such great debating illusttrated here, i especially like the time where they discussed and attacked eachothers ideas and did not fling around insults... riveting content

Iq tests are very trainable tests, real life problems are more about ignoring false patterns than just finding patterns. The reality is that there will be never a test to judge one's intelligence, and we should embrace it.

Some people failed their IQ test and got rejected from Mensa lmfao

The real Mensa test is not what you see online. They give you a battery of different tests of different types. Verbal, logic, abstraction, pattern matching, word problems, etc.

Iq can be trained I did it. went from 108 to 127

What the hell? Who are these people? They don't seem to even understand what they are being tested for? Sure, you can solve problems, you recognize patterns, and you can do it quickly, but the IQ tests also go further, it tests your literal mental capacity, how many simultaneous patterns can you keep track of in your mind as you figure out the puzzle? Can you change those images in your mind? Can you rotate objects in 3D? Can you go further and do it with multiples simultaneously? These people sound like they never even got past the low 100s part of IQ tests thinking they are all "tell me the next picture" kind of tests, wth?

I lost my blutak

I find this pretty silly, It seems like these people are better read on the subject than you. You came into the debate with the definition of an IQ test rather than a response to the data they presented. Then got into a conversation based completely on conjecture. I admit you're interlocuters don't seem super great at formulating arguments. However, you seem just as misinformed about the topic. I feel like you have to read all the relevant Neuroscience on the topic first before you can say much about the topic. Jaeggi, Sapolsky, etc. all have pretty good grasps on the topic, and the underlying Neuroscience itself rather than observational study. Of course sociological studies seem to show certain things about IQ that cogsci and neuroscience disagree with. But sociological studies don't have RCTs to point to in support of such positions, many of the psychological ones have now been debunked and are not replicable. I think it probably is testing critical thinking and processing speed, that doesn't preclude IQ tests from having issues in implementation. And the analysis of it as a measure of intrinsic capability seems dubious. Heritability of IQ is high, this is an easy concession to make. However, heritability of Genius is very low. In fact, the higher a persons IQ is, the less their IQ correlates to genetic factors. We now have data that creative real world problem solving can cause a predictable increase in IQ over time. I agree that IQ is not useless, it is just not intrinsic. A famous study following people for more than 40 years, found that people who took an IQ test as school children, have extremely higher IQs on average. I experienced this myself after college since over the course of 4 years my IQ jumped a whopping 30 points, and they normalize those scores to your cohort, so it increased, even in relation to similarly educated people. This tells me 1) they already know greater education increases IQ and 2) they didn't take into account some other thing that I did to get better at problem solving. You also have an elementary understanding of the clinical process of IQ evaluations. I think debate is important. However, you and your interlocuter seem woefully uneducated on this topic in particular. I am relatively interested in it since my minor thesis was on IQ. I hope that even a layman can see that you guys are mostly arguing on impressions of what you guys think, rather than grounded on properly sourced information. Even on a sociological scale, how do you explain the Flynn effect? Why are black babies smarter than white ones for the first few months of life? Why have people who have read more books between kindergarten and 5th grade the most likely to score genius scores on the test? I think the issue is not the usefulness of the test per-se, but how we use it. When used to tell someone, "oh we need to give you more experience with this kind of task so you can improve." Sure, this is great. When it is used to tell someone, "oh, you shouldn't go into math, you are incapable of it." This is bad. Where I live in America, the average American teen has the same mathematical reasoning skills of the average college graduate in the 50s. Additionally, a study on U.S. teens, found that their IQ scores when adjusted for the averages of test takers at the time it was first given, are a whopping 50 points smarter on average. The average teenager today would be a genius if they went back in time just 70 years. As someone with a vast background in life sciences, I can tell you evolution doesn't happen that fast, so something else has happened to make people literally smarter. We should not use it as the end all be all. It should be used to help people understand what they should work on. As an aside, I realize research shows that directly training for the IQ test, doesn't yield high long-term results. However, we also found this was true for the average biology test. This is where Cognitive Science came in to find that there were issues. Training must be spaced, and the act of doing the test itself isn't as effective as real world creative tasks where a participant must use critical thinking and problem solving skills. Though spaced practice of IQ tests is still an effective way to have long term increases in IQ. One should be aware that the brain works iteratively, not recursively, and they can often utilize its greater potential.

"iq test unintelligene rather than intelligence" ~ Nassim Nicholas Taleb He also busted every propoganda mathematically. About how high iq are high performers, etc.

1.414213562373095 👍