Skip Navigation
68 comments

  • I think Sean’s video on the Bell Curve is the best way IQ has ever been interrogated and explored on the internet.

    The purpose of IQ is to measure some sort of “g factor” which is a model of “general intelligence.” This was based on the idea that people who tend to do good at some kinds of tests tend to also be good at other kinds of tests.

    The IQ test is “reliable” - ie its consistent and you’ll usually get the same results +/- an acceptable amount every time. However, there are lots of concerns about its “validity” - whether it measures what it purports to measure - ie, the “g factor.”

    Of note is the “Flynn effect” - that performance on the test in the general population has been improving over time, so the test has to be renormalized. (IQ is a “normalized” test - so about 68% of the population needs to be within 1 standard deviation of the mean. I think standard deviation is about 15 - so 68% of people are going to score between 85 and 115.)

    The question then would be - are people getting “smarter” or is it just that people are more adapted to taking tests on pattern recognition and mathematics/logical thinking? How would that measure the intelligence of a tribal person who has not seen abstracted geometrical shapes?

    You can bring in alternative models of intelligence - like Gardner’s multiple intelligence - but then that doesn’t really have much of the psychometrics behind it.

    (In general, I think a huge issue in psych research is a lack of critically examining the validity of psychometric instruments. It seems we often stop at being reliable.)

    • Isn't intelligence somewhat like the word "good" - as in, someone must be "good at" something, rather than inherently. Are cars "good"? (sometimes but not always...) Are cats? Are people? e.g. regarding the latter, there are many tasks for which a computing device is much better than most people - e.g. sorting a list of >1000000 elements, within one second (and then doing that task, without pausing or slowing down or error, in perpetuity). So the term "good" is only definable given a known fitness landscape.

      Which then becomes somewhat naive to try to extrapolate beyond that - bc then someone good at sports could be said to be "intelligent" (at performing their particular sport?), or someone with high emotional flexibility at adaptive to new circumstances, etc. Ironically enough, someone with good accounting skills (always thinking within the box, that being the whole point for them) would likely make a horrible scientist (who needs to think OUTSIDE of the box), and potentially though not guaranteed vice versa.

      So intelligence must be reflective of.... SOMETHING, blah blah hand waving meaning things that "I" am good at, basically. I know right, I have all the best-er-est words, I am such a jenius, and so on.

      How would that measure the intelligence of a tribal person who has not seen abstracted geometrical shapes?

      So yeah, they would be less "intelligent" at performing those tasks that are measured by the test. Corollary: people on average may legitimately have gotten more intelligent over time, depending on availability of schooling. Thus necessitating adjustment of the measurement system, if the real goal was not to measure "intelligence" and rather to provide some kind of separation among people based solely on that singular metric (which itself should be questioned, if the people doing so are wise rather than merely intelligent:-).

      • The things I think the standard IQ test measures are more about a combination of an ability to quickly visually process information, and some elements of mathematics/logical thinking. I’ve scored +1.3~2.0 z score at various points in my life, and I think that the elements are that I can read extremely quickly and perceive math problems very quickly.

        I’ve frequently worked with students who understand math and patterns very well, they just struggle with some element of the visual processing. They transpose numbers and letters when they see them, they switch up letters in geometrical figures, they get so overwhelmed with the stress of reading under eye or the clock that the words mix up and they miss the meaning.

        They have the low “IQ” has measured. But they are capable of understanding the concepts - just not conveying them in the way that a standardized instrument can (or even should?) measure.

        Ie; I don’t think it’s that great a measure beyond the sub 80 - which is a meaningful deficit and is acknowledged in the process of diagnosing for developmental delays/impairment. (It also can entirely be overcome in some cases with good support - like istfg as someone who has been paid to do this kind of thing the difference is that poor/middle class kids don’t get help)

  • I recently had a psychological assessment that led to ASD and ADHD diagnoses. Part of it was intelligence testing and it led me to have some additional context I didn't have before. I always knew I was "smart" - at the very least I had the numerical data of always doing really well in school. As an adult I continued to have people tell me I was really smart, and my response was usually (internally) like "Sure, Jan" or "K" like, maybe in some ways but it seemed like kind of a pointless thing to think about. I've never felt any amount of superiority about being smart - my brain is what it is and I didn't really do anything to earn it so it seems weird to feel any certain way about it.

    In my assessment, there were 6 intelligence factors that were measured. In 4 of them, I scored 95-98th percentile, one around 80th, but the last one I scored exactly average. That last one was processing speed. According to my assessor, it's more or less true that a brain wants to be similar levels across the board. Otherwise you basically have perceived bottlenecks in your processing. And I thought that was really interesting and resonated, because my brain can do some really cool things, but yeah it always feels like when it comes to actually articulating and thinking in certain ways, I basically have to slam the brakes. It was helpful to explain certain things, and apparently having a discrepancy with processing speed can be caused by unmedicated ADHD. I'm still unmedicated but hopefully that will change soon.

    No idea what I'm trying to say about this. Maybe I just want to shout out to the void lol. But the meme definitely resonates. I guess I have some nuance in that, I agree with what I read to be the intent of the meme, that IQ is just a measurement that doesn't mean anything in a lot of ways. But this lense was new to me - that there are several axis of intelligence, and it's more typical that people are similar across all axes (whether low, high, or average), and spikiness on these axis can lead to dysregulation and other issues.

68 comments