IQ is skull measuring nonsense. how good you are at taking a standardised test is in fact not a remotely good "measure of intelligence". if you care about education you should discard the notion of IQ.
this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
58 points (88.2% liked)
Asklemmy
47959 readers
409 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
how good you are at taking a standardised test
Not even that, how good you are at taking a standardised test on a given day. We also know people who are traumatised by poverty or individual adverse life events have lower success rates on these tests, making them even more useless at best and vicious at worst.
Scores are stable over time. This can be determined by statistics. It's called test-retest reliability.
You can get better at IQ tests by doing more of them and learning the patterns, right? So it’s basically measuring how au fair you are with logic puzzles rather than anything particularly intrinsic.
You can get better at IQ tests by doing more of them and learning the patterns, right?
Yes. That is considered to "invalidate" an IQ test, but it's not usually an issue since the tests are typically administered to children.
IQ tests are basically only used in the context of individualized education plans for young school children (or for MENSA membership).
So it’s basically measuring how au fair you are with logic puzzles rather than anything particularly intrinsic.
The fundamental issue of testing is that no test can objectively determine intrinsic properties.
But no, a full IQ test done by a psychologist tests a lot more than "puzzles", including things like memory tests and even fine motor skills or hand eye coordination.
When I was tested they found I scored really high in the pattern recognition stuff and memory tests, but my writing was slow and sloppy and below average.
As part of my individualized education plan I was allowed extra time on tests as well as study aids such as text to speech tools because of this.
The ultimate purpose of the IQ tests is to get a general idea of the strengths and weaknesses in certain area.
Excellent memory, and quick intuitive problem solving, like in my case, can compensate and mask ADHD symptoms like trouble focusing. These tests helped reveal that at an early age.
I think a lot of people think of IQ tests like they're "how objectively smart are you" when really they're used to find out which areas you need help in with your education/life so we can provide kids with that support.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I think it would be hard to isolate exactly how much of our daily lives we experience as a direct consequence of our IQ and how much is a consequence of other things such as personality, emotional predisposition, environment, and luck.
My IQ is pretty average (around 115 I think? I tested ages ago and I can't even say the test was reliable). Some people insist I must be somewhat higher than that but I don't know. I feel dumber every day.
My father though, he does have a higher IQ (I think 135 iirc) and it's obvious to anyone that he's a brains guy. Always top student in his youth and later a decent researcher, engineer and programmer. And yet he still makes dumb mistakes like everyone else, and his temper and personality will often turn a mediocre day into a bad one. He has a tendency to overcomplicate things unnecessarily, and sets high standards for others around him- you'd think being smarter would mean he wouldn't do this, but as I said, intelligence doesn't work isolated. I remember asking him how it feels like being smarter than most of his peers and his answer is always "bah!".
So I don't know if this answers your question, but there's my two cents for you.
115 is not "average" lmao
It’s within a standard deviation, it’s not like it’s getting him into Mensa.
By definition, it is. 85-115 is the 1 standard deviation range for IQ and encompasses ⅔ of the population (roughly). So, 115 is "average" or "high average".
115-130 is above average, while 70-85 is below average ("mild intellectual delay" used to be the term I think? Not sure if that's still current). 145+ was "genius" and 160+ was "super genius", back in the day; I assume those terms aren't used anymore, but I haven't looked into it. IIRC, about 97% of the population is 70-130 IQ.
My brother is a "genius"; I am not. (I was never told my exact score on the IQ test found for me as a child, but I know the range, and in both our cases came from a psychologist).
I'm more "successful" by most standard measures of success, but that might have more to do with his (undiagnosed and unsupported) autism than his IQ. (Career , house, family, etc.) In math, for example, he could get 100s without effort, until university. I could get 100s with significant but not extreme effort, or coast and get 80s-90s until university. We both got top scores on math contests at the local (academic) school level.
I don't really think IQ is very valuable for having a "good" life. Emotional regulation, introspection, mindfulness, and other soft skills are more important, imho, and I'm actively working on trying to build more capacity in those areas, and they're leading to more success for me than my speed at learning a narrow subset of things (what IQ measures).
I'm dealing with a lot of harm from how constantly being labeled "smart" was damaging for me, paired with my at-the-time undiagnosed ADHD. I struggle with a lot of imposter syndrome, need for external validation, and oscillating sense of self worth.
TL;DR: "Emotional intelligence" trumps IQ for life skills and general happiness, equanimity, and "success".
So I don’t know if this answers your question, but there’s my two cents for you.
It does! This is precisely the kind of stuff that I'm interested in! I agree with you, in that it's possible to think wrong thoughts even with a higher IQ. I see IQ as the speed of thought, and you can very quickly arrive at wrong conclusions. Similarly, if there's a thought that your skill tree hasn't unlocked, then you're left with thoughts that are maybe not ideal for a particular situation, thoughts that could make someone "overcomplicate things unnecessarily" or "make dumb mistakes", as your dad or anyone on planet Earth would.
I think it's especially hard to isolate IQ when there are many thoughts or behaviors that we don't typically associate with high IQ. "Ah yes, the violin is a sensible instrument for a learned man" or whatever people may think. That's partly why I asked my question. If someone leads a life not typically associated with a high IQ and yet have a high enough IQ that manifested in their life, how did that look like? Of course, I'm not looking for wild stories. I'm looking for genuine stories, and I'm glad that I got an interesting answers like yours!
If you believe psychology and IQ are nonsense, here’s a comment I copied over from another thread:
IQ means intelligence quotient. A bunch of people take a test and they’re compared to each other. Your result is your intelligence quotient.
Its origins were noble, because it was designed to identify students who needed extra help in school. The creator of the test knew that people could change their results with good instruction.
However, that noble origin story was besmirched by what happened later. Eventually, IQ tests were used as a way to classify people in more brutal and rigid ways. The USA military used it as a cutoff for aspiring cadets. USA colleges use tests that effectively are IQ tests to let people in or not. The worst part is that bigots around the world injected pseudoscience into IQ and used it to decide who they think are worthy of life and who aren’t. It’s as awful as it sounds.
You may notice that helping struggling students sounds wonderful, and you may think that we should go back to that.
However, some people are deeply marked by the dark history of IQ. They have developed beliefs that protect them from the dangers of bigotry and IQ reductionism. They believe that tests aren’t useful at all to tell us something about anything. They believe IQ tests should be banished and never used.
Other people believe IQ tests are a snapshot of how a person answered the questions to a test in a given day. Take the same test days, months, or years after a great education, and the result will be higher. Additionally, these people notice that, in research, IQ scores are robustly associated with other things, such as quality of relationships, happiness, income, and other measures. They contend that learning about the world, about ourselves, and how to think critically and solve problems has massive domino effects in peoples’ lives. Once again, these people believe that a test result one day doesn’t doom you for life and doesn’t define you. A bad test result shows the gap that a good education would fill. These people know that a good education makes the mind curious, nimble, and open.
In my perspective IQ only has so many consequences, due to the limitations of the method. Nowadays we know to separate different forms of intelligence and also that transferring skills between those forms can have an impact on overall 'performance' . That being said, it can be a good indicator for stuff but as you point out, it's often misused as divider instead of an accelerator.
load more comments
(2 replies)
You get to impress the worst people in the world by giving them a number which generally indicates the quality of your education. Other than that, it's pretty useless.
I'm comfortably above average but comfortably below genius, not entirely sure whether that fits your personal definition of high so it felt worth clarifying.
In school, it meant that learning was something I could do with no actual effort. Without studying and without doing homework aside from what I did at my desk to pass the time before class started, I had as strong a grasp on the subject as the students who did and comfortable grades. Then when I started college, that passivity suddenly didn't work anymore and I had no idea how to cope with it. I never actually learned how to learn, formally speaking.
Emotionally speaking, that whole thing was awful. It sucked when it was easy because I was so bored, it sucked when it was hard because I was so frustrated. I actually failed out of high school due to low attendance at the very end, then tested into the local college without a diploma because I still knew the material even with the problematic attendance, then got suspended from college due to now-for-the-opposite-reason low attendance and never went back. There was also unrelated shit going on, to be clear, but this that I'm describing was not a small part of my overall psychological state.
As an adult, it doesn't mean much of anything. While it's a bit easier for me to learn things than it is for the average person, the ease with which I learn things doesn't matter anymore because it's largely happening without other people's direct involvement or on any kind of schedule. On the occasion there needs to be an actual work training lesson I attend, it's something that only happens for a day and enduring a single day of tedious education is so very achievable compared to it being my entire life.
The biggest impact these days is that it makes me hate Aaron Sorkin.
My highest IQ I scored was 135, the lowest 115.
Do I get to part of it?
The IQ tests themselves are not great tools of measuring intelligence but it's the best we've got.
And I'm glad people here realize that.
Well...I currently feel like I'm the dumbest one among friends. I've got ADD, so I lose concentration a lot and my friends don't seem to have that, while they have high IQ as well.
It's also good to see that you know that IQ is speed of measuring thoughts, because I don't think the current physicists have got it correct at all and fail even on a basic level of natural philosophy/science, but they certainly can whip up complex equations faster than either of us can.
It's like having all the correct opinions
I’m asking this partly because I saw someone else asking the same question but about low IQ.
You wouldn't understand.
Hahah! Living up to your aristocratic origins, I see.
If I were smarter I could likely answer this question. I never tested for it but for anyone younger out there since its a general test and it normalizes for age I think the younger you take it the better for a high result but its good to do it while your still studying general things. So like in the US like the summer after two years of college as your courses are going to get to specialized at that point. Maybe after the first year or if you don't go to college just after high school.
My situation is I have an ability to recall a lot of really old information and some of it seemingly mundane. I can also synthesize all this together to make a good decision quickly.
This is basically what learning is, but it's a broader base I can pull from and the process is just faster.
I don't do well with forcing specific information to be cataloged. This means I wasn't a great student in classes where you needed to just remember things (eg history).
The other thing I've got going for me is being able to visually see things in my head. It might be memories, but it's also things for solving problems like this https://www.intelligencetest.com/questions/visualization/medium/3/8.html
Bad. Do not recommend.
How come?
I find most people boring. Even people who are initially interesting can become boring once I spend a lot of time with them.
Most people also don't seem to realize just how royally fucked we are (USA). In this case I think ignorance would be bliss, since I can't do much to make things better.
How old are you?
This reminds me of me, in my teens and early 20's.
I'm in my 40's now, a lot of that attitude is borne out of arrogance. Judging others by your ability,is neither fair or productive, it is also a recipe for continuous disappointment.
Being continually disappointed, will fuck up your mental health. After a certain point, the only person to compare against is your past self. Comparing to others is a excellent method for robbing yourself of any joy or fulfillment.
I mainly get annoyed, when others don't live up to their own potential; when they offload decisions onto me, that they are more than capable of on their own.
If you really are that smart, I recommend reading philosophy, I'm partial to the Stoic's, but there's a lot of good stuff out there.
Judging others by your ability,is neither fair or productive, it is also a recipe for continuous disappointment.
I'm not so much judging them as bemoaning my own loneliness. To be fair, I've also done a good amount of judging, but that isn't what I'm referring to here.
I'm just talking about companionship. Stimulation. Someone to play board games with, or argue about whether water is wet with.
I had a real group of peers in college. I was surrounded by people smarter than me, and it was great. I actually had to work hard to win games against them, had to actually apply myself to avoid failing my classes, and they would actually debate like they knew what they were doing. I miss it.
I understand. More than you realise.
Few people are interested in what I'm interested in, but companionship is not always about our interests.
Sometimes, you just need to be in the same place as others. Doing similar things. No conversion required.
Go find a local planting day, plant a tree or ten.
Most people don't want a debate, they want pleasant conversation.