4 ms·

Or, maybe IQ is not a good measure of anything besides one specific type of intelligence.

StevePerkins 4y ago
Perhaps a tangent, but I simply don't understand why we can't apply different terms for "other types of intelligence"? Growing up, it baffled me that being able to chuck a football 50 yards meant there would be a weekly pep rally in your honor, and an annual parade through the town. Whereas for the gifted program kids, the main message we seemed to receive from teachers and administrators was to stay humble, that being intelligent doesn't make you better than anyone else, etc. Why do we celebrate athleticism, musical talent, and other forms of ability in others, yet also feel so fiercely insecure about other people's IQ test scores that we have to co-opt the term "intelligence" itself? To apply it to socialization skills and other various abilities. Other than perhaps video games being labeled as "e-sports", you see no major push to label the less physically gifted as "mental athletes", or any other co-opt. Why can't empathy and socialization skill be... empathy and socialization skill? Artistic talent be artistic talent, etc? Why are individuals so willing to self-identify as average or below-average in any of these traits, yet we torture language because it's anathema to admit that we might not each be in the 90th-percentile of something called "intelligence"?
- ravenstine 4y ago
  > Why do we celebrate athleticism, musical talent, and other forms of ability in others, yet also feel so fiercely insecure about other people's IQ test scores that we have to co-opt the term "intelligence" itself? Possibly because we see intelligence as the ultimate limiting factor to any kind of success. It's not entirely untrue, but it doesn't paint the entire picture. My IQ isn't even above 100 and yet I'm making over thrice the average American income as a software engineer, drawing PCBs, making hardware devices, and debating people online every day over things like Typescript; the idea that IQ is everything doesn't ring true to me. As a counterpoint, something like musical talent can be highly subjective. An artist can make a piece of music that is "perfectly" composed and performed, but the guy who used Garageband with some unique samples can get more plays on Spotify. Athleticism is no exception either, as anyone who has watched the Olympics has seen how ridiculously subjective the judges are (especially in gymnastics and skating). Measures of either sports or musical ability predict very little outside of their respective domains, whereas IQ is correlated with many things.
- darkerside 4y ago
  Oxford: "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills" The ability to "pick things up" can manifest in a multitude of ways, from pattern recognition to spatial reasoning to mathematical aptitude to advanced language expression. I personally believe that even advancement in art and athletics imply intelligence, but I accept these are a bit more controversial.
- lancesells 4y ago
  > Why do we celebrate athleticism, musical talent, and other forms of ability in others, yet also feel so fiercely insecure about other people's IQ test scores that we have to co-opt the term "intelligence" itself? To apply it to socialization skills and other various abilities. Other than perhaps video games being labeled as "e-sports", you see no major push to label the less physically gifted as "mental athletes", or any other co-opt. I would think there's a social, visual, and auditory aspect with athleticism and musical talent that other types or intelligence don't have. Music and rhythm start in the womb so that's naturally something we all gravitate to. Sports are easily measurable and almost anyone can relate to not being able to shoot three-pointers one after another. Things happening solely in the mind are much harder to celebrate.
ravenstine 4y ago
I don't agree that there's more than one kind of intelligence. People have various abilities, skills, and gifts, but being good at something isn't a type of intelligence. I know that psychological professionals may disagree, but I think that applying intelligence to anything but "general intelligence" is something we've invented to keep people from feeling bad about themselves. So in a way, I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure if it's in the way that you were thinking. My position on intelligence is that it's largely overrated. It's good for predicting outcomes, and it's effective for determining whether someone is mentally challenged, but greater intelligence has drawbacks for the individual. What makes many people successful, regardless, of IQ, is having a framework by which they make smart decisions. Contrast the 90 IQ person who makes smart decisions to avoid pitfalls and be likable to others with the 145 IQ gifted person who can't get anyone to like them, can't relate to others, and struggles to function in a general domain. If you want others to believe in you and to like you, it mostly comes down to making decisions that create that perception. The simplest one is merely showing up to your job on time. People who show up on time are far more likely to keep their jobs. Knowing history and having good conversational skills creates likability and intellectual respect, yet those areas don't require an above average IQ at all. Intelligent people might know a lot about history, but can have poor conversational skills and not know when to shut up about the Roman Empire. Intelligence is positively correlated with various mental illnesses which can subject them to addiction and poor decision making, whereas the 90 IQ person who doesn't impulse buy and pays off their debts is capable of being in a better state in life than the 145 IQ person who lives in a shoebox apartment because they can't hold down a tedious job that pays, they have no friends or family of their own, and they keep spending their earnings on weed and other nonsense. This doesn't mean that intelligence is worthless, but properly trained "dumb" people can beat many "gifted" people without even given them smart drugs.

Perhaps a tangent, but I simply don't understand why we can't apply different terms for "other types of intelligence"? Growing up, it baffled me that being able to chuck a football 50 yards meant there would be a weekly pep rally in your honor, and an annual parade through the town. Whereas for the gifted program kids, the main message we seemed to receive from teachers and administrators was to stay humble, that being intelligent doesn't make you better than anyone else, etc. Why do we celebrate athleticism, musical talent, and other forms of ability in others, yet also feel so fiercely insecure about other people's IQ test scores that we have to co-opt the term "intelligence" itself? To apply it to socialization skills and other various abilities. Other than perhaps video games being labeled as "e-sports", you see no major push to label the less physically gifted as "mental athletes", or any other co-opt. Why can't empathy and socialization skill be... empathy and socialization skill? Artistic talent be artistic talent, etc? Why are individuals so willing to self-identify as average or below-average in any of these traits, yet we torture language because it's anathema to admit that we might not each be in the 90th-percentile of something called "intelligence"?

ravenstine 4y ago
> Why do we celebrate athleticism, musical talent, and other forms of ability in others, yet also feel so fiercely insecure about other people's IQ test scores that we have to co-opt the term "intelligence" itself? Possibly because we see intelligence as the ultimate limiting factor to any kind of success. It's not entirely untrue, but it doesn't paint the entire picture. My IQ isn't even above 100 and yet I'm making over thrice the average American income as a software engineer, drawing PCBs, making hardware devices, and debating people online every day over things like Typescript; the idea that IQ is everything doesn't ring true to me. As a counterpoint, something like musical talent can be highly subjective. An artist can make a piece of music that is "perfectly" composed and performed, but the guy who used Garageband with some unique samples can get more plays on Spotify. Athleticism is no exception either, as anyone who has watched the Olympics has seen how ridiculously subjective the judges are (especially in gymnastics and skating). Measures of either sports or musical ability predict very little outside of their respective domains, whereas IQ is correlated with many things.
darkerside 4y ago
Oxford: "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills" The ability to "pick things up" can manifest in a multitude of ways, from pattern recognition to spatial reasoning to mathematical aptitude to advanced language expression. I personally believe that even advancement in art and athletics imply intelligence, but I accept these are a bit more controversial.
lancesells 4y ago
> Why do we celebrate athleticism, musical talent, and other forms of ability in others, yet also feel so fiercely insecure about other people's IQ test scores that we have to co-opt the term "intelligence" itself? To apply it to socialization skills and other various abilities. Other than perhaps video games being labeled as "e-sports", you see no major push to label the less physically gifted as "mental athletes", or any other co-opt. I would think there's a social, visual, and auditory aspect with athleticism and musical talent that other types or intelligence don't have. Music and rhythm start in the womb so that's naturally something we all gravitate to. Sports are easily measurable and almost anyone can relate to not being able to shoot three-pointers one after another. Things happening solely in the mind are much harder to celebrate.

ravenstine 4y ago

I don't agree that there's more than one kind of intelligence. People have various abilities, skills, and gifts, but being good at something isn't a type of intelligence. I know that psychological professionals may disagree, but I think that applying intelligence to anything but "general intelligence" is something we've invented to keep people from feeling bad about themselves. So in a way, I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure if it's in the way that you were thinking. My position on intelligence is that it's largely overrated. It's good for predicting outcomes, and it's effective for determining whether someone is mentally challenged, but greater intelligence has drawbacks for the individual. What makes many people successful, regardless, of IQ, is having a framework by which they make smart decisions. Contrast the 90 IQ person who makes smart decisions to avoid pitfalls and be likable to others with the 145 IQ gifted person who can't get anyone to like them, can't relate to others, and struggles to function in a general domain. If you want others to believe in you and to like you, it mostly comes down to making decisions that create that perception. The simplest one is merely showing up to your job on time. People who show up on time are far more likely to keep their jobs. Knowing history and having good conversational skills creates likability and intellectual respect, yet those areas don't require an above average IQ at all. Intelligent people might know a lot about history, but can have poor conversational skills and not know when to shut up about the Roman Empire. Intelligence is positively correlated with various mental illnesses which can subject them to addiction and poor decision making, whereas the 90 IQ person who doesn't impulse buy and pays off their debts is capable of being in a better state in life than the 145 IQ person who lives in a shoebox apartment because they can't hold down a tedious job that pays, they have no friends or family of their own, and they keep spending their earnings on weed and other nonsense. This doesn't mean that intelligence is worthless, but properly trained "dumb" people can beat many "gifted" people without even given them smart drugs.