LinkedinLunatics

It has its use. Comparing numbers? Not so much, unless you are working on a patient with your team as part of your job and all

39 questions, that must be very serious IQ testing going on there ... /s

Being charitable I assume this is after you complete the test, but you can just look up the answers for free!

My view would be that the abilility to memorize and retain a number of facts is a kind of intelligence, to me the most obvious example would be in say, reading comprehension: If you read a chapter of a fiction novel, but then cannot recall new characters, important actions, etc, thats a problem...

But at the same time, yes, EQ, empathy, emotional intelligence does seem to be another important, multidimensional component to human cognitive abilities... but it is unclear to me how one could really make some kind of metric to truly measure the say, relative capacity for empathy.

Further, if your definition is closer to 'emotional intelligence'... well again, speaking as an autist, this is something that gets wildly misunderstood and mis-assessed by neurotypicals just all the time, in my experience.

I have a great deal of capacity for empathy, I have consistently demonstrated this via action and words throughout my life... but most of the time, neurotypicals will conclude the exact opposite about me, because of a single instance where my tone or expressions or verbiage were slightly 'off' from what they evidently wanted, and then they'll say I was disingenuous, cruel, callous, etc... despite the two of us having had a years long history of me being emotionally available for them, supoortive of them.

If you know of an existing, or have a proposal for some kind of EQ metric/test, I'd be interested in seeing it, ... and again, I agree that in concept, EQ is an important aspect of human cognition... but I am skeptical that any kind of useful metric or test for it could exist, beyond doing like a full psych eval of someone over the course of months.

The whole concept of a metric like this is that it would be objective, intercomparable... and presumably, indicate something that is to at least a significant degree, relatively fixed throughout time.

The nature of emotion seems to me to be diametrically opposed to both of these... people can often be quite emotionally stable as a baseline, but then act erratic after or during a period of significant stress or trauma... or joy and pampering... and many people and cultures have different baselines for what they even view as something like 'emotionally welcoming/understanding.'

Yeah a lot of online ones were and still are BS, my parents put me through an actual, go to a place, sit and do a test for multiple hours kind of thing.

I am not sure that they actually needed to, but the explanation they gave me was that it was needed to get into the 'gifted' program in Elementary School...

Always stood out as weird to me, most of the other kids in it never did a whole ass IQ test, they just had really good grades and their parents asked the school nicely... ... ???

EDIT: Also uh, IQs are supposed to be noralized at 100... so... by standard deviations...

If I really am 135, then I'm in roughly the top 2% of the population.

If your friend is really above 145... they'd be in roughly the top tenth of a percent of all humans.

???

IQ is highly correlated with life outcomes like income, life expectancy, employment, and crime. Maybe it doesn’t measure “intelligence,” but it measures something which appears to be very important for modern society. There are undoubtedly different forms of intelligence which are not measured by an IQ test.

On top of the prior point lies another major issue with any sort of "general intelligence" test: defining "general intelligence". Intelligence comes in many forms: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, existential intelligence, and more. The IQ test does not test all forms of intelligence.

This, a million times this.

Intelligence is not simply a thing like an INT stat in an rpg game that just generally makes you more cognitively capable and/or knowledgeable with just consistently broad applicability.

Theres a ton of research that's gone into how to actually teach children and people things that suggests... sure, there is to some extent a broad cognitive ability, but there is also a huge multidimensional component, more domain specific element to different levels of aptitude with different kinds of thinking.

...

Like, me, I'm autistic.... innately good at clear cut and logical things, innately terrible at anything approaching fuzzy logic, like socializing.

I had to put a massive amount of effort into learning that... people often don't literally mean what they literally say, how intonation works, how context works in social situations...

... whereas I excelled at learning how to read and write and do math, how to do logic and critical thinking, apply frameworks of thinking across different fields of knowledge, memorize knowledge sets from books or what not.

Kinesis intelligence? Eh, I'd say I'm decent at it naturally, but that's been greatly augmented by 10+ years of Karate, a bit of shooting range practice, learning the basics of a few instruments... but I'm no where near as 'body' or 'dexterity' intelligent as many others I've met.

...

Anyway, yeah, theres a lot of interesting empirical research nowadays that shows different areas of the brain being more or less engaged in certain kinds of activities, and then trying to basically reverse engineer how all that works, but its enormously complicated.

Also: Epigenetics is a thing.

Nature gives you your DNA... but Nurture changes which parts of it are more used, more activated.

Its all enormously more complex than reducing a person down to a single number.

Oh right and the other big one: implicit cultural bias in the IQ tests themselves. I think this is (somewhat?) less of a problem in actual legit IQ tests these days, but for a very, very long time, it was a huge problem that just resulted in basically scientific racism.

...

tl:dr;

anyone who is boasting about their IQ without a gazillion caveats is doing the dunning-krueger thing, overestimating their actual cognitive abilities.

2001 is a really high IQ..

IQ tests are only useful for comparing population groups with the same shared culture. Think two Midwest towns, but the one that has a chemical plant is 20 points lower. You can't use it to compare different groups that have different skill sets for survival. You can not use it for individuals at all.

I’m pretty sure being of average intelligence (as far a test with its own flaws and limitations can tell) is nothing to be ashamed of, just like being of average height is nothing to be ashamed of.

I took one when I was a kid and got a 136, and I feel like an idiot fairly regularly. I don’t think these tests a definitive measures of intellectual “superiority”

I have taken free tests when I have been bored, I have got results within the range of 80 to 120, safe to say, I don't have a lot of trust in them...