I.Q is a valid concept. It’s just a very difficult thing to test, as people tend to attempt to use “Knowledge.” as an indication of “Intelligence.”
precisely. the accounts of correlations between success and IQ is indicative mostly of inequality.
the fact that it is a test made by white Americans for white Americans is a tribute to its nature widely forgotten.
who wants to take the “are you smarter than bush test” 
Wouldn’t a combination of successes be indicative of intelligence? To succeed at whatever one puts one’s hand to: be it exams, tests, work, play, life…
When I judge a person’s intelligence, I look at varying factors that come in to play, and not just face-value elements…
things like success only demonstrate bias abilities. who said it is intelligent to be able to unethically wipe out rain forests or profiteer in politics. these actions though deemed successes only prove intelligence or at minimum an aptitude for the area of success in question.
if someone can count faster than another person does that make them more intelligent?
if someone knows more words does that make them more intelligent?
if someone gambles and succeeds are they intelligent?
…that’s why I said ‘a combination of successes’ and ‘varying factors that come into play’ - i.e. to be successful in all areas of one’s life, or is that not enough to prove a being intelligent in your eyes?
I never said anything about inhuman/unethical/immoral practices, btw. 
where did you get that from?
success is based on practicality of knowledge… by no means is success a proper determinant of intelligence even with complete success in all areas of his life.
| -----------\
| <img src="/uploads/default/original/2X/a/a12c574ad1fe73427dea2678475efa29b3e8352e.gif" width="17" height="16" alt="=;" title="Speak to the hand"/> <img src="/uploads/default/original/2X/7/73a2d7f7ecb80cfe1ebd0d1e29559bbae6e36584.gif" width="15" height="15" alt="O:)" title="Angel"/> <img src="/uploads/default/original/2X/a/a12c574ad1fe73427dea2678475efa29b3e8352e.gif" width="17" height="16" alt="=;" title="Speak to the hand"/> \ <--- (off to the insane asylum) (the BTK killer)
| -----------//
OOOOOOOO
Right!!!
Do please share your interpretation of what success might be? and what the practicality of knowledge pertains to/is utilised for…
LOL. ok heres an extremely simple argument i’m gonna make it up as i go along… 2 monkeys fight over an apple in a tree. one monkey happens to know how to climb a tree whereas the other monkey knows how to construct a nuclear missile.
now its up to you. what do you think requires more intelligence. building nukes or climbing trees?
which of the monkeys succeeds?
monkey number 2 (the nuke one) "dam i’m hungry ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
"
…that is why a monkey with all round skills would be the better survivor than both those monkeys put together - I said ‘all round skills’!
Still in denial of what is reflective of natural intelligence? or shall we keep discussing improbable scenarios that are non-reflective of probable reality? 
so colin leslie dean with 9 degrees including 4 masters must be more intellegent then most people on the planet then- as he must be one of the most qualified/skilled guys in the world
B.SC, B.A, B.LITT (HONS), M.A, B,LITT (HONS), M.A, M.A (PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES), MASTER OF PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES, GRAD CERT (LITERARY STUDIES)
That’s a great achievement for sure, and something to be very proved of having achieved - does that mean your ‘AR is invalid’ theory is correct?
I’m not sure how AR is used in maths, but if it failed in it’s application that would prove the axiom incorrect - I don’t know if it has, but I’m guessing not!
[size=85](I did a term of pure and applied math at A-level: until the teacher had a nervous breakdown 
and the class was disbanded 
)[/size]
oh now you’ve changed the word… now u say “natural intelligence” -I’m not gonna deal with the new possible significance of the addition of “natural” as it is too inclusive.
you will find that philosophy is 1% realistic scenarios, and 99% hypothetical ones. for something to be true it must be true in all cases no matter what. so when you say “all around skills means your intelligent” i say" no because… (this monkey has all around skills yet he is as dumb as a nail compared to his unsuccessful neighbor).
lets look at autism.
some people with autism have very low IQ’s yet are extremely successful in a wide number of documented areas.
success has to do with environment and conditioning first. your intelligence comes after those facts. “natural intelligence” is comparable to reflexes, emotional intuition, mental stability, attitude and physical well being in general.
go back and ask if each of those things i have named (factors in success) are necessary of an intelligent person.
I’m sure Einstein was a bit of a slob…
Hitler could hardly be considered sane
George bush… (need i say more)
when you made the switch to “natural intelligence” did you concede the fact that intelligence is not indicative of success, or vice versa?
No, I didn’t concede to anything - when I said about all-round success being indicative of intelligence I don’t know what you were assuming, but I meant one’s natural intelligence got them there - what did you think I meant?
Why me!
oh ok you meant it in the sense that intelligence is innate (phew). i thought you were referring to natural as in aptitude.
you cling to the belief that if someone is all around successful, than he/she must have some intelligence.
it’s not an overly outlandish claim. i would expect it from a realist.
the reason why i must contend your continued belief is because putting faith in laissez faire philosophies contributes to inequality
how so? your success/intelligence model is more often used to affirm non-intelligence than intelligence.
here is a crude yet effective example.
take 100 humans of varied education and success in life.
next throw them in a giant meat grinder with only room enough for one to escape.
do you think the most “intelligent”/successful person will survive? i admit theres some probability that he might.
but the one thing i will never gamble on is other humans…
the point of this analogy is that it is largely how and where you are thrusted into life which determines your success. intelligence can remain completely separate from success, and success, even in all areas of life, only reflects “practical intelligence, or at minimum rudimentary or instinctual skill”.
have you ever herd of the BTK killer? I’m sure you have…
bind torture kill (very disturbing)
he was in fact a reverend. an extremely successful and respected member of society. in all apparent areas life he excelled; he was more than a model citizen.
then with increasing frequency he began binding, torturing and killing other human beings. he said that there was a demon in his brain telling him to do this.
for someone to be so weak as to lose a battle of reason with an imaginary devil can demonstrate a lack of intelligence or even a psychotic (irrational), yet apparantly functioning (successful) mind.
sucess can usually be traced back to chance.
i ask myself what have i succeded in? the only thing i can think of is that i consider myself intelligent. when i search for the cause of this, i can think of nothing but chance.
Thank goodness we cleared that up!
If anything, your scenarios are imaginative! 
why thank you
hmmmm…
let me ask you this, would you attribute my non success in swaying your opinion to a lack of intelligence?
…I atttribute your non-success in swaying my opinion to a lack of dominance, but I don’t think that denotes a lack of intelligence!
My parent’s/sibling’s opinions sometimes converge with mine (my dad’s probably dominates at times )
so if i was very successful i could just be very dominant, not intelligent.