7 ms·

I wonder how many IQ test misclassify intelligence? Feynman had a score of 125 and many people here have a high score than that. I bet no one here with a higher

I wonder how many IQ test misclassify intelligence? Feynman had a score of 125 and many people here have a high score than that. I bet no one here with a higher score of 125 are actually smarter than Feynman though. I think this is just one of many possible such examples where IQ test miss the purported people they were suppose to capture. Feynman’s score wouldn’t even qualify him for MENSA. I wonder how many IQ exams misclassify the intelligence of smart people with disabilities of some sort or high functioning autism. Not saying any of this applies to Feynman, he is just an example of where the test didn’t accurately capture his intellect.

neffy 8y ago
I think it´s fairly well accepted that Feynman deliberately blew off his IQ test.
- account2 8y ago
  Your comment doesn’t address my question of how many people are misclassified by IQ test. I suspect smart people with high functioning autism and the like are not accurately measured. Not saying any of this applies to Feynman by the way. Just used him as an example of where an IQ exam underestimated someone.
  - neffy 8y ago
    It´s fairly well known that people from impoverished backgrounds get lower grades for several reasons - not ever having practiced similar questions and vocabulary issues: there have been some quite notorious questions, especially over in England that were dependent on different social classes having different vocabularies, etc.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
csa 8y ago
It is relatively easy for a good IQ year to deliver a “false negative” — that is, a significantly lower score than a theoretical true score. This could be as simple as something like not sleeping well the night before or just simple ambivalence. It is relatively difficult for a good IQ test to deliver a false positive — that is, a significantly higher score than a theoretical true score. I personally don’t think that this issue is taken into consideration enough when discussing IQ.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Right. My boys all achieved tests in grade school that varied from 100% to 3%. My wife worried that something was 'wrong' with them. I assured her by noting, its easy to not care about a test and get 3%. Its essentially impossible to accidentally get the 100% score
maceurt 8y ago
Furthermore, most IQ tests are not meant to measure intelligence past a certain point. A person with an IQ of 160 is not inherently smarter than someone who has an IQ of 150 in the same way someone with an IQ of 100 is inherently smarter than someone with an IQ of 90.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  There can be measurement errors, like with any metric, but statistically speaking, a person with an IQ score of 160 will be more intelligent than somebody with a score of 150. And significantly so. 10 IQ points is a big deal (2/3rds of a standard deviation). Increasing the average IQ of any population by 10 points would be a total game changer.
  - mercutio2 8y ago
    Are you really arguing that most IQ tests have replicable sensitivity above 130-140? Because that is very different than what I’ve heard. My impression is that most (perhaps not all) IQ tests are stable and highly replicable for results up to that range (assuming consistently motivated test takers, a very big assumption, particularly for bored smart people), but test scores above that range are mostly noise.
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      In another part of this thread[0], Bartweiss says that Raven's Advanced Matrices is valid up until about 150 IQ. So I was close. And my bigger point is that, though the measurement lacks precision at that level, if you lined up a bunch of 150 IQ people and a bunch of 160 IQ people, there are probably some aggregate group differences. Anecdotally, I've spent a lot of time around really smart people. There are gradations even at the top (just as there are in all other areas of talent; there's only one Lebron James, after all) [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18142638 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18142638
leetcrew 8y ago
my guess is that a well designed IQ test actually tests what it tests for with good accuracy/precision. i am skeptical that the IQ criteria are very close to what we consider "intelligence".
teilo 8y ago
I'm around 150, and I don't consider myself smarter than Feynman. And I'm no savant, am socially well adjusted, and not on the autism scale. This, among many other data points, has led me to question the entire concept of IQ. The measurement of IQ borders on pseudo-science. It measures something, but what exactly? Everyone has a different answer. Ok, sure, intelligence. Now try to define "intelligence" empirically. What isn't a particular IQ test measuring that is relevant to intelligence? Different IQ tests often yield different results. And I'm not talking about online tests, but proctored tests administered by professionals. How do you account for that amorphous quality known as "intuition"? You can't measure it or quantify it. You can barely define it. It is a finicky, inconsistent beast. Yet it has a profound effect on one's problem solving ability. If the factors that determine IQ are individually difficult to define, differentiate, and measure, what does that say about the score itself? In the broadest terms, IQ matters, but not in a way that makes one's score relevant for any practical purpose. You don't need an IQ test to measure competency in a specific task or occupation.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  FWIW, IQ is not pseudo-science. The research around IQ is some of the most robust psychological research that exists. In fact, it is one of the few areas of psychology that has basically been unscathed by the replication crisis.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    Some of the most robust psychological research, as long as you define intelligence as the ability to do well on an IQ test.
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      IQ significantly predicts real world performance in a bunch of areas.
  - danans 8y ago
    The measure is not pseudo-science, but the attempts to draw sweeping conclusions from it at the individual or societal level are pure nonsense. Ethical psychologists don't consider IQ in isolation the way that pop culture and many in forums like HN do.
cc-d 8y ago
Feynman is a notable exception to the trend. Using a single exceptional result as evidence for decrying a trend is foolish. IQ tests obviously do not account for __every__ variable which we cumulatively call "intelligence", but IQ is heavily correlated with the ability to succeed at tasks society classifies as "smart people stuff". The difference in intelligence between two individuals is much less pronounced if both individuals are already two standard deviations above the norm. But if you were to compare two individuals, one who is one standard deviation below, and the other one above, you would observe a clear difference in 'intelligence' between the two. Even in this comparison, there will be outliers, but the outliers are not statistically significant.
- pessimizer 8y ago
  > IQ is heavily correlated with the ability to succeed at tasks society classifies as "smart people stuff" Or, more precisely, IQ is heavily correlated with the ability to succeed at taking IQ tests.
  - cc-d 8y ago
    >Or, more precisely, IQ is heavily correlated with the ability to succeed at taking IQ tests. ...and succeeding at taking IQ tests is also predictive of an individual's potential to succeed at, using the Feynman example, physics. Lets say you were to gather two pools of individuals, one pool with IQ test results of 2 standard deviations below, the other with results of 2 standard deviations above, and provide them with the necessary materials and instruction to understand physics 101. Incentivize the participants by offering a $2000 cash reward for demonstrating the knowledge they were tasked with learning, lets say by answering X questions presented to them in whichever format would be optimal for their success. How many from group -2 SDs do you think would receive the $2000, compared to group +2 SDs? -1 SDs compared to +1 SDs? The choice of physics was arbitrary as well. You could assign almost any field of study, and you would still get almost identical results in performance.
- account2 8y ago
  >Feynman is a notable exception to the trend. Using a single exceptional result as evidence for decrying a trend is foolish. You missed my question. I am concerned with how many smart people with disabilities IQ exams misclassifies. I am not using Feynman to say he had a disability or anything, I was using him as an example of a case where his IQ score doesn't match his actual intelligence, and I am in no way claiming why that may be. I am merely stating IQ exams aren't perfect. If you are interested in replying, then reply to the question I posed. I think IQ test potentially misclassifies people with high functioning autism and other highly intelligent people with mental disabilities, showing they have lower intelligence than they actually have.
WillPostForFood 8y ago
Feynman took one test, in ~1930 when he was ~12 years old. Maybe it was a problem with the test, and Feynman actually had a much higher IQ.

neffy 8y ago

I think it´s fairly well accepted that Feynman deliberately blew off his IQ test.

account2 8y ago
Your comment doesn’t address my question of how many people are misclassified by IQ test. I suspect smart people with high functioning autism and the like are not accurately measured. Not saying any of this applies to Feynman by the way. Just used him as an example of where an IQ exam underestimated someone.
- neffy 8y ago
  It´s fairly well known that people from impoverished backgrounds get lower grades for several reasons - not ever having practiced similar questions and vocabulary issues: there have been some quite notorious questions, especially over in England that were dependent on different social classes having different vocabularies, etc.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

csa 8y ago

It is relatively easy for a good IQ year to deliver a “false negative” — that is, a significantly lower score than a theoretical true score. This could be as simple as something like not sleeping well the night before or just simple ambivalence. It is relatively difficult for a good IQ test to deliver a false positive — that is, a significantly higher score than a theoretical true score. I personally don’t think that this issue is taken into consideration enough when discussing IQ.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Right. My boys all achieved tests in grade school that varied from 100% to 3%. My wife worried that something was 'wrong' with them. I assured her by noting, its easy to not care about a test and get 3%. Its essentially impossible to accidentally get the 100% score

maceurt 8y ago

Furthermore, most IQ tests are not meant to measure intelligence past a certain point. A person with an IQ of 160 is not inherently smarter than someone who has an IQ of 150 in the same way someone with an IQ of 100 is inherently smarter than someone with an IQ of 90.

toasterlovin 8y ago
There can be measurement errors, like with any metric, but statistically speaking, a person with an IQ score of 160 will be more intelligent than somebody with a score of 150. And significantly so. 10 IQ points is a big deal (2/3rds of a standard deviation). Increasing the average IQ of any population by 10 points would be a total game changer.
- mercutio2 8y ago
  Are you really arguing that most IQ tests have replicable sensitivity above 130-140? Because that is very different than what I’ve heard. My impression is that most (perhaps not all) IQ tests are stable and highly replicable for results up to that range (assuming consistently motivated test takers, a very big assumption, particularly for bored smart people), but test scores above that range are mostly noise.
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    In another part of this thread[0], Bartweiss says that Raven's Advanced Matrices is valid up until about 150 IQ. So I was close. And my bigger point is that, though the measurement lacks precision at that level, if you lined up a bunch of 150 IQ people and a bunch of 160 IQ people, there are probably some aggregate group differences. Anecdotally, I've spent a lot of time around really smart people. There are gradations even at the top (just as there are in all other areas of talent; there's only one Lebron James, after all) [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18142638 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18142638

leetcrew 8y ago

my guess is that a well designed IQ test actually tests what it tests for with good accuracy/precision. i am skeptical that the IQ criteria are very close to what we consider "intelligence".

teilo 8y ago

I'm around 150, and I don't consider myself smarter than Feynman. And I'm no savant, am socially well adjusted, and not on the autism scale. This, among many other data points, has led me to question the entire concept of IQ. The measurement of IQ borders on pseudo-science. It measures something, but what exactly? Everyone has a different answer. Ok, sure, intelligence. Now try to define "intelligence" empirically. What isn't a particular IQ test measuring that is relevant to intelligence? Different IQ tests often yield different results. And I'm not talking about online tests, but proctored tests administered by professionals. How do you account for that amorphous quality known as "intuition"? You can't measure it or quantify it. You can barely define it. It is a finicky, inconsistent beast. Yet it has a profound effect on one's problem solving ability. If the factors that determine IQ are individually difficult to define, differentiate, and measure, what does that say about the score itself? In the broadest terms, IQ matters, but not in a way that makes one's score relevant for any practical purpose. You don't need an IQ test to measure competency in a specific task or occupation.

toasterlovin 8y ago
FWIW, IQ is not pseudo-science. The research around IQ is some of the most robust psychological research that exists. In fact, it is one of the few areas of psychology that has basically been unscathed by the replication crisis.
- mcguire 8y ago
  Some of the most robust psychological research, as long as you define intelligence as the ability to do well on an IQ test.
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    IQ significantly predicts real world performance in a bunch of areas.
- danans 8y ago
  The measure is not pseudo-science, but the attempts to draw sweeping conclusions from it at the individual or societal level are pure nonsense. Ethical psychologists don't consider IQ in isolation the way that pop culture and many in forums like HN do.

cc-d 8y ago

Feynman is a notable exception to the trend. Using a single exceptional result as evidence for decrying a trend is foolish. IQ tests obviously do not account for __every__ variable which we cumulatively call "intelligence", but IQ is heavily correlated with the ability to succeed at tasks society classifies as "smart people stuff". The difference in intelligence between two individuals is much less pronounced if both individuals are already two standard deviations above the norm. But if you were to compare two individuals, one who is one standard deviation below, and the other one above, you would observe a clear difference in 'intelligence' between the two. Even in this comparison, there will be outliers, but the outliers are not statistically significant.

pessimizer 8y ago
> IQ is heavily correlated with the ability to succeed at tasks society classifies as "smart people stuff" Or, more precisely, IQ is heavily correlated with the ability to succeed at taking IQ tests.
- cc-d 8y ago
  >Or, more precisely, IQ is heavily correlated with the ability to succeed at taking IQ tests. ...and succeeding at taking IQ tests is also predictive of an individual's potential to succeed at, using the Feynman example, physics. Lets say you were to gather two pools of individuals, one pool with IQ test results of 2 standard deviations below, the other with results of 2 standard deviations above, and provide them with the necessary materials and instruction to understand physics 101. Incentivize the participants by offering a $2000 cash reward for demonstrating the knowledge they were tasked with learning, lets say by answering X questions presented to them in whichever format would be optimal for their success. How many from group -2 SDs do you think would receive the $2000, compared to group +2 SDs? -1 SDs compared to +1 SDs? The choice of physics was arbitrary as well. You could assign almost any field of study, and you would still get almost identical results in performance.
account2 8y ago
>Feynman is a notable exception to the trend. Using a single exceptional result as evidence for decrying a trend is foolish. You missed my question. I am concerned with how many smart people with disabilities IQ exams misclassifies. I am not using Feynman to say he had a disability or anything, I was using him as an example of a case where his IQ score doesn't match his actual intelligence, and I am in no way claiming why that may be. I am merely stating IQ exams aren't perfect. If you are interested in replying, then reply to the question I posed. I think IQ test potentially misclassifies people with high functioning autism and other highly intelligent people with mental disabilities, showing they have lower intelligence than they actually have.

WillPostForFood 8y ago

Feynman took one test, in ~1930 when he was ~12 years old. Maybe it was a problem with the test, and Feynman actually had a much higher IQ.