this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
1148 points (98.9% liked)

Science Memes

11448 readers
739 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

any article that lists historical figures with even estimates their IQs can be discarded as bullshit.

There are people alive on that list.

IQ is a borderline pseudo science

The person above is trying to prove IQ legitimacy with normal distributions and confidence levels. I'm arguing against it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

i have indeed noticed there are people alive on that list. But are you going to trust a source that states someone's IQ to be literally outside of the possible scale when it also just makes shit up a few people down?

i don't think they're trying to prove IQ's legitimacy, just explain the way it's calculated

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Let's focus on one individual then with an officially calculated IQ.

https://medium.com/@gigasociety/younghoon-kim-the-current-highest-iq-276-record-holder-in-2024-65d73e5a88c5

IQ is not normally distributed. It can be higher than 200. It can't be negative.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-even-possible-for-a-human-to-have-an-IQ-of-200?top_ans=179514973

read the second answer to that particular quora question, i believe it outlays what the other guy and i mean pretty clearly

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is repeating the same confusion.

Calculating values from the normal distribution tells you nothing about the tail properties of human intelligence.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

yes, just as IQ tells you close to nothing about the properties of human intelligence! (only how good you are at taking IQ tests).

Consider this - what does being smart even mean? Does it mean you're able to solve logic puzzles fast? Does it mean having a good memory? Does it mean being able to make good decisions? maybe it means being able to resolve interpersonal conflicts? or maybe being able to cook something amazing from scratch without a recepie?

IQ seems to be seen as some vague concept of the computational power of the brain, but only when it comes to logic puzzles and remembering things. What if someone's brain's computational power instead favours considering the interactions of various flavours to create outstanding dishes? or moving their body to dance the most mesmerising dances?

imagine you're a scientist though! a man of science, logic and reason, living roughly at the same time IQ was standardised. And you are smart, all your friends think you're smart - so you set the scale of the entirety of human intelligence to be measured with logic puzzles. Nothing else. All the other stuff is just some talent someone has...

but what if someone is talented at solving IQ tests? Does that mean they're smart? if there is no discernible difference between someone who's talented at solving logic puzzles, and someone who an IQ tests deems to be intelligent, does that mean only those who enjoy logic puzzles, and therefore have gotten a lot of practice in solving them, are smart?

another question - is it "cheating" if somebody trains for their IQ test? if someone trains their mind specifically to be better at them - will that person become more intelligent, or just more skilled at filling out IQ tests well? how can you spot a "cheater" like that?

where even is intelligence in the brain? where does it come from? your genetics? your upbringing? your environment? everything at once?

how do you measure something you can barely define? and why with logic puzzles? why not an interpretative dance to the sounds of noise jazz? why not the baking of a pavlova cake? or maybe a rap battle?

apologies for the long rant. IQ is not a scientific measurement, it's a measurement of how likely you're to do well on logic puzzles. and whoever popularised it and made it seem like the way to prove you're better than others infuriates me. the above are my personal, more or less subjective, issues with the idea of IQ, i do recommend this video essay to understand how deeply flawed even the history of IQ is. There's piles and piles of arguments against IQ, and very few in favour

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Agree with all of that. What annoys me is when properties of the normal distribution are used as "facts" about human intelligence.

I'm sure there are more people with 200+ IQ than with <0.

Reread my original statement and see if you still disagree

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

eh, well my answer is going to be most likely unsatisfying because - that just depends on how you count it, there's quite a few different IQ tests and some of them use slightly different methods of calculating the scores

practically though? a person so disabled they can barely figure out the most basic puzzles that scores below ~20 would probably have significantly lower survival chances basically anywhere, but especially in developing countries where they're less likely to get help