IQ

Tell me about your mother Psychology

For our next session...

Cognitive biases Mental health Superstition Famed psychologists

Popping into your mind

Human nature Placebo effect Folk science Schizophrenia Response bias Daniel Amen Ultimate attribution error Jumping to conclusions Tulpa v - t - e

“”I have no idea. People who boast about their I.Q. are losers.

—Stephen Hawking, when asked about his IQ

IQ (intelligence quotient) is a psychometric method considered to measure general intelligence (or g) and derived from the fact that various tests of cognitive ability tend to have highly correlated scores for an individual. The correlations are due to a hypothesised general factor of intelligence or g. IQ correlates with educational achievement and job performance (with a coefficient of 0.65-0.75 for educational achievement and about 0.5 for job performance). Since IQ is simply a score, it is inaccurate to claim that one "has" a high IQ or a low IQ, when it more or less means "scored high" and "scored low".

Criticism

IQ has been criticised for only measuring some sorts of intelligence and for being inadequate in that it unfairly emphasises certain types of abstract problem solving (ones which are not exactly common pastimes in poorer parts of the world). This perception has probably been reinforced by common tropes in movies and books of high IQ characters who have little "street smarts", or who possess little "common sense". Some go even further and argue that IQ tests measure social class, not intelligence.

By contrast, obsession with IQ tends to minimize the varied nature of crystallized and semi-fluid intelligence factors as described in Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory. IQ (as a proxy for g) has become an oversimplified tool for approaching intelligence in academia, and particularly among lay people with superiority complexes. In fact, one of the key markers of good science, an underlying causative mechanism, is very poorly established for g, and thus IQ.

Another issue is that it is a normalised measure, calibrated to have 100 as the average and 68% of people in the 85-115 range under Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. So an IQ of 140 measured now is not the same as an IQ of 140 measured 10 years ago. By this measure, people are getting less intelligent. It was never designed to be an absolute measure. Groups that boast about their high IQ generally don't retest their members periodically, presumably to avoid the embarrassment of having to cashier one of their members every now and again.

Testing outside of a formal environment for bragging rights should probably be looked on as something of a scam. Fun for bragging on social media, but little else (although there is the question of why you would brag about something you have no real control over, similar to bragging that you were born in the right place at the right time). Paying for IQ tests means that, by definition, you have an IQ below 100. Don't do it, but if you must, never own up to it.

Importantly, most adult skills heavily depend on what is called crystallized intelligence, the ability to tune one's intellectual ability towards solving particular kinds of problems, rather than fluid intelligence, the kind of broad analytical ability that IQ is intended to measure. This is not a failing of IQ as a measure of intelligence, but certainly something that people who place a lot of stock in the concept tend to gloss over.

Heritability

Though numerous familial and twin studies have found high heritability estimates for IQ, all attempts to find direct genetic relationships that drive IQ scores have failed to deliver on the expectations of that heritability. This "heritability paradox" has some explanations with serious academic weight, such as by epigenetic characteristics, such as imprinting, which can be passed from parent to child without any permanent multi-generational genes attached, and common developmental factors such as nutrition and prenatal hormone exposure. Additionally, the aforementioned non-absolute nature and continual recalibration of IQ means that it's nigh-impossible to use it to track the intelligence of a population over multiple generations.

Racist BS

Various racial supremacists like to pull IQ studies as "proof" of their superiority. The problem is, intelligence is much more a product of overall health than of inherent ability. Iodine deficiency can lower an overall population's average IQ by around 15 points, to say nothing of disease and malnutrition overall. If a region or ethnic group has "low" IQ, that's more likely to be the result of poor public health than any systemic genetic issues.

High IQ society

See the main article on this topic: High IQ society

The high IQ society is for people who score high on the IQ test and are most definitely not insecure in any way, shape, or form.

See also

• Cognitive differences between sexes
• Intelligence
• The Bell Curve
• Hereditarianism - A lot of the negativity towards IQ may not be about IQ as a measurement of anything in itself, but the discussions that arise from its causation. This has led to many completely unfounded racist claims.