This whole anti-IQ meme is intellectually bankrupt. IQ is just a measure of relative intelligence on a specific scale. We know that some people are higher than others on this scale. We know that the scale falls on a normal distribution. We call one standard deviation 15 points.
By definition, 1 in 30,000 people will have an IQ of 160 or higher, which is simply 4 standard deviations above the mean.
We can all easily recognize lower IQ-levels. But anything higher than our own is an abstraction and if used against me an insult.
Except in Software Engineering. One day you just realize, that some fucking dude can see the problem and its solution much better and faster. And you realize there is nothing you can do, except fake the comprehension and use fancy words.
This has nothing to do with IQ. IQ itself means nothing other than you manage to score higher on an IQ test relative to others who take the same test. The problem is (and as the article points out) that this doesn't actually measure anything about your intelligence or problem solving abilities.
It's in a sense the same way getting As in college tells you that they are a good student, but only correlates with other factors. Einstein was a B+ student in college but obviously wasn't a B+ physicist.
> IQ itself means nothing other than you manage to score higher on an IQ test relative to others who take the same test.
This has been proven again and again to not be true. IQ is highly correlated with many measures of success, it absolutely mean something other than just your ability to score well on the test.
It’s literally a problem solving test. It doesn’t require existing knowledge so it’s the only test which actually is based just on intelligence. You can’t memorise quick problem solving.
It isn't true that it doesn't require existing knowledge. A lot of it is either pattern recognition, or group theory. Both can be learned about / trained for.
No, tests such as Raven's progressive matrices, which is the predominant method nowadays, don't require any more knowledge then what a normal baby is born with.
They were in fact designed to avoid the testing problems arising from varying cultures, prior knowledge, etc...
IQ is a number that measures something. We do some retrofitting to make it normal. In theory, 1 in 30,000 people will have an IQ of 160 or higher as you say. But I think that's giving too much credit to the measure, and to g. Which is just working memory times application of logic or something like that. I personally think IQ is intellectually bankrupt.
No - 1 in however many will take the test once, get lucky a few times, and test at 4 deviations above the mean.
In reality -- if they were to take the take the test a few more times, they'd quickly regress (closer) to the mean -- at probably more like 2 deviations above the mean.
Just because the notion of IQ seems to have some validity and can be roughly applicable in some situations -- doesn't mean that it hasn't also morphed (by overuse, overly credulous belief in its fundamentals) into -- just another bullshit psychometric.
And an especially wobbly indicator of anything, especially at higher octaves.
Why is it intellectually bankrupt? The IQ test was specifically designed to test for a _lack_ of intelligence, having a 160 IQ doesn't really mean much as the test wasn't setup to measure above average intelligence.
Yes, the author treats high IQ as some extraordinarily rare unicorn event, when in fact you would expect to if find reliably if you look at enough people. e.g. "Your IQ isn't 160. No one's is."
They think Einsteins IQ was around 120, which they think is "Indeed very high!". An IQ of 120 is 10% of the general population. If you sort people, an IQ of 120 might be on the low end for some groups/teams.
If you put 1000 people in a room, you would expect to find 4 "geniuses" with IQ over 140.
They point to data that the average IQ in one Phd program had an average IQ of 140 "doesn't make sense".
In fact it is almost exactly what you would expect. 1% of americans get PhDs, 1% of americans have IQ over 135, so 140 is about what you would expect.
The way they approach IQ suggests they dont appreciate how a normal distribution works.
It is literally a normal distribution, not linear. This means that the higher you go, the number of people above a threshold drop off in a non-linear way.
This isn't really correct. How they decide what an IQ of 160 is, is by get thousands of people together, asking them questions and seeing what percentage of the population get which questions right or wrong.
Questions that are tagged 160 are irrelevant because they norming group is WAYYY to small to say 1 in 30,000 people will get this correct. It's simply not possible to come up with such a question. They questions that get you 160 on IQ score are almost certainly questions that no one in the norming group got correct.
So no, there's zero proof that 1 in 30,000 people have an IQ of 160. There simply haven't been that many IQ test administered to the general population to determine that.
Testing problems can make it hard to tell which specific people in a room of geniuses have 160 IQ, but by definition the smartest fraction of a percent of people in the world have 160 IQ. The only way that group doesn't exist is if that percent doesn't exist, as in IQ hits a brick wall at 140 or 150 and higher is impossible.
There are likely individuals whose IQs are above 150, but IQ tests generally do not have enough accuracy to identify them. most tests max out at 130-140 or so. getting just a single question wrong can mean the difference between a top 1% vs top 5% score.
I think it's more useful to think of IQ tests as a tool rather than a measure. What are you using the tool for? To distinguish the intelligence levels of long dead historical figures... ok. I mean, I don't think we need to have a discussion about the methodology because that would be like me giving you tips on how to melt and re-freeze every ice cube in your fridge. Are you going to use it as a label to put on a child so they can either give up on their career early or (equal and opposite) decide they're a child genius and give them all sorts of neurotic problems they'll need to work through in their early 20s? Are you going to start to try and use it to make arguments about various racial groups in the US? Again, I'm less interested in the methodology there versus why you feel the need to pursue that particular agenda.
Imagine talking about your IQ. Anyway, my new way of measuring IQ is that if someone can't tell the difference between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 response qualities, then they got questionable IQ amount. Another one is how they stand on discussions that involve hypothetical or counterfactual reasoning. If they are OK on all of these ones, then they got OK amount of IQ for me.
EDIT: also all you guys downvoting me have medium IQs
> my new way of measuring IQ is that if someone can't tell the difference between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 response qualities
So your measurement of IQ is to see if someone spent time playing around with GPT3.5 and GPT4, whether their English language skills are good enough to tell subtle differences between the two, and/or whether someone downvotes you for this rather arbitrary and highly biased way of measuring IQ?
We have a society that, more than literally anything else, values the ability to understand, and manipulate, emotions. Why would we need to imagine that?
What you are saying, is just proving the point that we are NOT focusing on EQ. On the contrary, politicians and public figures are benefiting from emotional manipulation and understanding of human emotion of those who aren't as aware of that.
Focusing on EQ as a society, would mean that individuals would get better at understanding the said manipulations. In my opinion resulting in a society that is less driven by emotional impulses and more on the actual collective well-being and problem solving.
A ton of of issues on the social level could be solved, if people had a better understanding of which parts of their beliefs are based on emotions and if those emotions are worth listening to.
> Focusing on EQ as a society, would mean that individuals would get better at understanding the said manipulations.
No, it wouldn’t, just as valuing IQ doesn’t mean people get more intelligent.
Society valuing innate traits doesn’t particularly make them more common (indeed, in a society were material success is inversely correlated with fertility, it may do the opposite); what it does is it gives the people with those traits more power and privilege.
For a while. And then the Flynn effect reversed somewhere between 1990-2000. (Not, again, that I agree that our society actually does value IQ more than EQ, but…)
It definitely seems unlikely for there to be any part of the world where this isn't the case.
As a tangent, I'm slowly being convinced that the majority of these recent months old accounts with <100 karma are either intentionally trolling, are kids, or somehow using an LLM to write the responses. Or all of the above.
> "OK but there are a lot of IQs. One is your traditional Academic IQ. Another one is your Social IQ like your rizz level. Another one is your Financial IQ which is the number of your net worth. Finally, there is your Height IQ which is your number of feet and inches or meters of tallness."
By definition, 1 in 30,000 people will have an IQ of 160 or higher, which is simply 4 standard deviations above the mean.