Your Visual Skills Are Not Correlated To Your IQ (vanderbilt.edu)
Science_afficionado writes:
Psychologists at Vanderbilt University have conducted the first study of individual variation in visual ability. They have discovered that there is a broad range of differences in people's capability for recognizing and remembering novel objects and this ability is not associated with individuals' general intelligence, or IQ.
Or, as the article puts it, "Just because someone is smart and well-motivated doesn't mean he or she can learn the visual skills needed to excel at tasks like matching fingerprints, interpreting medical X-rays, keeping track of aircraft on radar displays or forensic face matching."
Or, as the article puts it, "Just because someone is smart and well-motivated doesn't mean he or she can learn the visual skills needed to excel at tasks like matching fingerprints, interpreting medical X-rays, keeping track of aircraft on radar displays or forensic face matching."
I take it then that you didn't like your score.
IQ tests aren't meaningless, they're just not the solution to every question about intelligence. They're mainly useful in measuring things relevant to formal education before all the new changes.
I have a high IQ and I can tell you that it's not meaningless, it's just not what people think it is. I can push far more data than anybody else I've met before going crosseyed and I can count cards with the best of them using my own system.
As for visual skills the tests don't really focus on anything too intensive which is probably why there's so little correlation. I can't visualize at all, but I'm roughly 3 stdevs out.
Pretty much proving my point here. It's mostly people that did poorly on the test that feel the need to make claims about it's inaccuracy. The IQ test is hardly the only way that people know I'm highly intelligent, in fact, I don't think anybody knows my score because I've never shared it with anybody.
IQ tests are a very narrow measure of intelligence and they do a pretty good job of measuring what they intend on measuring. The fact that people like you don't understand what the point of the test in the first place is hardly the fault of the people writing the test.
I never said that I liked the tests, they are a very narrow measure of intelligence that have relatively little predictive power of future performance. There are far more high achievers in the near genius range rather than the genius range.
"Just because someone is smart and well-motivated doesn't mean he or she can learn the visual skills needed to excel at tasks like matching fingerprints, interpreting medical X-rays, keeping track of aircraft on radar displays or forensic face matching."
In other news:
Just because someone is smart and well-motivated doesn't mean he or she can learn to run fast.
Just because someone is smart and well-motivated doesn't mean he or she can learn to shoot accurately.
Just because someone is smart and well-motivated doesn't mean he or she can learn to paint.
Just because someone is smart and well-motivated doesn't mean he or she can learn to play a music instrument.
---
Find me someone with downs syndrome with a score above 120, and a physicist with a score below 100.
It's measuring something, and can be used objectively to make scientific predictions.
Your attempt to redefine intelligence does not invalidate the test.
Indeed, and your score can easily be improved with practice which means it can't be a measure of raw intelligence unless practicing IQ tests is also the most effective way to boost your innate intelligence.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So what are you claiming it actually measures?
Within 20 points of the mean (80 to 120), IQ scores are strongly correlated with income and financial success. Outside that range, the correlation breaks down. If you have an IQ of 140, you are unlikely to earn much more than someone with an IQ of 120. Likewise, someone with an IQ of 60 won't earn much less than someone with an IQ of 80.
IQ is strongly and negatively correlated with incarceration. People in prison tend to be dumb. This could mean that dumb people commit more crimes, or that they are more likely to get caught and be convicted. Mostly likely it is a bit of both.
IQ is not correlated with happiness.