I hear people say that high IQ doesn’t mean you are automatically good at something, but what does it mean then, in terms of physical properties of the brain? And how do they translate to one’s abilities?
In: 682
It means nothing. Test is biased and unreliable. I’m a perfect example. I scored a 133 on the WAIS III and I’m a dumbfuck
An IQ test is attempt to measure what a person’s physical potential for intelligence is. It is not a very accurate test – if you tried to measure someone’s physical potential for strength based on what physical feats they could perform now, the upper limits of performance would be a guess at best, even if you were to measure things on a cellular level because we have an incomplete understanding of how strength and endurance training change the body.
In a similar way it is difficult to extrapolate what the maximum intelligence potential could be based on current state. Physical limitations to intelligence must exist, otherwise it would be possible to teach a dog to be a chess grand master, but it is difficult to arrive at a conclusion of what the limits are based on a series of tests.
It means nothing. Test is biased and unreliable. I’m a perfect example. I scored a 133 on the WAIS III and I’m a dumbfuck
IQ measures your capacity to learn things. It doesn’t mean you know everything. People with higher IQ lever can learn and problem solve better than people with lower IQ.
Someone with low IQ can still memorize crap and someone with a high IQ can still be ignorant of a topic or skill
Idk if anyone else has mentioned this, but IQ is actually a misnomer. When people say IQ, what they really mean is the G-Factor.
The G-factor is the most scientifically accepted term for intelligence. IQ is a test score. Thus, this implies there are ways other than IQ tests to measure intelligence (G-Factor).
IQ tests are (one of) the most reliable measurements, but there are some problems with the tests such as societal and economic biases.
Idk if anyone else has mentioned this, but IQ is actually a misnomer. When people say IQ, what they really mean is the G-Factor.
The G-factor is the most scientifically accepted term for intelligence. IQ is a test score. Thus, this implies there are ways other than IQ tests to measure intelligence (G-Factor).
IQ tests are (one of) the most reliable measurements, but there are some problems with the tests such as societal and economic biases.
IQ measures your capacity to learn things. It doesn’t mean you know everything. People with higher IQ lever can learn and problem solve better than people with lower IQ.
Someone with low IQ can still memorize crap and someone with a high IQ can still be ignorant of a topic or skill
An IQ test is attempt to measure what a person’s physical potential for intelligence is. It is not a very accurate test – if you tried to measure someone’s physical potential for strength based on what physical feats they could perform now, the upper limits of performance would be a guess at best, even if you were to measure things on a cellular level because we have an incomplete understanding of how strength and endurance training change the body.
In a similar way it is difficult to extrapolate what the maximum intelligence potential could be based on current state. Physical limitations to intelligence must exist, otherwise it would be possible to teach a dog to be a chess grand master, but it is difficult to arrive at a conclusion of what the limits are based on a series of tests.
An IQ test is attempt to measure what a person’s physical potential for intelligence is. It is not a very accurate test – if you tried to measure someone’s physical potential for strength based on what physical feats they could perform now, the upper limits of performance would be a guess at best, even if you were to measure things on a cellular level because we have an incomplete understanding of how strength and endurance training change the body.
In a similar way it is difficult to extrapolate what the maximum intelligence potential could be based on current state. Physical limitations to intelligence must exist, otherwise it would be possible to teach a dog to be a chess grand master, but it is difficult to arrive at a conclusion of what the limits are based on a series of tests.
IQ 160 here. I did a test and scored high and that’s it. Normal job, normal life, I have biases like anyone else. I think I am good at tests because I am a good observer and I recognize patters, analogies, symmetries, etc. If I recall correctly, 30 years ago the living person with the highest IQ ever recorded was a barman. I think that IQ is overrated. Motivation and dedication are 100 times more effective. Also being naturally good at certain things means you can be lazy and achieve something without effort, but until a certain point. And if you’re lazy, this means you will never be more than mediocre. I think someone with an average IQ but real motivation can achieve much more because he had to work his ass hard from start
Latest Answers