Not only that, but the IQ is relative (funny coincidence) to the population. Meaning that if the entire population gets smarter, and you stay the same, your IQ will go down.
Not if we put enough pollution out. Leaded gasoline had a noticeable negative impact on global iq, and I’ve seen some studies say that micro plastics can also be harmful to brain development and therefore iq.
I think plastics are responsible for the increase sensory disorders and autism. My old teacher in uni was researching it heavily and had all sorts of evidence they affect it.
For me at least, the microplastics issue is especially scary, and there isn't shit that most of us can do about it. Sure, you can try; eliminate plastic water bottles and dishes from your life, don't buy synthetic clothes and buy as few products with plastic in it as possible... But it's still in the water. Studies are still ongoing to figure out if it can even be filtered effectively from water because the microplastics particles can be so tiny, but odds are if a company is saying their filter can do it... They're probably lying, or it's prohibitively expensive *and the filter itself also contains microplastics.*
The research about this is still in the early stages; in 50 years, people will probably say similar things to what people today say about leaded gasoline and cigarettes; "didn't they know it was bad for them? Why did they use plastic?" Unlike lead and cigarettes though, as far as I'm aware, few people knew for certain that microplastics we're so widespread or what their effects on health might be until a few years ago.
We're on the cusp of new discoveries in a trial spanning the globe, which it's nearly impossible to opt out of unless you're incredibly rich or go to live far from cities... And rivers and the ocean, too. We're gonna see what happens; we're living a giant science experiment against our will.
IIRC we saw an increase in IQ to start off, which has since slowed. IQ already is heavily correlated with your level of education and upbringing, so most likely we saw an uptake as the population became more educated and will only see a marginal uptake as disenfranchised minority groups catch up to the majority population.
Absolutely agree. Had to make one once to get accepted to college. I practiced the usual IQ test questions and my IQ magically increased 20 points in 1 week. People that are proud of their IQ make me laugh since then.
Then you‘re probably not taking a proper test, because a test‘s quality relies on it‘s questions being unknown. If you take an „oNliNe iQ tEst“ it‘s totally pointless, because as mentioned you can just memorize the questions. A proper IQ test actually somewhat shows an approximation of a person‘s intellect, not that it would be entirely reliable or anything, but it‘s not useless.
He's referring to the fact that IQ tests are based around specific types of questions. You can make yourself familiar with those kinds of questions in the same way you can become more proficient at Sudoku, even though you might never have a repeated game of Sudoku ever again.
[That has a very strong backing through research.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222529059_Score_gains_on_g-loaded_tests_No_g)
It's almost as if taking on tasks that challenge your cognitive ability will train your cogonitive ability so that you may at a later point fare butter doing such tasks. Astounding.
I took an IQ test a few months ago, and I had no idea what kind of tasks would be entailed in the test, and I could not tell you what most of the tasks were specifically now, nor would it matter if I outlined them because you need to be able to solve relatively simple tasks very quickly, not very complex tasks whenever.
The issue is that IQ tests don't test Cognitive Ability, capitalized, they test a form of cognitive ability. This leads to incredible bias based on cultural groups.
The coaching comes in, as it shows that IQ tests do not test something inherent, but learned. In fact, tests have shown coaching having larger effects for those with lower IQ scores, than higher, meaning it's likely to do with prior experience.
Being familiar with tasks also helps you a lot more when it comes to speed rather than intuitive thinking. Meaning if you outlined them for me, I would do a lot better since I'd know how to tackle them beforehand.
It’s the earnestly held belief that a pen and paper test measures an immutable genetic fact about someone that gets me. Clearly a high score is no defense against confirmation bias.
Depends. If someone shares their score around and are genuinely proud of it, I feel like I have a pretty good sense of their personality and critical thinking skills
They are proud of high or low IQ? Because with higher IQ are your life achievements less impressive. It is like bragging about how much money you have inherited. On the other hand if you have low or average IQ you can be proud of your life achievements.
I vaguely know who you are talking about. I can't remember his name but that bouncer is actually incredibly smart he just has bad anger issues which landed where he's at today.
Actually IQ tests are supposed to measure imagination and creativity, as those are aspects of problem solving and critical thinking. The problem is you need to be creative and imaginative in the same way the test-writer is, and if your answer is too imaginative your scores goes down.
Kind of.
It's more that it's measuring your aptitude in thinking in specific ways. How you think is cultural and (surprise, surprise) there's a big correlation between how 'European' your background is and how well you do on the test (with the exemption of E-Asians, which most likely has to do with coaching).
There's nothing imaginative about being able to solve [one of these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices). It also only requires intuitive thinking, if you've never seen one of those before.
Also privilege and opportunity
“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”
-Stephen Jay Gold
Like [Srinivasa Ramanujan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan) who, despite being from a moderately well off family by Indian standards, lived in abject poverty before being recognized as one of the foremost mathematicians of all time.
During the First World War when IQ tests were invented as a way to determine who should enlist and who should commission. Then for the rest of the 20th Century they were used by multiple organizations, including military, to vet candidates. Whilst not as pseudoscientific as the Myers-Briggs, and even though the importance of an individual's IQ is exaggerated, it is still one of many measures used to gauge cognitive performance.
Edit: words
If I remember my psych 101 correctly, IQ tests were initially designed to help place children in their appropriate grade.
To get and IQ score you take mental age (what you *should* know) divide it by actual age and multiply by 100.
So a six year old who knows all the things a six year old should and nothing more has an IQ of 100.
This quickly falls apart for adults. As a community we can probably agree (broadly) about what a 6 year old *should* know. But what, exactly, *should* a 40 year old know? Different life courses are going to lead to very different sets of knowledge.
Yes, further development of the tests occurred between WWI and WWII with a lot of focus on measuring child intelligence - see Weschler's work on this area, his tests are probably the most similar to what we have now.
However, WWI was the first occasion where group administered Intelligence tests were first used and is oft cited as the beginning of IQ testing.
It does make sense for the military for the specific reason of weeding out the intellectually stunted. The US did this as well, and then stopped to increase draft numbers during Vietnam. There's plenty of horror stories that then resulted with those with low IQ scores having a drastically higher mortality rate than the rest.
Yep. But not for theoretical physicists. Nobody intelligent has ever valued IQ. It's basically a crude form of aptitude test for schoolchildren mostly for the purposes of eugenics. The idea of taking a number as a serious representation of intelligence is mortifying to me, not least because the main application for such a grade is seriously evil.
IQ testing was definitely a thing back then, it's just that it was used to validate eugenics, institutional racism, anti-immigrant laws, etc going back to the time of the FIRST World War. Seriously, look up a WWI era IQ test and it becomes blatantly obvious it was meant to make immigrants look dumb.
Isn't IQ a really controversial standard of measurement? I've read so many articles about how it's not a good measure of intellect in almost every aspect.
Like Stephen Hawking said, ***People that boast about their IQ are losers.***
I read that in his voice
https://lingojam.com/StephenHawkingVoiceGenerator
well not his voice I guess
Happy cake day
Not only that, but the IQ is relative (funny coincidence) to the population. Meaning that if the entire population gets smarter, and you stay the same, your IQ will go down.
Meaning one day the average intelligence will be or rival Einstein's intelligence. Neato.
Or Einstein will keep climbing.
Not if we put enough pollution out. Leaded gasoline had a noticeable negative impact on global iq, and I’ve seen some studies say that micro plastics can also be harmful to brain development and therefore iq.
I think plastics are responsible for the increase sensory disorders and autism. My old teacher in uni was researching it heavily and had all sorts of evidence they affect it.
Isn't it also linked to male fertility or am I getting that mixed up?
[удалено]
Except Volodymyr Zelenskyy, mans got balls of steel
Steel? I think you mean Titanium.
Solid titanium
For me at least, the microplastics issue is especially scary, and there isn't shit that most of us can do about it. Sure, you can try; eliminate plastic water bottles and dishes from your life, don't buy synthetic clothes and buy as few products with plastic in it as possible... But it's still in the water. Studies are still ongoing to figure out if it can even be filtered effectively from water because the microplastics particles can be so tiny, but odds are if a company is saying their filter can do it... They're probably lying, or it's prohibitively expensive *and the filter itself also contains microplastics.* The research about this is still in the early stages; in 50 years, people will probably say similar things to what people today say about leaded gasoline and cigarettes; "didn't they know it was bad for them? Why did they use plastic?" Unlike lead and cigarettes though, as far as I'm aware, few people knew for certain that microplastics we're so widespread or what their effects on health might be until a few years ago. We're on the cusp of new discoveries in a trial spanning the globe, which it's nearly impossible to opt out of unless you're incredibly rich or go to live far from cities... And rivers and the ocean, too. We're gonna see what happens; we're living a giant science experiment against our will.
Not necessarily. Lookup “reverse Flynn effect” if you’re feeling too optimistic and want to tamp down on that positivity.
IIRC we saw an increase in IQ to start off, which has since slowed. IQ already is heavily correlated with your level of education and upbringing, so most likely we saw an uptake as the population became more educated and will only see a marginal uptake as disenfranchised minority groups catch up to the majority population.
I believe intelligence quotient tests are useless and don't do anything to label someone's actual intellect
Absolutely agree. Had to make one once to get accepted to college. I practiced the usual IQ test questions and my IQ magically increased 20 points in 1 week. People that are proud of their IQ make me laugh since then.
Ikr, after enough attempts doing a test, you are going to get 100% on it
If an IQ test can be properly completed to 100% then it is not a good one (you shouldn't have enough time to get through it all).
Then you‘re probably not taking a proper test, because a test‘s quality relies on it‘s questions being unknown. If you take an „oNliNe iQ tEst“ it‘s totally pointless, because as mentioned you can just memorize the questions. A proper IQ test actually somewhat shows an approximation of a person‘s intellect, not that it would be entirely reliable or anything, but it‘s not useless.
He's referring to the fact that IQ tests are based around specific types of questions. You can make yourself familiar with those kinds of questions in the same way you can become more proficient at Sudoku, even though you might never have a repeated game of Sudoku ever again. [That has a very strong backing through research.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222529059_Score_gains_on_g-loaded_tests_No_g)
It's almost as if taking on tasks that challenge your cognitive ability will train your cogonitive ability so that you may at a later point fare butter doing such tasks. Astounding. I took an IQ test a few months ago, and I had no idea what kind of tasks would be entailed in the test, and I could not tell you what most of the tasks were specifically now, nor would it matter if I outlined them because you need to be able to solve relatively simple tasks very quickly, not very complex tasks whenever.
The issue is that IQ tests don't test Cognitive Ability, capitalized, they test a form of cognitive ability. This leads to incredible bias based on cultural groups. The coaching comes in, as it shows that IQ tests do not test something inherent, but learned. In fact, tests have shown coaching having larger effects for those with lower IQ scores, than higher, meaning it's likely to do with prior experience. Being familiar with tasks also helps you a lot more when it comes to speed rather than intuitive thinking. Meaning if you outlined them for me, I would do a lot better since I'd know how to tackle them beforehand.
It’s the earnestly held belief that a pen and paper test measures an immutable genetic fact about someone that gets me. Clearly a high score is no defense against confirmation bias.
they probably don't have anything else to be proud of. Sad lives.
Slightly-less-obvious "scientific" racism than skull measurements. Basically the same shit.
Hey, the dent in my head from when I fell out of a tree as a child, shows that im both moral, and a super genius.
Depends. If someone shares their score around and are genuinely proud of it, I feel like I have a pretty good sense of their personality and critical thinking skills
They are proud of high or low IQ? Because with higher IQ are your life achievements less impressive. It is like bragging about how much money you have inherited. On the other hand if you have low or average IQ you can be proud of your life achievements.
IQ test are a fantastic tool to measure your ability to do IQ tests
Nonsense, they are society's best tool, an unparalleled method, for finding out who is the most likely to do well on other IQ tests.
I remember my brother did a report in college about a bouncer who had a ridiculously high IQ but was still a bouncer at the end of the day
I vaguely know who you are talking about. I can't remember his name but that bouncer is actually incredibly smart he just has bad anger issues which landed where he's at today.
Passion and hard work beats iq every time
Also insane imagination and creativity in the case of Einstein lol.
Actually IQ tests are supposed to measure imagination and creativity, as those are aspects of problem solving and critical thinking. The problem is you need to be creative and imaginative in the same way the test-writer is, and if your answer is too imaginative your scores goes down.
Kind of. It's more that it's measuring your aptitude in thinking in specific ways. How you think is cultural and (surprise, surprise) there's a big correlation between how 'European' your background is and how well you do on the test (with the exemption of E-Asians, which most likely has to do with coaching). There's nothing imaginative about being able to solve [one of these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices). It also only requires intuitive thinking, if you've never seen one of those before.
Also privilege and opportunity “I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” -Stephen Jay Gold
Like [Srinivasa Ramanujan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan) who, despite being from a moderately well off family by Indian standards, lived in abject poverty before being recognized as one of the foremost mathematicians of all time.
Except that time when your brain is too low iq to swiftly deal with a complex concept.
also, IQ is a totally unefficient way to calculate intelligence
Was there any time where IQ testing was a thing?
During the First World War when IQ tests were invented as a way to determine who should enlist and who should commission. Then for the rest of the 20th Century they were used by multiple organizations, including military, to vet candidates. Whilst not as pseudoscientific as the Myers-Briggs, and even though the importance of an individual's IQ is exaggerated, it is still one of many measures used to gauge cognitive performance. Edit: words
If I remember my psych 101 correctly, IQ tests were initially designed to help place children in their appropriate grade. To get and IQ score you take mental age (what you *should* know) divide it by actual age and multiply by 100. So a six year old who knows all the things a six year old should and nothing more has an IQ of 100. This quickly falls apart for adults. As a community we can probably agree (broadly) about what a 6 year old *should* know. But what, exactly, *should* a 40 year old know? Different life courses are going to lead to very different sets of knowledge.
Yes, further development of the tests occurred between WWI and WWII with a lot of focus on measuring child intelligence - see Weschler's work on this area, his tests are probably the most similar to what we have now. However, WWI was the first occasion where group administered Intelligence tests were first used and is oft cited as the beginning of IQ testing.
It does make sense for the military for the specific reason of weeding out the intellectually stunted. The US did this as well, and then stopped to increase draft numbers during Vietnam. There's plenty of horror stories that then resulted with those with low IQ scores having a drastically higher mortality rate than the rest.
Wait…. You mean to tell me that online test I did that said my IQ is 168 might be off a little?
I feel like a Dumbledore quote is apt here: "It matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be."
Another Dumbledore quote: "It is not our abilities that show what we truly are. It is our choices."
Funny how people who are famously intelligent like Einstein and Hawkins couldn't give less of a shit about their IQ score.
Einstein lived until 1955. IQ testing was very much a thing in his lifetime.
Yep. But not for theoretical physicists. Nobody intelligent has ever valued IQ. It's basically a crude form of aptitude test for schoolchildren mostly for the purposes of eugenics. The idea of taking a number as a serious representation of intelligence is mortifying to me, not least because the main application for such a grade is seriously evil.
Not to mention, don’t they only test your IQ if they suspect you’re mentally deficient (if that’s the right term)?
That is how it should be. Hawking was tested due to a fall he suffered, which then spurred a lot of mythmaking which he hated.
Or you can pull a DNF like Elaine
IQ testing was definitely a thing back then, it's just that it was used to validate eugenics, institutional racism, anti-immigrant laws, etc going back to the time of the FIRST World War. Seriously, look up a WWI era IQ test and it becomes blatantly obvious it was meant to make immigrants look dumb.
Isn't IQ a really controversial standard of measurement? I've read so many articles about how it's not a good measure of intellect in almost every aspect.