Who and What iQ leaves out

What are the intelligences iQ don’t measure, and are they biased in anyway, do they favor some types of people over others for reasons other than intelligence?

In the main, iQ tests don’t test how well you store people, places and things in your memory databanks, rather, they test your ability to recognize patterns (patterns expressed in various ways - numerical, linguistic (which involves grammar, logic and occasionally vocabulary, never spelling or rhetoric, if you will) and visual spatial being the three major sorts of patterns) and use them to make predictions about what should or will likely follow, or in other words - iQ tests test your ability to make inferences, to use the information available to make accurate predictions, to use the information provided to fill in the blanks.

With the exception of vocabulary, where the correct definition of words must be recalled, the majority of iQ tests don’t test memory, so that’s one intelligence they leave out right off the bat (a few test general knowledge, but from my experience the vast majority of IQ tests do not).

What else? Usually they’re multiple choice questions and always there’s only one right answer. Some may excel at solving problems where no solutions are provided, where as others may be poor at this, essentially handicapping the one segment of the population. Some may be good at solving problems when things aren’t so black and white, when there’s more than one right answer, or where some answers are more right than others, again, handicapping one segment of the population.

Some may have anxiety disorders, fear of failure, like myself, so they may perform better when there’s no pressure or when they’re not watching themselves and when they don’t feel like they’re being critiqued, evaluated and monitored. How this problem could be remedied, I have no idea, it’s up to the patient and their doctor to diagnose and treat themselves.

In mathematics there’s little room for argument, two plus two equals four, that is, unless you’re a Pyrrohnian Skeptic or a staunch empiricist, the sort who believes nothing is inherently right/wrong, and that mathematics only makes sense in our universe, or, it’s entirely conventional/only works because it’s internally consistent, but what about questions like this - which of the following does not belong - cat, dog, hippopautums or snake? Occasionally I run into questions like these where there’s more than right answer or it’s open to interpretation.

Snake overall is the most different from a taxological standpoint, but the general public aren’t taxologists. hippopotami are the only herbivores of the four, additionally they’re by far the largest. They’re also the only one with multiple syllables in their name. So perhaps iQ tests are biased against some people just by the way they frame the questions, by not being clear about what answer they’re looking for, and by appealing to people that interpret questions in a particular and peculiar way, not in an objectively more correct way, but in a way that conforms with academia, or in a way that conforms with normality, or with the makers of the iQ tests themselves, who may or may not have eccentiricities of their own.

Perhaps part of intelligence is being able to critique others rather than conform, and argue for your answer no matter how apparently wrongheaded it may be, kind of like what we’re doing here. Furthermore, what about creativity? Isn’t part of being intelligent being artistic, being able to create many complex patterns, not merely being able to recognize patterns that have been made by someone or something else?

What about auditory temporal, if there’s a visual spatial, sights and space, why not auditory temporal, sounds and time? Like, what note should follow, ding + dang… dong? Of course for obvious reasons, due to iQ tests being written, auditory temporal couldn’t have been incorporated, iQ tests would’ve had to been conducted very differently, but due to the internet and computers, they could easily be converted to measure auditory and temporal intelligences.

If there’s verbal iQ, why not nonverbal? Some autistic people have an unfair advantage, as many of them have no difficulty reading and comprehending what’s being said, but have a great deal of difficulty with speech, or with nonverbal cues. Many seem to have the opposite sort of disposition, they’re good at speaking and nonverbal cues, but not so good with the written word.

What about the other senses, what about smell, taste and touch intelligences?

What about intuition, or the ability to assess data, whether it be verbal, nonverbal, auditory, visual, or what have you, information that’s far to complex to have a clear right or wrong answer, or any answer, but nonetheless there could be a range of acceptable and unacceptable answers? Or how 'bout questions where you have to guess, estimate, because it’s impossible for the human mind, with the exception of a few autistic sevants, to be able to be precise with such a complex problem with so many variables, like what’s 5 trillion divided by five thousand and seventy three? Solve it in your head without a calculator in less than ten seconds. Some people’s minds may be less precise, but more skilled at making guesses and dealing with a certain amount of unpredictability.

Finally, what about psychological intelligence, not just communicative intelligence, but to be able to comprehend people’s motivations, what drives them, what they need and what they excel at, and to be able to use that information to solve complex psychosocial problems.

There’s also multitasking, which iQ doesn’t consider. Problem solving, as in, what should I do, as in performing the a task correctly as opposed to just assessing data. Introspection, know thyself, which of course would be difficult to measure. Motor skills and coordination, which are arguably intelligences. The tests themselves are presented verbally, which are biased and favor verbiage, reading over hearing. They favor symbols and abstractions of all kinds as opposed to actual, concrete things.

iQ is in its infancy really.

Designing accurate IQ tests for blind people can be problematic. It’s not just a simple matter of replacing the pictures in standard IQ tests with models, because blind children, for example, will not relate to them in the same way sighted people relate to pictures. Yet for decades, this was standard practice, and only now has it been realised that it gives a false result. There are quite a few other attempted solutions, but many of these are old and in need of updating and further refinement.

Havn’t read wall of txt, but it has been well known for decades that IQ test only tests few intelligences in the wide spectrum of other intelligences.

IQ doesn’t teach socializing or account for social skills.

Therefore people with high IQ scores tend toward social anxiety disorder, social awkwardness, and autism. Stressing the importance of “intelligence” says nothing about group relations or happiness in life. This becomes unsurprising when studies then correlate high intelligence with “less happiness” in life.

Intelligence can’t get a pretty young blonde, blue eyed cheerleader a date.

Intelligence doesn’t necessarily tell where young males are within male hierarchy, whether you are alpha, beta, delta, gamma, or omega. Intelligence doesn’t necessarily apply to the hierarchy at all.

Let’s take the height of intelligence, with the lowest depth of intelligence. Who is a “smart person” stereotype? An engineering computer science math nerd? Socially awkward and inept, he’ll never get laid.

If intelligence can’t get a young man laid, then what good is intelligence really? It’s not good. It’s not useful. It’s not admirable.

Who’s getting laid?

The young, blonde blue eyed cheerleader is getting laid, so is the high school football captain quarterback stud. The studs and the beautiful people get laid easy. So what does “intelligence” have to do with this? Why is there the stereotype of the “dumb blonde” joke?

It’s because beautiful people don’t need intelligence. It’s unnecessary for their survival. Sometimes beauty is much more important than intelligence. This is why the blonde blue eyed young beautiful girl doesn’t need to be smart.

She doesn’t even need to go to school. All she has to do is learn how to put on a little makeup, unnecessarily, choose some clothing, still unnecessary, and go out to the bar. She’ll get laid easy. No work required. No intelligence required. She has men do all of this for her. She doesn’t need to lift a finger.

Intelligence? Overrated. This emphasis on “IQ tests” leads to autism, and daresay, may even cause autism and mental disorders. I think it harms more children and young adults than anything else.

If you’re a smart intelligent young person, then stay away from IQ tests. They won’t help you in life. Technically, if you were smart to begin with, then you wouldn’t need to take a test to tell you this. The test is not required for a smart person.

Finally, the truly smart and intelligent people are the test creators, not the test takers.

It’s rigging the system. Do you prefer mastery or slavery? You probably choose slavery, and becoming a slave to this IQ system. You choose autism over freedom, and confining your limits into the parameters of the test makers and employers.

Slavery at its finest still alive and kicking. This rise of “autism” in America is merely another name for the resurgence of postmodern slavery.

Don’t get fooled! Slavery never ended!!! It still exists today. Except it’s called “humanity” and “human rights” and “secularism” and “liberalism”. New slave masters.

Thanks for the input.

rununder

There’s more to life than sexual reproduction, there’s mindless self-indulgence, including intellectual self-indulgence. Additionally, there’s more than one way to pass on one’s genes. One is by helping your tribe with the fruits of your labors, making positive contributions to your society. If one defines the self loosely, then we all live on in other people’s memories, and other people’s memories of other people’s memories, and even in the places and things we affect. The greater our affectivity, the more we preserve pieces of ourselves and their negatives. Of course this is a small consolation, which is why man turns to spirituality, but I think it counts for something. I agree that intellect is not the only means to achieving these ends, athleticism and socialism are others, which are arguably kinds of intellect themselves. Beauty is another, health is another, physique is one more. We all have strengths and weakness, and there’s many paths to self-actualization, the idea is to make the most of your strengths whatever they are. Our society holds the application of education/memorization for financial gain (it doesn’t matter what you produce and consumer, so long as you’re producing and consuming (quantitative) as the pinnacle of human achievement and fullfillment, but there’s many alternatives, and being mindless sperm donor/recipient is certainly one of them.

Why then, do you believe, that human secularists “test” IQ in this way, so limited? Why are they only looking at multi choice math equations and vocabulary tests as measures of “human intelligence”?

Why are there not questions on the SAT tests, about whether you eat meat or vegetables, whether they are genetically engineered or not, and how would we go about scoring such tests and questions?

   Runaround: probably because of the sublime notion that developed into sublimation.  The extremely good specimen, you are right, weeds out the less desirable ones, but those are not satisfied to be thrown out of the game:  they do not all turn , they compensate by brain power.  They get the stupid blonde after all, because most stupid blinds are at the same time gold diggers.  So the nerdishness get weeded out in a generation or two, but the braininess does too.  Except when nerds in breed.  In which case, the compensation goes on, indefinitely, until you get the genius.  The genius has little concern for brawn, and the genius' only concern becomes in itself the motive for his existence.  Nothing else matters.  Love relationships, marriage, for these types become matters of convenience. Tests do not apply to this kind of person. 

Later: orb

rununder

I don’t think it’s a conspiracy, do you? Could be… I just think the people who write the iQ tests tend to have those sorts of abilities in abundance - knowledge, arithmetic/logic, verbal communication (grammar, spelling and vocabulary), visual-spatial, monotasking and extuition. Perhaps Caucasian males, particularly bourgeois Caucasian males tend to have those intelligences in abundance, so they tend to intuitively, naturally and subconsciously emphasize them in iQ tests at the expense and to the detriment of other intelligences, namely wisdom, creativity/imagination, nonverbal communication, auditory-temporal, multitasking and intuition.

Culture is limited, there’s only so much the intellect can encompass. Let’s help improve our culture by broadening its horizons.

That would be a more wisdom based test, our culture doesn’t emphasize wisdom, doesn’t believe it’s objective, measurable or quantifiable. We believe it is.

There are three forms of culture (to cultivate), one is to cultivate the self, two is to cultivate another/others, three is to cultivate the environment. Our society is preoccupied with the latter form of culture, cultivating the environment, not the former two, cultivating another/others and cultivating the self. Therefore, society is preoccupied with science, economics (power over nature) as opposed to philosophy, politics (power over others/oneself). This is its subject matter. It’s thinking is also left-brained as opposed to right. This is its means to thinking about its subject matter. All this is reflected in iQ, which is a criteria, a standard by which we measure and evaluate man’s mind. iQ says as much about the testers and the establishment they represent as it does about the testee. We live in an Anglo-Saxon world with Anglo-Saxon values, values shaped by the race and its leading artistic and intellectual heroes - Locke, Berkeley, Mill, Hume, etcetera. A different race/society would’ve produced different artists and intellects and would’ve measured and evaluated minds differently. For example, the Chinese tested the minds of their men via the curriculum of the Confucian Classics. The English, the Dutch and the French think about the world in a certain way, and for now, the rest of the world follow suit. Perhaps you and I identify more with the Greeks, or, something else.

How excatly do you intend to cultivate self? I’ve heard many talk about being better humans, but not done anything about it, other than empty talk, maybe you have a solution to it?

I went through a bunch of iq testing as a child and there were tons of memory tests. Lots of vocab too.

I never said I had a precise plan for cultivating the self.

This thread is primarily about intelligence, self-improvement was a Segway.

I brought it up in order to illustrate something about the OP.

Well all the ones I’ve took had very little or nothing to do with memory.

A few had something to do with vocabulary.

Over the years, I’ve heard liberals claim how much smarter, on average, an atheist is compared to a christian and a theist, and that such a thing can be verified and proved by checking iq tests and scores across time and sectors of the country.

But this begs the question.

If we put “Does God exist?” on an iq test, then how would we measure right and wrong answers? If you do or don’t believe in god, then doesn’t that make you either a genius or a retard?

Did you do the online ones? Or were you dragged through a battalion of shrinks?

Online, I’ve only taken an offline iQ test once. I’ve taken online iQ tests dozens of times.

So OP is essentially one long Captain Obvious but no solutions?

The online tests are essentially meaningless. There’s no controlled environment, there’s no one watching and timing you, and you don’t have to deal with the pressure of it and the adults standing over your shoulder. When I was in 2nd grade, I was dragged through a battalion of shrinks and other people in white coats who wanted to know how I was so good at solving complex problems and what have you.

I mean think about it man. I’ll bet I seem like a complete idiot about 80% of the time when I post. But when I don’t wanna sound like an idiot, I can’t be fucked with because I totally know the Truth of shit because of my insane analytic capacity. I can also abstract for days. You can be Socrates, and I’ll be the guy answering questions, and even with that benefit, I’ll tire you out with my endless supply of inductions.

But see when you’re a kid, you don’t know if you’re in trouble, or if you’re about to get a prize, or what all these adults are so interested in you for. You just sit there, with a scared stomach ache, thinking, “If I don’t do these puzzles fast enough, and if I don’t remember all these things, and if I don’t know the answers to enough of these questions, these people will think I’m retarded”. So you churn and focus like mad, then they come back and tell you that you can either skip a grade or go to a place where all the kids are high IQ. I chose the latter.

This shit that I see on here people arguing about space and black holes…I heard it all by the time I was 9.

It’s crazy man. I put 0 effort into my life and almost everything I want just comes and falls into my lap. Not as a matter of privilege. Statistically, I should be on welfare or homeless in the streets. I grew up very poor. I totally, “earn” everything that I have, and have taken no benefits from another person. I mean, my judgement might be off with my choice of career, but I do an excellent job and I spend my day thinking about philosophy questions and what I wanna have for lunch, and things that make me happy and that’s about it.

Formal tests are just as bogus as internet tests.

Why should human intelligence be timed by a clock? Is evolution regulated by a clock? How much time do humans have to adapt to earth? A million years, right?

Why don’t we have a million years to take an IQ test? Because evolution is not intelligence? Adaptation is not an IQ test?

Then what exactly are we testing? A bird doesn’t know 1+1=2, therefore it has no intelligence?