What does /sci/ think about IQ ? I think that it's pure

>>8286657
What is the evolutionary advantage of superiority?

>>8286662
Being superior =/= feeling superior ?

>>8286657
I think the people who flaunt their IQ's or swear by them, and the people who are wholeheartedly opposed to it like you, are all two sides of the same coin. Ignorant, insecure, and not really all that smart either.

IQ obviously has a correlation to someone's intellect. And yet, it's an extremely simple tool. Think on how many ways you could describe someone's skill with computers for instance:

Do they know PC, Mac, something else? Windows (which version), IOS, Linux? What about their individual software? What about games, programming, scripting, how about hardware? And all their subgroups, the subgroups of their subgroups etc....

It's insanely complex. Now take that same tree structure, apply it to everything one can put their mind to in this world of ours... and then describe that overall ability with a number basically somewhere between 100 and 200.

How accurate do you think that can be, how detailed? Yes, IQ describes the ability to learn, memorize, and reason. It should not be the measure of acquired information. But the point is similar, because the ability to learn different kinds of information varies in a very similar way, from person to person.

>>8286657
I think it's a pretty powerful predictor and that brainlet like to ignore the fact nobody ever gets a Nobel prize in hard science with an IQ <130

>>8286679
I should have said that I was talking about people who keep bragin about it. Because I'm not opposed to it, I just find people saying "I'm so inteligent with my IQ" that's it's funny to see how hard they failed in life.

For an exemple,

A girl in my school was always saying "I have 133, you peasant, I will be doctor, you suck all." -> Ended up in biology bachelor because she failed 2 times Doc entrance.

My best friend too "I have 131 IQ, I'm superior, you should deal with it" Got kicked out of school for too low grade, he has almost passed 3y doing nothing but playing video game.

Now, 2 other exemple,
My dad, "I don't care about IQ, I think it's very low and it won't change a thing in my life" - He was one of our great doctor our country had (18/20 - 20/20 every years).

One of my friend "IQ is just a number, act are the real test" - He is going to be doctor.

Well, sorry for all these doc story, they are just the best exemple I had.

I agree with you by the way. I didn't wanted to say that IQ is idiot, just people who brag about, but as a non native english with med skill, I always make mistake writing what I want to say.

>>8286688
When my dad said "it's very low" He was talking about his IQ.

>>8286688
>anon "my dad is the smartest man in my country and people around me are so stupid" - NEET dropout

>>8286695
I never said that faggot. Netheir himself.

>>8286683
Except Feynman did exactly that

>>8286683
>>8286700
Owned. By the way, we understand what you are saying.

>>8286700
>self-reported and undocumented
>scored first in Putnam
>everybody who scores high on Putnam has a high documented IQ
Yeah man the simplest explanation is totally not that that 125 score was bogus

>>8286729
so you are saying IQ tests are bullshit? got it

File: not-ok.png (45KB, 384x221px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 384x221px

>>8286729
So now you are disregarding facts, just so your baseless, rubbish statement appears correct?

>>8286729
>everybody who scores high on Putnam has a high documented IQ
>documented IQ
Except Feynman. Anyway his aptitude serves as a better testament to the erroneous IQ test than to one average man able to accomplish what he did. Obviously he was incredibly smart, and he didn't need an IQ test to validate this.

>>8286657
>IQ
>degree
change "IQ" with "degree" and "degree" with "knowledge".

>>8286741
>>8286743
>>8286744
>facts
>documented
It's not documented, it's self-reported and yes this test was probably bad.

>so you are saying IQ tests are bullshit? got it
Yes if one ruler is bad that means length is a meaningless dimension, perfectly deduced my low IQ friend.

>Obviously he was incredibly smart, and he didn't need an IQ test to validate this.
Yes? That doesn't prove that delusional low IQ fags can make it.

>So now you are disregarding facts, just so your baseless, rubbish statement appears correct?
Disregarding an anecdote in favor of a very large number of data points telling us Putnam winners are high IQ is perfectly reasonable, low IQ friend number 2.

File: tired.png (7KB, 493x402px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 493x402px

>it's an autism fight episode

>>8286768
>Yes if one ruler is bad that means length is a meaningless dimension
There aren't really perfect rulers either. There is a margin of error in both rulers and IQ tests.

>>8286768
>one ruler
>ONE

There are countless examples of IQ being bullshit.

If rulers were that bad, the company that produces them would go bankrupt.

>>8286799
Conceded.

>>8286815
>countless examples
No, I think you meant "a handful of anecdotes" you use to strengthen your delusions.

>>8286815
No there really aren't. Besides:
>[Citation needed]

Doesn't take a genius to understand that the singular exception that is Feynman, can be attributed to the suspicious circumstances surrounding his score rather than the man's intellect itself.

While IQ is by no means a guarantee of anything, it obviously correlates very strongly with some basic attributes. It's like a car engine, literally. A good driver who's dedicated a lot of time and effort into practice can easily overcome a car with a better engine, by sheer skill alone. But with equal skill and training, the car with the better engine will always win. And if the difference between the two is too massive, then the slower car will be so slow by comparison, that skill doesn't even play much of a role anymore, as the faster car can drive into all the wrong roads and miss the important turns, while still being fast enough to take that round about way and reach the goal first.

>>8286836
(..cont)
That said, I don't respect IQ. I used to be obsessed with it as a kid, but eventually found that even with my 139 IQ (Mensa), one automatically gravitates to people, professions and academia with similarly talented people. Point is, in my group of friends and even colleagues, I often enough feel like a complete idiot.

More than that respect, is something that should be afforded to those who actually earn it. You earn your IQ the same way you earn being born pretty or handsome, or the way you earn a filthy rich family and a life where you never need to worry about money, love and power.

It's something you're born with. And requires no work or effort whatsoever. A person who works up from nothing, in this case someone who wasn't born especially smart, but had a curious mind and a hard working attitude and learned as best as he could to apply his experience and knowledge for a common cause.. A person like that is a far more respectable figure than someone who was born genius, and wastes that on shallow insults and social envy, and eventually sets out to under perform his entire life.

>>8286836
Someone once described them to me as a worn paint brush that can't articulate fine details, but can still be used to capture a general picture.

Also, Feynman probably had legit autism. He had all those weird idioms (like calling an anatomical diagram of a cat a "map of the cat") and apparently was a pretty mediocre writer. He was very right-brained.

>>8286657
IQ is a flawed measurement of intelligence which can be used to roughly predict certain competences

>>8286844
>non-aristotelicism is autism
>right brained
nice b8 m8

>>8286861
On 4chan the word "autistic" applies to everything but.

Just more people turning something they themselves think is grey into a black and white mess just to prove themselves right when no one is arguing it is black and white. You just brought it up.

>>8286836
>Doesn't take a genius to understand that the singular exception that is Feynman, can be attributed to the suspicious circumstances surrounding his score rather than the man's intellect itself.

One has to wonder if he acted like this while he was being tested.
http://physicshead.blogspot.com/2007/09/feynman-gets-psychiatric-exam.html