Do you think measuring ones IQ is a pretty accurate representation of their intelligence?

[Still-alive]

I've heard multiple views on this subject. where do you stand? https://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20121218/iq-test-really-measure-intelligence

Single tests that measure intelligence quotient, or IQ, may become a thing of the past.

A study of more than 100,000 participants suggests that there may be at least three distinct components of intelligence. So you could not give a single, unified score for all of them.

Researchers' understanding of the complexities of the human brain has evolved, and so too has the notion of IQ, what it really means, and how it is most accurately captured.

“There are multiple types of intelligence,” says researcher Adam Hampshire, PhD. He is a psychologist at the Brain and Mind Institute Natural Sciences Centre in London, Ontario, Canada. “It is time to move on to using a more comprehensive set of tests that can measure separate scores for each type of intelligence.”

Yes I beleive IQ tests are a good way of accurately determining ones intelligance

No i beleive its a flawed way to determine ones intelligence

I think its interesting to know but ultimately not something to take seriously at the end of the day

I think its somewhat accurate but has some flaws

I'm unsure

[Effably]

It is interesting. It can give some degree of insight.

Speaking from personal experience I "raised" my IQ by about 20 points in the span of half a week by simple studying. Since practically all IQ tests measure spatial intelligence and the patterns are reasonably standard it is an easy thing to do. This realistically means that if people cared about it we'd all score in the genius percentile with some training. Rendering it utterly useless.

Now it does matter in the sense that most IQ tests still measure somewhat useful traits. And generally speaking a sharp difference in IQ is a good indicator of ability - but a very unreliable one. More often than not someone scoring well on IQ tests would perform better in mental exercises than someone performing poorly. It is however far from a safe bet.

What I do like about IQ is the non-practiced results and what we can learn from them. By comparison, my grandmother's generation (or maybe her mother's) would have all been considered mentally challenged by today's standards of IQ. Of course that is not actually the case, my grandmother was sharp as a knife, but it is a relevant sign of our overall academic progress and while not reliable it remains interesting.

[HighlyVolatile]

I used to be a member of Mensa Japan for testing over 150 IQ on the official Mensa test, but I wasn't so impressed by my peers there or me for that matter. A lot of people who have read my posts on this site would probably never be able to guess since I come across as sounding quite dumb (both in-person and in writing). I'm also lazy about studying and a borderline alcoholic.

Everyone had decent professions there like a technical writer, a medical researcher, a chemical engineer working for Sony, and me a software engineer. Yet none of us were the most elite in the world in terms of our accomplishments. It's a similar case with Marilyn vos Savant. She has the highest recorded IQ in history yet she merely became a magazine columnist.

So I think it's a flawed indicator if it's to predict one's success in a field. There are also so many types of intelligence that IQ tests can't measure, like athletic aptitude and the ability to quickly learn new motions, musical aptitude, interpersonal abilities (perhaps relating more to EQ), artistic, etc. So I tend to subscribe more to ideas like Howard Gardner's that view intelligence as breaking down into multiple categories:

There's also the component of practice, discipline, and passion. A person with a high IQ might be able to absorb the basic technical knowledge of how to sprint like an Olympian faster than most, yet it's another thing to be able to actually sprint as fast as an Olympian let alone move our bodies like one.

So I think IQ is -- at the very least -- a grossly oversimplified way to measure one's overall competence and the likelihood of successfully achieving goals. It might be the best measure we have so far but it's still not a very good one.

[HighlyVolatile]

I went with B as a result.

[OceanGirl21]

This is the case in question about surgery. Many academics aren’t as good with their hands as someone who would be considered less academic, and that level of fitness is an important factor during lifesaving surgery.

[HighlyVolatile]

@OceanGirl21 I often find similar cases in a variety of fields. There's often a strong distinction between theory and application, and the most competent people as well as the ones I admire most tend to be the most practiced.

[CrazyGirl2]

I think its fairly accurate at gauging someone’s intelligence which is merely ones ability to solve a problem for which one has received no training. But given the way people are looking at intelligence these days, it has its faults.

[OceanGirl21]

I’m not sure it is. What if someone was average academically but they had creative intelligence and was able to solve world problems like finding cures etc. Didn’t Albert Einstein do poorly at school originally…

[Effably]

Albert Einstein being a poor student is one of those made-up myths. He wasn't a straight A type but was spectacular in his field and still above average in the rest, not perfect but good.

He did however, repeatedly, strongly and often say what you did. Namely that creativity matters above all. The imagination to pose good questions being both more valuable and rare than the ability to answer them. Indeed many, if not most, successful scientists are also artists of some sort to the point you could ask them what instrument they play rather than if they do.

[The_Shadow_Dweller]

There are many quotient tests. Only IQ is popular. Because it leads directly with the study intelligence.
Other intelligence is also there! Focus on that too!

People, please give a visit to this link to learn more about all the quotients...

https://www.zedua.com/blog/4-types-of-quotients-everyone-should-know-apart-from-iq/

@Still-alive Not complaining about the question. In fact I appreciate it.
But people must know there are other quotients too.

[NathanDavis]

nope...

and it's ironic that a test that's supposed to measure intelligence is so flawed in principle

IQ tests are just an archaic gimmick from an era in which they were meant to push certain agendas, nowadays... they're just like astrology/horoscopes for brainiac people... lol

[Ninania]

Not at all. Most people I've encountered with a high IQ (members of mensa) are out of touch with their own emotions and lack basic empathy and understanding of other people.

[WhitneySnow]

No. It doesn’t take into account common sense, street smarts and emotional intelligence.

[TyLeeAndPink]

There are many types of intelligence. IQ measures only one.

[Still-alive]

but the question is... is it reliable? should it still be used?

[TyLeeAndPink]

No, I don’t think so.

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

No, i believe it's a flawed way to determine one's intelligence

[menina]

No, I believe it's flawed. There are many types of intelligence and they're all valuable.

[OneNineZero]

No people could be more inteligent about certain things that's not showing up in their iq tests

[Cherry234]

No because it's just a test. Doing well on a test doesn't necessarily mean you're smart.

[llorando]

I think its interesting to know but ultimately not something to take seriously at the end of the day

[EnglishEuropean]

I think it works fine for the average neurotypical person.

[Xtendable]

I voted D, as being educated and intelligent are two different things

[SmokinAces2000]

Nope

[Still-alive]

why not?

[SmokinAces2000]

It’s kinda like how people say school is a good measure of intelligence which I strongly detest because I knew plenty of intelligent people that just didn’t give a shit about school. In my opinion a series of questions doesn’t wrap up a person’s intelligence just like that, there are contributing factors such as, if the person a good test taker, are they educated on the questions being asked, is their decision making very fast, all of which are not signs that someone isn’t as intelligent as someone else who got a higher score

[Dinosaursandanime65]

I quantify skill by the evidence