Why do people say something is as it is?

Post Reply New Topic

This is something that has bothered me a lot lately, and that is that people tend to express their narrow minded tendencies by not exploring thr various other options. For example, why do people think that IQ test is an accurate method of testing ones intelligence? It is as if they aren't doubting it, they either don't care or they like to have it is it is.

The same applies for anything similiar, why do people say that god exists/don't if there's no absolute evidence to prove either side? It is just frustrating when people do this.

It's as if they think, in my first example, that IQ is the definite form of intelligence measurment, not doubting it or thinking about any other possibly method. And of course, they share it with the public.

Any thought on this?

Also I do not know where this post should've been posted.

In my opinion, IQ tests are moderately accurate in testing intelligence as you'll never meet somebody with an IQ of 140 that, to be frank, is generally less intelligent than somebody with an IQ of 100.

I do believe however, that IQ tests only measure a limited subset of intelligence. Regarding the example above, the person with 100 IQ may be the most creative person in the world, or possess other equally valuable abilities that require a different type of intelligence. Furthermore, simply possessing higher intelligence does not mean that an individual will make the relatively 'smarter' decision in a situation - many more factors such as knowledge/education, wisdom, personality all play into that.

I base my opinions off of fact. If somebody can provide evidence that an IQ test does not correlate with intelligence, then my opinion will change.

As for the god example, I'm agnostic for that very reason. Based on my life experience, I personally think it's unlikely for a god based on our current religions to exist exactly as described and thus don't live by religion, but I remain open to the possibility of all different kinds of gods. Agnosticism is a theory of knowledge, rather than a belief system, so I don't modify my behaviour based purely on what I think to be possible, but what I can actually perceive to be real (without being philosophical).

I agree with you Norny, but we do only understand a small portion of the human brain which makes it problematic when evaluating an invidual's intelligence. This is an indication that non of the intelligence tests are accurate, but high scorers are prone to be more intelligent as it still tests a portion of the whole intelligence scale.

This has led to an misunderstanding of intelligence, many are even assuming that they are more intelligent than they actually are, having a delusional perception of the physical world is never really good.

My problem is,how can high IQ scorers (or anyone in general) not doubt IQ tests? At least probably 1-4% do, isn't an intelligent person supposed to have an accurate view point on everything, instead of relying on information that might be irrelevant?

I don't get it, I have an IQ of 87 yet I do not think like that, if my IQ even is accurate...

It doesn't work like that. IQ tests covers the ability to analyse and solve a range of different types of problems given certain facts. Someone with a very high IQ doesn't necessarily have the ability to give an accurate view point on everything. I'd rather not mention my IQ other than say it is well above normal. I have the ability to solve complex logical and computing type problems and similarly have a deep insight into the sciences and have an ability to extrapolate very accurately how the world works from a physics point of view. However, I am clueless regarding social interactions and solving interpersonal problems; I am clueless how to solve political and economic problems and in other fields. I make stupid mistakes in daily life that other people would not make. I am forgetful and clumsy. However, I have a Mensa verified high IQ for what it is worth.

Your confusion might stem from the assumption that people say things to express truth and that they strive to be thorough in examining what they say.
What they usually do is follow a social dance in which truth is less important than how you and the people you are talking to relate to a certain piece of information. In other words, they say things in order to establish or nourish a relationship. From that perspective, the scientific method has little value in itself.

I completely agree with you that intelligence is a concept that we cannot really.. conceptualize. There's far too little known about neurology, and intelligence alone is highly inflated. By inflation I refer to the common, yet incorrect belief that knowledge, wisdom and all kinds of other things are 'intelligence'. To be honest, I don't even know how to define intelligence outside of using Google's: 'the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.'

Relating to the above, this is a small example that I have used before:

A person that can craft a seemingly perfect post (grammar etc. are all flawless) is not more intelligent than one who can't. The process behind learning how to shower properly or bake a cake are the exact same as creating fancy posts - you simply need to have put in the effort to have learned the rules behind it.. in other words it's knowledge. A more simple example would be knowing that a continent called 'Africa' exists. That does not mean you're smart, it just means that you've been made aware of the label given to a particular land mass on Earth.

Don't stress about what you scored on an IQ test mate.

Last edited by Norny on 18 Aug 2014, 6:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

That is a good point. People have agendas and those agendas may not coincide with the truth. You've only got to look at the promises made by politicians during election campaigns. Even in everyday life, I've noticed many people feel it is more important to win an argument/discussion than to seek the truth of a matter.

The main problem with IQ tests is that they test only a few subsets of intelligence, such as spatial and mathematical reasoning, logic, but there are demonstrable correlations between IQ score and those types of intelligence. If you get very high scores in mathematical reasoning ability, then it's very likely that you have a mathematical mind and are able to solve mathematical questions well enough. What is doesn't test however is the creative ability to solve problems, musical intelligence, creative insights etc. Some types of intelligence, such as bodily-kinesthetic intelligence are deemed lesser by society and don't have their place in standard IQ tests.

People with high IQs don't necessarily know all the facts or are able to arrive at the right answer all the time, people don't just seep up knowledge from thin air.

IQ tests are basically attempts to measure certain cognitive abilities. But they only look at a few areas and not the whole of what makes up a persons mental capabilities.

So I think to say IQ measures intelligence is a misnomer. It tries to measure certain skill abilities. Much like timing how fast a person can run, its only touching on a part, and perhaps a smaller part of the whole then is realized.

As an example, one friend I knew here had an IQ significantly lower then yours but was as intelligent in thought and conversation, and as functional IRL as others here with sky-high IQs. I literally couldn't anything wrong as far as their life abilities went.

So although it might have use as far as determining aptitude in certain areas (Like in choosing a career field, ie. 'you might do well in the sciences, or mechanics.. and so on) I think it is false to consider it a measure of intelligence.

Btw, some years back, the person with the highest measured IQ was working as a janitor at an apartment complex. There's nothing wrong with that, and that was what they wanted to do. Though there may have been some paranoia involved as they stated the reason they did it was so as not to be used by people or companies, etc, for their intelligence.

IQ tests were, and are, formulated as a "predictor" of how intelligent a person is, or will be. They never claimed to measure "intelligence," per se.

There are lots of reasons why IQ tests are not used alone these days; there's a considerable amount of obvious cultural bias in them--and a person's score could very well depend upon the person's motivation.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 18 Aug 2014, 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Good video:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xTz3QjcloI[/youtube]

Well in that case then, as you said, a probability measurment that is not 100% accurate but still an indicator...

... should I even continue working with physics if my IQ is around that? Appears quite pointless in case. I mean, what chances are there that a person with an IQ of around 87 becomes a theoretical astrophycisist?

IQ is an indicator of person success, if it is completely predicate.
---------------------------------------
To the point:

As my IQ is evaluated to be low, but still functional as it's in the normal part of the whole line, how come I am naturally doing well in the science classes? That is the flaw with the IQ tests, It exhibits my personal issues that are valid to a certain degree, but yet fails to explain why I am good at something that was originally measured in the IQ test and I scored relatively low on it.

Unless it is so that IQ tests aren't validated for the ones in the autistic spectrum, is this geniuely a frequent problem for the ones in the AS?

This whole IQ discussion going on the internet is absurdly demotivating for me...

You have a good point. IQ tests may be a flawed if not entirely inaccurate measurement of people on the spectrum.

Quantum, you like physics, so I recommend the Feynman Lectures, free to read online here: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

Don't worry about your IQ and go for physics.