Do you believe in I.Q tests (and I.Q score in general)? - sleep deprived and overcaffeinated man has thonk over thonk points

What's your stance on it?

  • It does an almost perfect job at reflecting individual problem solving skills and/or intelligence.

  • Neutral/Other.

  • No.

Results are only viewable after voting.

believe all women
I think these kinds of questions (whether IQ is "real intelligence," etc.) are unnecessary and besides the point. They're mostly spread by politicized individuals, not psychological experts.

IQ tests predict outcomes on standardized tests, educational attainment, and a variety of other life outcomes very well. That's why they're used in psychology, and they have real utility for things like determining what children should be designated mentally retarded and put in special education classes, for example. Saying that IQ is tRuE iNtElLiGeNcE doesn't help.
  • Like
Reactions: Foghot


True & Honest Fan
I think they're generally good and people hating on them are just trying to cope with the fact they don't like what they say.

Affluent Reptilian
Yes, I.Q as a measurement is the best approximation of intelligence we have but people apply way to much importance to it. Theres also a huge misunderstanding that people with high IQs are always going to be succesful when we already know people have trouble communicating with others when a 20point IQ gap exists. It's why, generally speaking, the most succesful people in most fields tend to measure around the 115-130 IQ range due to them being able to communicate with the average which is around 100.

It matters more so on a group scale than individually. That being said a person who has a 100 IQ is probably going to have a harder time being a lawyer than a person with a 125 IQ. Doesn't mean person A can't be succesful in life though.

Recently Nassim Talib has made a case against I.Q. that while compelling, I haven't personally looked into all of the details of his claim. My opinion may change after I do.
There are several responses with elaborate citations tearing Taleb's arguments to shreds. Here's a few:

And several posts by James Thompson, who has many publications in intelligence research:


Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
Some truly gifted people can't be assed to put it to use, so what is worse: being happy because you're too stupid to know any better, or being intelligent and lazy? Neither will ever contribute to the world, but one is shielded from that fact by their idiocy.
  • Like
Reactions: Getting tard comed

Affluent Reptilian
Being 150 IQ because you have a high score in one skill vs a high score in another is a big difference especially in the practicality of said skill. It works as a general guideline but doesn’t tell you much else.
I think you're misconceiving what causes high IQ scores.

IQ scores are arrived at from a battery of tests that will look at different types of reasoning. These won't all correlate perfectly, but they do overwhelmingly tend to correlate. What researchers have found is that for any kind of test of mental ability, there is a common factor - which has been called 'g' for 'general intelligence'. How much it contributes to the variance between individuals for any particular test score will differ. For some intellectual tasks (usually those which are relatively simple), about 20% of the variance will be caused by differences in g. For others, it can be over 80%.

Now, there are other mental aptitudes that contribute to IQ scores which will explain some of the difference between individuals. Some of these other mental faculties may affect scores over not just one type of mental task but several. But none appear in anywhere near as many task types as g. Consequently, it would be incredibly unusual for a difference of say 20 IQ points or more to be because one individual has special domain-specific abilities, but isn't generally more intelligent than another.

I know what you're getting at - 'clever sillies'. People with high IQs who lack what might be called 'common sense'. I'll write something more about that later - there are studies on this, cliffnotes for now: there are people who score well on IQ tests but may be deficient in some judgment aspects one would think devolve from intelligence, but they're rather uncommon. In general a higher IQ does go with better practical judgment.

(Lest anyone think I believe IQ is determinative of someone's worth or whatever, I don't, and there are other factors contributing to many outcomes which can lead to lower IQ people outperforming a higher IQ person on any given measure. The IQ difference just makes that the less probable outcome, all else being equal.)
  • Like
Reactions: kūhaku

Jon Conroy

Honestly anyone can repeat stuff they have retained. That's all IQ test are. Repeat what you know. You can get a few bonus points by using context clues. You want to see an actual intellectual person. Make them apply it.

Give a man a fish he eats for a day.
Teach a man to fish and he'll never go hungry.

I bet a large % of people who preach an ideological point of view can't even farm or hunt.