What's your opinion on "IQ's" in general?

>>8497427
I don't know. I'm 131 but 70k in student loan debt and have been a bum for 1.5 years. Good chance I start med school next August though.

File: Thumbs Down.jpg (57KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 640x480px

>>8497427
>do you think a number will determine how well you'll do in life?
lol

i did the irl mensa test, 135 IQ, was a neet for 4 years, dropped out of college once, about to drop out for the second time, schizo affective disorder and i have also been lazy as fuck and anti social ever since the first day of school.

IQ is a meme, if anything, EQ is a more reliable measurement for how successful you will be, as being social usually gets you a better job.

IQ threads should be banned from /sci/ and moved to /x/, /lit/ or /r9k/.

>>8497427
Nope - physical attraction still puts you in a better place. Or being tall if you want to dominate.

>>8497427
>A number determines how well you'll do
No, it is a decent predictor though

>>8497427
>What's your opinion on "IQ's" in general?
It's useful. It's used in various psychological diagnosis. After all it's a tool, and it works fine in estimating one's intelligence.
>Like, do you think a number will determine how well you'll do in life?
This is /x/-tier bullshit. Ability to recognize patterns and quickly study STEM doesn't determine how well you'll do in life. Your educations, skills, social status, money, opportunities, luck, experience etc. means much more.

>>8497444
It's sad there are people who claim to have such a high IQ and still are too retarded to grasp what IQ means. It's great example of how high intelligence does not necessary corresponds to knowledge.

File: serious cat.png (256KB, 476x477px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 476x477px

>>8497970
>it works fine in estimating one's intelligence
the only thing IQ measures is how well you do on an IQ test you retard.
is tells you absolutely nothing about general intelligence. it's not just pattern recognition or the ability to use language. creativity for example is also part of human intelligence, as is emotional knowledge. when was the last time you had to draw a picture or sing a song during an IQ test? and when did you ever have to socialize during one of these tests?
you are a dumbfuck if you honestly believe that IQ is a reliable measurement of human intelligence.

>>8498003
>creativity for example is also part of human intelligence, as is emotional knowledge.
STEM fags conveniently ignore this all the time, they usually suck in these categories.

>muh pattern recognition

File: 1448873919441.png (3KB, 344x341px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 344x341px

>>8498003
True, it all depends on how you define intelligence.
I use intelligent person as someone who people usually call intelligent.
Is a person who lacks skills and knowledge but has great emotional intelligence or has good social status usually called intelligent?
Or someone who is just a great singer or draws beautiful paintings? They may be genuineness in art but they are not kind of people, people imagine when they are asked about "intelligent person".
But if you take people with 130+ IQ and people with 70-, then the former group in general will usually be perceived as intelligent and the latter will be perceived as not intelligent.
I used intelligence as ability to gasp new concepts, understand abstract ideas, quickly learn new things and IQ does correlate to these abilities.

File: savant syndrom.jpg (156KB, 468x314px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 468x314px

>>8498029
>I used intelligence as ability to gasp new concepts, understand abstract ideas, quickly learn new things
then you used a made up definition, which makes the argument pointless. nice confirmation bias, you can't just cherry pick the parts which support your claims and completely ignore the rest. IQ tests do not measure all cognitive abilities and are therefor not capable of measuring general intelligence. have you every heard of the savant syndrome? savants are basically retarded, yet they possess skills you can only dream of.

>The most dramatic examples of savant syndrome occur in individuals who score very low on IQ tests, while demonstrating exceptional skills or brilliance in specific areas, such as rapid calculation, art, memory, or musical ability.

>A 1987 study by Hermelin, O’Connor and Lee looked at musical inventiveness in five musical savants compared to six non-savant children who had musical training over a period of two years but who had not been exposed to compositional or improvisational instruction
>on tests of musical competence—timing, balance and complexity—the savants (with a mean IQ of 59) were also superior

now watch these videos and tell me if you would call them less intelligent than you, just because they have low IQ scores.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8YXZTlwTAU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWqNoGKJWBI

and then show me how you, the intelligent one with the high IQ, can learn or do the same stuff these retards can do naturally.

File: 1479755966488842437.jpg (44KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 429x410px

>>8498046
>then you used a made up definition, which makes the argument pointless
That's the point. I don't give a fuck about how to "properly" define intelligence, I'm not a psychologist.
>nice confirmation bias, you can't just cherry pick the parts which support your claims and completely ignore the rest. IQ tests do not measure all cognitive abilities and are therefor not capable of measuring general intelligence. have you every heard of the savant syndrome? savants are basically retarded, yet they possess skills you can only dream of.
What? I don't want to prove that IQ measures general intelligence, nor I was ever talking about. You were the first one to bring that term up and you and you properly refuted it, congratulations! But I wasn't talking about that at all.
All I was saying is that people misunderstand IQ as some kind of prophecy to determine rest of their life. It's just a tool for psychological diagnosis, it only states how well you do in pattern recognition and abstract thinking and correlates to how well you do in STEM in general, that's all. It has nothing to do with your job opportunities, social skills, knowledge and skills.
Still it only works in statistics. People are weird, they can have some genius skills and suck at other things, there isn't any way to reduce such a complex thing to mere numeric scale. Of course there are people who are IQ 70 and are called intelligent, but in general, IQ70- will be called unintelligent.
I can't watch videos on mobile, sorry.

>>8498066
>it works fine in estimating one's intelligence
>You were the first one to bring that term up
no, your original post introduced the term intelligence, not mine. 'intelligence' IS 'general intelligence'. what you meant to say was 'ability to recognize patterns, using language and memorizing things'. that's not 'intelligence', it's part of it. intelligence includes the things i mentioned which aren't measured in an IQ test. look up the definition before you use words you don't understand.

>I don't give a fuck about how to "properly" define intelligence
and that's why i'm calling you a retard. your definition of intelligence was cherry picked, as previously mentioned, making your entire opinion on the subject worthless.

just as worthless as IQ tests are for measuring anything but how well you perform on an IQ test. measuring part of something tells you very little about the whole picture. you said IQ was 'useful' and 'works fine'. it is not useful and it doesn't work, as proven by savants.
i wish people would stop using IQ tests for anything other than for fun. IQ tests are on par with the MBTI and should not be discussed on /sci/ at all. too many STEM fags jerking off over their arbitrary number that means nothing.

>in general, IQ70- will be called unintelligent
only by idiots that do not know what the IQ even is.

File: enhanced-buzz-26895-1445458041-7.jpg (31KB, 540x360px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 540x360px

>>8498093
>no, your original post introduced the term intelligence, not mine. 'intelligence' IS 'general intelligence'. what you meant to say was 'ability to recognize patterns, using language and memorizing things'. that's not 'intelligence', it's part of it. intelligence includes the things i mentioned which aren't measured in an IQ test. look up the definition before you use words you don't understand.
I did said intelligence, not general intelligence. It's you who keep talking about general intelligence and keep trying to convince me that IQ doesn't determine one's general intelligence. What the hell anon, who are you even arguing with? I do know that IQ doesn't determine general intelligence, everyone knows that.

>and that's why i'm calling you a retard. your definition of intelligence was cherry picked, as previously mentioned, making your entire opinion on the subject worthless.
That's just ad hominem. My definition of intelligence was cherry picked because I used intelligence as de facto score at IQ test. It doesn't matter if I called it intelligence, IQ score or 'ability to recognize patterns, using language and memorizing things' because it has nothing to do with my argument: that people misunderstand these tests and think that IQ determine how successful you are.

>just as worthless as IQ tests are for measuring anything...
I got my IQ tested multiple times during diagnosis of things like Prosopagnosia and Dyslexia. How does savants prove that it was all useless and didn't work? What does savants have to do with diagnosis?

>only by idiots that do not know what the IQ even is.
But you know that majority of people don't know what IQ is, right? I said that most people would call IQ70- unintelligent, that was exactly my point. It doesn't matter if they know what IQ is and they surely should not know IQ of the group they are describing, it could affect results.

>>8497427
I think people who actually give a fuck about an imaginary, bullshit number are fucking retards.