Are IQ tests relevant and or meaningful?

[rob in cal]

    In all the uproar about Jason Richwine and his IQ study pointing to different results of different ethnic groups, and immigration, I've been wondering about IQ tests in general.  Has anyone on the board taken one? Was it through school?  What were the questions like?  Are they in fact meaningful tools to measure intelligence?  The funny thing about the controversy with Richwine is that he points to Jews and East Asians performing best on them, so the implication in terms of immigration would actually be that they would be prefered immigrants.  In that respect his work is hardly "pro-white" in that he points out that non-jewish whites in the US are third on the ethnic totem pole IQ performance chart

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

(I quote an email that a scientist (Dr. Van Arsdale) sent me in this post quite a bit, so I'm just crediting him here.)


Now, from my perspective, IQ tests are meaningful to an extent, but I think scientists like J. Philippe Rushton and Charles Murray have been misleading people on this for far too long.

The short answer to your question is: no, IQ tests do not measure "intelligence."  Intelligence has an ontological reality, certainly, but in practice, intelligence is inevitably epistemologically defined. Arthur Jensen and Rushton's 'g factor', for example, is merely a statistical construction based on standardized test results.  It exists, but its existence is not necessarily connected with biology in any meaningful way.

In regards to race, to get big, consistent differences across races you'd need to have allelic variants with really large effect size. You would essentially need to prove that the complex admixture of genes for intelligence haven't been acquired by non-Eurasian/Jewish populations, when in fact, lots of genes had been admixed INTO those populations for the past 8,000 years.  Keep in mind that while we've found some genes for IQ, we're still a long way from mapping the human brain, so no one with full confidence should claim that intelligence genes are distributed discriminately.  Also, given the really large number of genes that must inevitably be involved with the varying complex forms of intelligence that exist, unique small effect variants would simply be swamped in the polygenic nature of the phenotype.

We also have a wealth of evidence that intelligence is highly malleable to a multitude of environmental factors; not just genetic.

In short, the claim that there are innate differences in "intelligence" between biological "races" is, quite simply, an absurd, biased interpretation of data.  This myth has been debunked many times, and the Heritage Foundation was doing itself a favor by distancing itself from this pseudoscience.

[Mehmentum]

IQ tests are a measure of one narrow type of intelligence.  IQ is usefull for some things, but just because someone has a better IQ than someone else, doesn't mean they are 'smarter' than every, or even necessarily most aspects.

As for the effects of genetics vs. environment IQ is an odd case.  For children, heritability (measured on a 0 to 1 scale, where 0 is completely determined by the environment, and 1 is completely determined by genetics) is .45, while for adults it is .7 to .8.  Meaning as people grow older, people tend to revert back to their genetics as opposed to their upbringing.  It isn't clear why this is.

Note: Heritability is determined by twin studies, how different are the IQs of identical twins separated at birth?  Separated at birth twins are pretty essential for studying human genetics.

[Link]

Are IQ tests relevant and or meaningful?

It depends on how much of a douche bag you are.  I took one of those things back in high school and it said my intelligence was allegedly higher than 99% of the population.  That had zero impact on my life.  Some tools get a score like that and use it to join high IQ clubs so they can hang out with other social inept dorks... you know the type.

I guess what I am saying is in a controlled experiment you may be able to tease out some useful information, but unfortunately as is often the case with science once the lay public gets a hold of a little out of context morsel they blow it way out of proportion and really misuse it.

[Link]

As for the effects of genetics vs. environment IQ is an odd case.  For children, heritability (measured on a 0 to 1 scale, where 0 is completely determined by the environment, and 1 is completely determined by genetics) is .45, while for adults it is .7 to .8.  Meaning as people grow older, people tend to revert back to their genetics as opposed to their upbringing.  It isn't clear why this is.

Do you have a background in this subject matter?  Would you marry a girl with a "low IQ"?  That's a serious question.  I've found myself increasingly less comfortable dating women that are not well educated and upwardly mobile.  I wonder if I am being irrational.  By well educated I mean graduate school or a serious undergraduate degree.

[courts]

no not really. honestly this is one of the few issues i agree with the 'correct' liberal response on. also yes i have been tested several times because of my 'aspergers' (back when that was a thing), adhd, etc. i averaged out around ~106 or something mediocre like that with inconsistent results. had a shrink comment that my working memory (believe that was what it was) results seemed to be thrown off by poor concentration. considering how adhd i'm not really surprised. consistently scored way above average for verbal intelligence though.

[tik 🪀✨]

It's perfectly normal to seek someone who will understand you intellectually. You may be passing over women who could still be fulfilling partners despite their lack of.. credentials. My wife is not asintellectually curious as I am. Lacking many friends, it can be lonely when you can't find a good conversation easily. That's probably why I enjoy it here. Nevertheless I wouldn't be with anyone else.

IQ tests can give a rough idea of mental capacity in narrow categories, to get back on topic. IQ tests are most useful at testing how well you know how to take an IQ test. I think to some degree they've lost their usefulness due to ubiquity in popular measures of intelligence.

[Mehmentum]

As for the effects of genetics vs. environment IQ is an odd case.  For children, heritability (measured on a 0 to 1 scale, where 0 is completely determined by the environment, and 1 is completely determined by genetics) is .45, while for adults it is .7 to .8.  Meaning as people grow older, people tend to revert back to their genetics as opposed to their upbringing.  It isn't clear why this is.

Do you have a background in this subject matter?  Would you marry a girl with a "low IQ"?  That's a serious question.  I've found myself increasingly less comfortable dating women that are not well educated and upwardly mobile.  I wonder if I am being irrational.  By well educated I mean graduate school or a serious undergraduate degree.

I'll have a Bachelor's degree in Biochemistry by next weekend, we covered this exact subject in a human genetic's class, actually.  As for marriage, I'm not going to ask girls for their IQ, but being able to hold an intelectual discussion as equals is a must for me in a romantic relationship.

[pbrower2a]

(I quote an email that a scientist (Dr. Van Arsdale) sent me in this post quite a bit, so I'm just crediting him here.)


Now, from my perspective, IQ tests are meaningful to an extent, but I think scientists like J. Philippe Rushton and Charles Murray have been misleading people on this for far too long.

The short answer to your question is: no, IQ tests do not measure "intelligence."  Intelligence has an ontological reality, certainly, but in practice, intelligence is inevitably epistemologically defined. Arthur Jensen and Rushton's 'g factor', for example, is merely a statistical construction based on standardized test results.  It exists, but its existence is not necessarily connected with biology in any meaningful way.

In regards to race, to get big, consistent differences across races you'd need to have allelic variants with really large effect size. You would essentially need to prove that the complex admixture of genes for intelligence haven't been acquired by non-Eurasian/Jewish populations, when in fact, lots of genes had been admixed INTO those populations for the past 8,000 years.  Keep in mind that while we've found some genes for IQ, we're still a long way from mapping the human brain, so no one with full confidence should claim that intelligence genes are distributed discriminately.  Also, given the really large number of genes that must inevitably be involved with the varying complex forms of intelligence that exist, unique small effect variants would simply be swamped in the polygenic nature of the phenotype.

We also have a wealth of evidence that intelligence is highly malleable to a multitude of environmental factors; not just genetic.

In short, the claim that there are innate differences in "intelligence" between biological "races" is, quite simply, an absurd, biased interpretation of data.  This myth has been debunked many times, and the Heritage Foundation was doing itself a favor by distancing itself from this pseudoscience.

IQ is mutable. Downward mutability has possible causes in heavy-metal pollution (the poor experience more pollution because they are more likely to live near smelters and other dirty industries), trauma from near-drowning to head injuries, and of course unstimulating environments. IQ might be mutable upward because of experiences, which might not be as significant as trauma and poisoning from pollutants.  If that has connections to ethnicity, then such may manifest itself in 'racial' differences that become proxies for poverty.

Some people are just simply better at raising their kids to compete intellectually. Do children learn to trust or distrust well-intentioned authority such as school teachers? That may be the difference between kids learning in school and getting little from it. But such depends upon parents being trustworthy.

Is it meaningful? People with below-average IQ are unlikely to get much out of matriculation in college. (Of course, people with bad study habits would get little out of a college education, too). One fast-food company that I heard of in a business management class gives a basic IQ test to people applying for jobs as fast-food location managers. The optimal IQ for an applicant was about 90, and an IQ much above that indicated on the whole poor matches for the job.

OK, so the work isn't comparable to being the director of a scientific research institute.  Below 90 one has people who can't cope with the rigid rules and the paperwork. Around 90, rigid rules fit one well, and the paperwork is something of a challenge. In view of the sorts of people who remain workers in such a place for an extended time (dullards), someone with an IQ near 90 can better relate. Someone with an IQ in the 120s might learn the routines quickly but would see the job only as a stepping-stone to something more intellectually-satisfying.  People like challenges that validate themselves.

There is an optimal IQ for just about any job. For a lumberjack the level might be low because someone who thinks too much might get excessively cautious for the job description. Assembly-line work is far more a matter of hand speed than a deft mind, and a person who does such a job whose mind is working on something other than the repetitive work of feeding a punch press is easily distracted.  A house-painter is near average because although the painting is easy, estimating amounts of paint and calculating costs requires some mathematical sophistication; besides, one needs to manage one's time on the job. Physician, attorney, research scientist, accountant, engineer? You get the general idea.    

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

IQ, at best, measures capacity to learn in a fairly narrow sense of the term.  I think IQ and academic achievement have a correlation, but I don't think I could say that for IQ and mechanical ability(i.e. being "handy") or IQ and communication skills.

Besides, capacity to learn doesn't actually substitute for content knowledge.  Hence, lazy-but-"smart" people don't do very well. 

I think achievement tests like the ACT are better than aptitude IQ/SAT-style tests, personally.

[dead0man]

IQ tests are most useful at testing how well you know how to take an IQ test.

That's what I came here to say.

[bedstuy]

I once had a part time job teaching people how to take the LSAT which is basically an IQ test. 

Just from my sense of people and helping them improve, I believe IQ tests do measure a certain type of intelligence.  Obviously, there are exceptions to that with learning disabilities, language barriers or familiarity with test taking in general.  But, I've never met someone who seemed stupid who scored in the 99th percentile on the LSAT.

That said, IQ tests are often a racist talking point and get taken out of context.  Ultimately, the focus should be on improving people's critical thinking, reading and math skills, not just measuring them.

[DC Al Fine]

That said, IQ tests are often a racist talking point and get taken out of context.  Ultimately, the focus should be on improving people's critical thinking, reading and math skills, not just measuring them.

There is a tendency in some communities to see blacks scoring 1SD less than whites and take it as evidence that blacks are naturally dumber when a host of other factors can affect the results (Ex: Children of single mothers do worse, ceteris parebus and blacks are more likely to be raised by single mothers)

Personally, I think they would be much better if they weren't so popular.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

That said, IQ tests are often a racist talking point and get taken out of context.  Ultimately, the focus should be on improving people's critical thinking, reading and math skills, not just measuring them.

There is a tendency in some communities to see blacks scoring 1SD less than whites and take it as evidence that blacks are naturally dumber when a host of other factors can affect the results (Ex: Children of single mothers do worse, ceteris parebus and blacks are more likely to be raised by single mothers)

Personally, I think they would be much better if they weren't so popular.

Agreed.

I think the classic cum hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy applies here.  Even if high IQ is correlated with what some define as "success," there's a host of things that influence it, so when ever I see an article about how x affects IQ, I usually ignore it.

[bgwah]

Are IQ tests relevant and or meaningful?

It depends on how much of a douche bag you are.  I took one of those things back in high school and it said my intelligence was allegedly higher than 99% of the population.  That had zero impact on my life.  Some tools get a score like that and use it to join high IQ clubs so they can hang out with other social inept dorks... you know the type.

I guess what I am saying is in a controlled experiment you may be able to tease out some useful information, but unfortunately as is often the case with science once the lay public gets a hold of a little out of context morsel they blow it way out of proportion and really misuse it.

Let me get this straight: you don't think you're a socially inept douche bag?

[Torie]

I suspect it's highly correlated with reading comprehension abilities, so yes it's useful, but the SAT is more useful I think for that.

[muon2]

I suspect it's highly correlated with reading comprehension abilities, so yes it's useful, but the SAT is more useful I think for that.

I don't know how the tests are constructed today, but IQ tests for children in the 60's were not much like SATs. There were pictorial and geometric questions that didn't involve much reading comprehension, as well as word-based questions. Pattern recognition and reasoning from patterns was an important element.

[King]

No and/or no.

[pbrower2a]

They obviously can't test for motivation, sobriety, personal characteristics (ruthlessness is an asset in many jobs), or connections to the Right People. In jobs requiring the exercise of discretion, IQ might have relevance. For a professional athlete it might indicate who can be a team player, which is especially important in the execution of complex plays.

Yes, I would rather hire a salesperson with a cheerful disposition and a proclivity to take care of appearance -- neither of which has appreciable connection to IQ -- than someone with a high IQ who lives on an emotional rollercoaster and might occasionally appear disheveled. .

[jaichind]

For sure yes for both.  IQ are highly correlated with SATs and PISA tests internationally.  What I feel IQ tests for is the ability to do well in the modern world where abstract thinking is a premium.  Since ability to do well in the modern world is directly correlated with income and standard of living, I would say IQ is a very relevant measurement of a type of intelligence which is very important.   

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Yes. If, that is, you want to know how much you think like a computer. But as we are humans, it is pretty much useless. And anyone who cares about their IQ is an idiot, end of.

Link, I'm wondering what your definition of serious undergrad degree is?

For sure yes for both.  IQ are highly correlated with SATs and PISA tests internationally.  What I feel IQ tests for is the ability to do well in the modern world where abstract thinking is a premium.  Since ability to do well in the modern world is directly correlated with income and standard of living, I would say IQ is a very relevant measurement of a type of intelligence which is very important.   

In my country at least, some of the wealthiest people make (or rather, made) their money off property investments. This should not strike me as a particularly difficult industry cognitively speaking, especially if you hear them talk... (and how much do, oh for example, professors in Comparative Indo-European linguistics make?)

[Link]

Link, I'm wondering what your definition of serious undergrad degree is?

It's like pornography.  I know it when I see it.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Link, I'm wondering what your definition of serious undergrad degree is?

It's like pornography.  I know it when I see it.

So, not a BA in Communications then?

Anyway, Ta-Nehisi Coates has been good on this the last couple of days:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/the-social-construction-of-race/275974/

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/what-we-mean-when-we-say-race-is-a-social-construct/275872/

[Mechaman]

Yes. If, that is, you want to know how much you think like a computer. But as we are humans, it is pretty much useless. And anyone who cares about their IQ is an idiot, end of.

[jaichind]

As far as race and IQ are concerned I would post a couple of simple maps/graphs



and



I do not want to get into a debate about what is race.  I think what is safe to say is "people from different parts of the world as of 300-400 years ago have different IQ and migration of said people to different parts of the world does not seem to change this IQ difference."  People that were from East Asia have different IQ as opposed to people from Sub-Sahara Africa when calibrated from where they lived 300-400 years ago.  When these people from those regions moved to other regions of the world the IQ differences persisted with respect to their decedents despite living in the same regions of the world.