Is IQ flawed? I mean, if I did a lot of IQ tests I would surely

>>8493282
>intelligence
The problem is that we dont even have a clear/objective opinion of intelligence let alone how to test for it.

So really we should be asking: What is intelligence?

>>8493285
No we should really be asking pol to start asking "what is intelligence?" anyone who knows anything about the topic of quantifying intelligence know we dont even have a definition of intelligence from which we measure.

>>8493285
>What is intelligence?
An innate ability to acheive a favorable outcome to your pursuits

File: 1478727082887.gif (2MB, 316x320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 316x320px

>>8493299
To broad. We still can't say who's more intelligent between a slow learning dude that knows a lot and a fast learning dude that knows nothing.

Who has the abilty to succeed more?

>>8493299
So, basically luck?

IQ does give you some information on the cognitive capabilities of someone but it isn't a complete answer. Obviously, someone with a 150 IQ can learn much faster and gain skills more efficiently than your average nigger, but that doesn't mean you will be proficient and groundbreaking in your life.

>>8493306
>>8493322
Im just trying to define it in an emperical way. Theres probably a better way

By seeing how much pussy you can get before you die. If you think anything else you're fooling yourself

>>8493282
>Is IQ flawed?

Its an attempt to measure a mental capacity.

Since it isn't a physical quality, we have to design tests to measure it that aren't as accurate as we may like.

The concept of intelligence relates to how quickly/efficiently your brain is at processing information, abstracting that information, learning new concepts, deriving new concepts from first principle or observation, etcetera...

Considering the complexity of the subject matter, IQ tests have a margin of error that is higher than we would like (although not significantly so), and also it is REALLY difficult to accurately measure this mental capacity without lengthy testing.

Typically in conversation, one may be able to place an individual's intelligence roughly in the correct spot on the scale after some in depth discussion on various topics.

>if I did a lot of IQ tests I would surely get better at them.

Presumably, you would get better by knowing the answers to the questions... which is one of the problems with testing for IQ... it is possible to "Learn" how to do well on an IQ test, if the test is of low quality, or repeated often enough.

>What would be a better way to measure "intelligence"?

Clear out your department of education, obviously.

>>8493306
You just described old people vs young people

It is crude but in a reliable way and will do until the substitute arrives.

>>8493282
desu on many cognitive tests, you can probs improve ur score purely by practise.

>>8493285
maybe we should stop asking what is intelligence and create new constructs instead.

>>8493853
You can improve your score by skill-ing but not your g-factor or the ability to acquire skills; being the characteristic IQ measures amidst noise

>>8493871
yeah i know, im just saying when people criticise IQ for that, its not specific to IQ.

>>8493282
IQ isn't meant to measure an individual's intelligence or skills or anything. People who take IQ tests don't understand that what they're doing makes absolutely no sense. IQ is meant to compare relatively large populations, so that the law of large number applies. If you compare the average IQ of a relatively unbiased population of 5000 in the Midwest and the average IQ of a relatively unbiased population of 5000 in the Bible Belt, all those considerations like "But it's the 12th time Billy's done an IQ test, he must be better at IQ tests now even though he's not more clever or anything", or "IQ doesn't properly measure intelligence, just something that is somewhat correlated to intelligence but we can't properly estimate that correlation", all of that don't matter anymore. You have two large samples, you make the argument that the correlation between intelligence and IQ is strong enough and sufficiently similar across populations that if the average IQ of a large unbiased population somewhere is 15 points higher than the average IQ of another population elsewhere, people in the first area are more intelligent.

You can do the same with other stuff. Correlation, even if you don't know its exact parameters, is a really strong tool. Of course you can make it say retarded shit, like what the dude at http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations does, but realistically if your population is large enough, it doesn't really happen anymore. So it doesn't even matter if IQ is that good a measurement of intelligence. A sufficient correlation does the job.

>>8494055

Those concerns still matter if you want to use IQ in an applied context which people try to do on individuals still.

There are also other issues to iron out too.

I think its probably quite difficult to get unbiased groups and in a way, by assuming unbiased populations and that IQ and intelligence correlate strong enough (which in a way is actually a meaningless statement because intelligence isn't an operationalised concept to compare anything to) you're kind of begging the question. But i get what you mean.

>>8494055

>IQ isn't meant to measure an individual's intelligence or skills or anything

i'd also have doubt about this

>>8493329

Someone with, an actual, 150 IQ is going to be some sort of genius.

Someone with, an actual, 70 IQ is going to be a bit dull to say the least.

Clearly IQ measures something related to the array of functionaliies that we stuff under the label of intelligence. We can't act stuffy about it. By definition, the top percentiles of humanity are the top percentiles. By definition, there are going to be lower percentiles with an astronomical amount of butthurt.

Because humans don't like being considered average or second rate. Therefore we will never have sensible public conversations because the amount of butthurt in people's self-evaluative systems is more than the ability of most people to not take personally.

Once the gap is widened by gene editing, the difference between man and man will be too hard to integrate into dominant social narratives.

File: asd.jpg (36KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 300x400px

ITT: Speculations