4 ms·

> IQ is as far as I can tell quite well accepted as a diagnostic tool Inside certain bubbles, sure, because there's pressing demand to have something quantifia

> IQ is as far as I can tell quite well accepted as a diagnostic tool Inside certain bubbles, sure, because there's pressing demand to have something quantifiable and sufficient supporters willing to assert its legitimacy. But good luck taking your test results outside of those bubbles to earn you some opportunity or respect, even if you can say your test was administered to the highest standards by the most respected administrators. Nobody here will take your results to mean anything. Nobody at your work will take your results to mean anything. The recruiter at some new potential job won't either. The prestigious university you want to attend won't care. Most of your partners and friends probably won't. Many of them may already have a sense of whether you're "intelligent" or not, either from personal interactions or from other practical indications. But good luck finding somebody of material influence who would hear your IQ score results and change their mind. It just doesn't have that weight. That's what it means for it not to be treated seriously outside of bubbles. There are supporters that back it, and there are institutions that rely on it, but outside of those very specific places, there's very very little trust in it.

hirvi74 2y ago
In any bubble where IQ is considered legitimate, just mention that Richard Feynman apparently had a recorded IQ of 124 or so (or Lewis Terman's study of gifted children). You'd think someone tried to convince those in the bubble that the Earth is flat. In my experiences, I have been met with all kinds of rebuttals like, "The test he took was probably over-weighted in verbal vs. spatial reasoning" or "He probably just blew the whole test off." No one has a copy of the actual results to my knowledge, but he and his sister (who oddly enough scored higher) verified the story back in the day according to biographers. So, not telling what is the true story. For the sake of argument, let's assume Feynman's score was indeed accurate. I think it makes people extremely uncomfortable for two reasons: 1. Some individuals with high IQs (IQ >= 130) feel threatened or ashamed by the fact that someone with an high but unremarkable score was capable of truly remarkable contributions to their field. 2. The scores are truly not always accurate or might potentially measure something that isn't intelligence. If Feynman's score was indeed an inaccurate measurement of his intelligence, then that says more than I need to know about IQ testing. I mention Feynman because I am in agreement with you: > Many of them may already have a sense of whether you're "intelligent" or not, either from personal interactions or from other practical indications. No one would consider Feynman to be unintelligent by any stretch of the imagination. However, at the end of the day, his score truly doesn't matter. Feynman nor anyone else is not remembered because of their intelligence, but rather, his contributions. Besides, exceptional people tend to be, well, exceptional.

hirvi74 2y ago

In any bubble where IQ is considered legitimate, just mention that Richard Feynman apparently had a recorded IQ of 124 or so (or Lewis Terman's study of gifted children). You'd think someone tried to convince those in the bubble that the Earth is flat. In my experiences, I have been met with all kinds of rebuttals like, "The test he took was probably over-weighted in verbal vs. spatial reasoning" or "He probably just blew the whole test off." No one has a copy of the actual results to my knowledge, but he and his sister (who oddly enough scored higher) verified the story back in the day according to biographers. So, not telling what is the true story. For the sake of argument, let's assume Feynman's score was indeed accurate. I think it makes people extremely uncomfortable for two reasons: 1. Some individuals with high IQs (IQ >= 130) feel threatened or ashamed by the fact that someone with an high but unremarkable score was capable of truly remarkable contributions to their field. 2. The scores are truly not always accurate or might potentially measure something that isn't intelligence. If Feynman's score was indeed an inaccurate measurement of his intelligence, then that says more than I need to know about IQ testing. I mention Feynman because I am in agreement with you: > Many of them may already have a sense of whether you're "intelligent" or not, either from personal interactions or from other practical indications. No one would consider Feynman to be unintelligent by any stretch of the imagination. However, at the end of the day, his score truly doesn't matter. Feynman nor anyone else is not remembered because of their intelligence, but rather, his contributions. Besides, exceptional people tend to be, well, exceptional.