nobel laureates with IQ’s below (the average Ph.D researcher with X years of research experience in the same field)”</p>
<p>As a side note, I think even the statement above is nonsense. It assumes that winning a Nobel prize is a better indicator of intelligence than IQ. Maybe it’s the other way around–there is a lot of luck involved in successful research. </p>
<p>There are too many confounding variables to use your catch-all statement to assess the IQ test’s ability to measure intelligence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re completely missing the point of what I said. Please consider, for context, to what I was responding.</p>
<p>I didn’t miss the point at all–I understand that the one example of Feynman having an IQ of 125 doesn’t say anything about the usefulness of IQ tests in general.</p>
<p>But your criteria for showing that an IQ test is meaningless is way too stringent. </p>
<p>The p(median Nobel laureate IQ <= 100)? Very, very low. The p(median Nobel laureate IQ <= average researcher’s with equal years experience IQ)? Not as low.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, you did; in fact, you continue to. I did not claim that IQ reflects intelligence (though any reasonable person would have to think that it does to some extent). Instead, as is clear from the context that I directed you to consider, I offered that example as a clear way of refuting the claim that “IQ is meaningless.”</p>
<p>Why am I not clear? I’m saying the criteria you used to show IQ is meaningless was way too stringent. </p>
<p>50% of the Nobel laureates don’t need to be below IQ of 100. They need to be below IQ of the average researcher.</p>
<p>Otherwise the IQ is meaningless in measuring intelligence–it simply measures knowledge rather than intelligence.</p>
<p>EDIT: And I guess I should finish the thought: IQ is supposed to measure intelligence. Maybe “meaningless” is not the proper word here, but a test that measures different factors than it’s supposed to is invalid. I guess if you’re arguing specifically about “meaningless” than you’re right.</p>
<p>I would call a test that purports to measure intelligence meaningless if it simply measures knowledge just like any college exam. If you wouldn’t call that meaningless, then I guess I understand your position.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are crystal clear, which is why I can so confidently communicate that you have not grasped my very straighforward point. I’ll wait for you to read post #168.</p>
<p>Edit: Ah, you have realized my point. :)</p>
<p>Now that we have that out of the way: no reasonable person could consider an IQ test meaningless even with respect to intelligence. I have no doubt that IQ tests could be administered to a group of future Nobel laureates at a young age (so as to significantly reduce any confounding variables) and that that group’s average IQ would be above average. Do you doubt that?</p>
<p>I would not, however, confidently extend this to a group of scientists. That is, I do not expect that an IQ test could very accurately discriminate Nobel laureates from other scientists. At that point, luck, determination, and creativity are too important for IQ to be very meaningful in that very narrow context.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t doubt they’d score higher than 100. I do doubt interpretations state that this is because IQ measures intelligence.</p>
<p>A 5 year old genius should have acquired knowledge by the time they’re 5. Examples abound, but see [Terence</a> Tao - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_Tao]Terence”>Terence Tao - Wikipedia) for an easy one. If IQ tests measure knowledge (which any test should be able to do) then they will notice that difference. </p>
<p>You could continue this argument progressively until you start reaching very early years. A 1 or 2 year old genius hasn’t acquired much knowledge. I argue that an IQ test can’t distinguish intelligence at this age. A baby that can talk earlier or mature faster than most is not a genius. </p>
<p>Although I don’t wholeheartedly believe it, I think there’s a valid argument to saying that the Nobel laureate scored above average on his/her IQ test because it measures knowledge–and that kid already gained more knowledge than his peers. At ages where knowledge isn’t discernible, there aren’t visible signs of intellectual genius. Therefore, IQ tests are arguably meaningless (at measuring intelligence) because you can’t identify whether they measure knowledge or intelligence…</p>
<p>Anyone who has taken a reputable IQ test can tell that much more than knowledge is being tested. Consider, for example, [Kim</a> Peek](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek]Kim”>Kim Peek - Wikipedia). He was one of the most (perhaps the most) knowledgeable people in the world and yet his IQ was below average.</p>
<p>^^^I’ll go looking for them now, but I’ve definitely read a few studies showing that savants (like Kim Peek) score higher than mentally ■■■■■■■■ counterparts of the same age. </p>
<p>Why? Assuming the sample size of both is large enough and that one of autism’s sx’s is mental retardation, than they should have the same IQ. Unless IQ also measures knowledge to a significant extent.</p>
<p>I agree that IQ partially measures intelligence–I have almost no doubt. But I also think that it’s very dangerous to assume IQ measures intelligence almost exclusively. There have been a lot of studies lately showing that IQ is malleable => intelligence is malleable. Maybe it’s ONLY IQ that can change due to environment (bc knowledge is affected)–not intelligence? </p>
<p>I’m a skeptic that intelligence is altered by environment, so I don’t believe that IQ measures intelligence fully.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, of course IQ tests don’t measure intelligence fully. But you had been arguing that they did not measure it at all. Those are nearly polar positions.</p>
<p>One thing - I have to note here that intelligence is almost definitely altered by environment. Your brain responds to environmental cues just as does every other part of your body - muscles, kidneys, pen*s. Critical periods exist. If you were never exposed to language (the entire concept) as a child, you would have an absurdly difficult time learning it as an adult ([Critical</a> period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Critical period - Wikipedia”>Critical period - Wikipedia)).</p>
<p>As an infant, most of your neurons are all wired together. As a result of environmental cues, your brain severs unnecessary connections between neurons as you slowly adapt to your environment. Moreover, just as with physical exercise, constant utilization of certain regions of your CNS will strengthen the neurons in that area and their connection with one another. Neurons that are not used will lose their connection with other neurons, and subsequently die off.</p>
<p>Following that, while your statement that intelligence is not <em>wholly</em> knowledge acquisition is true, knowledge acquisition almost certainly plays a part in your ability to realize your intelligence potential. It’s been proposed by many that in order to become a true “genius” in a field, prolonged and markedly early (childhood) exposure to that field must be present. Examples include chess world champions (almost all were child prodigies in chess), etc. (And as a side note, of course experience will play a factor into IQ tests - if you constantly train for IQ tests, your score will undoubtedly be higher, just as with the SAT - however, it is unquestionable that people do score differently on these tests, even with the same level of preparation. IQ tests without question do measure <em>something</em> - the argument is what exactly it is that they measure and to what extent. To posit them as wholly meaningless is a little on the absurd side.)</p>
<p>To read more about that, see [Environment</a> and intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Environment and intelligence - Wikipedia”>Environment and intelligence - Wikipedia) and read up on [Synaptic</a> plasticity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaptic_plasticity]Synaptic”>Synaptic plasticity - Wikipedia), [Synaptic</a> pruning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaptic_pruning]Synaptic”>Synaptic pruning - Wikipedia), and [Fluid</a> and crystallized intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligence]Fluid”>Fluid and crystallized intelligence - Wikipedia).</p>
<p>Incidentally, most of my concrete understanding of this field came out of a Neurobiology class and a Psychology class I took at Harvard last summer (I wrote my paper in Psychology on the ability of intelligence to be altered).</p>
<p>A little rambly of a post. To save myself a ****load of time, I’ve omitted thorough defenses of all the points put above.</p>
<p>“Have you ever noticed that those who have a natural capacity for calculation and arithmetic,are generally speaking,quick in all kinds of study,and those slow intellects,if trained and exercised in it become sharper than they were before”…The Republic of Plato</p>
<p>English can be your 5th language and you can still score 12/12 on the essay…it’s a joke</p>
<p>Feyman’s IQ was measured at 125; this should suffice at proof that IQ is bollocks which sucks because mine is quite good.</p>
<p>IQ doesn’t measure success in life, which is what really matters</p>
<p>… My dad’s friend’s son made IMO US team in '87 and probably has an IQ of around 140+, yet he is out of work at the moment (p.s. he went to harvard).</p>