IQ by Major

Originally posted by sh76
It's common for people to commit the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion they set out to prove.

It's much less common for someone to actually assume the conclusion they set out to disprove.

Well done! You've accomplished an uncommon feat.

i am going to make the mistake of assuming you actually want a conversation and ignore the nonsense.

how does comparing highly intelligent people with very unintelligent people prove the validity of IQ tests? do you need a psychologist and an elaborate test to tell you that a highly accomplished math teacher is more intelligent than someone who can't understand a kindergarten story?


if IQ tests are useful, then you should be able to tell me if a person with 130 IQ is more suitable for a job than a person with 120. Is the person with a higher iq more likely to succeed at a certain job? Is a really good mathematician more intelligent than a good chemist? Is he more intelligent than a good psychologist? Than a "good" artist? Is a high IQ individual more likely to retain a job?


Tests are supposed to assess someone's aptitude for some skill. What do IQ tests assess?

Originally posted by FishHead111
It IS a great example for those that question the validity of IQ tests.

yes, you need IQ tests to figure out someone's an idiot.

We never would have guessed you are one without having access to your IQ score,


there is a nobel prize winner who thought eugenics is a good idea. another believed in astrology.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i am going to make the mistake of assuming you actually want a conversation and ignore the nonsense.

how does comparing highly intelligent people with very unintelligent people prove the validity of IQ tests? do you need a psychologist and an elaborate test to tell you that a highly accomplished math teacher is more intelligent than someone who can't u ...[text shortened]... b?


Tests are supposed to assess someone's aptitude for some skill. What do IQ tests assess?

IQ tests no doubt have some use; though I'm sure their effectiveness in judging a wide variety of things is overrated.

What you did is attack Sam's point that IQ tests were valid by pointing to the fact that his example referenced a wide disparity in IQ. This inherently acknowledges at least some level of validity in IQ tests measuring intelligence, at least to some degree (if IQ tests were worthless, then no disparity in Sam's example would matter).

Now, sure, I know what you *meant*. What you *meant* was that you acknowledge that IQ tests have some correlation to actual intelligence but that they're overrated and small differences should not be used to draw conclusions. You *meant* "Well, yes, a 40 point spread is meaningful, but smaller spreads such as the ones referenced in the OP are not necessarily meaningful.

But, hey, it's the Internet and playing a little "gotcha" is fun and you left yourself wide open to a little fun by how you presented your argument. Plus, the nasty way in which you addressed El earlier on the thread makes it all the more fun to turn it around a bit.

Originally posted by Suzianne
So I'm glad to see I'm not part of his "norm".

And btw, your last sentence makes no sense. Even the author of the study doesn't agree with you.

Perhaps you haven't thought about what I actually said and what the author actually said.

As a group, average IQ is the same for men and women. At the extremes, the average IQ is not the same. At the extremes, both low and high, men are much more highly represented.

If the major is one that requires an extremely high IQ, then it will be over represented by men based on IQ alone.

Originally posted by FishHead111
Spend an hour in a room full of people that score 120+ on an IQ test, then spend an hour with a group that score less than 80. Get back to us on how there's no difference between them.

Sure, an IQ test can distinguish between retarded/completely uneducated people and people who are at least kinda smart and somewhat educated.

You don't need an IQ test for that though.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081209100948.htm

Originally posted by sh76
IQ tests no doubt have some use; though I'm sure their effectiveness in judging a wide variety of things is overrated.

What you did is attack Sam's point that IQ tests were valid by pointing to the fact that his example referenced a wide disparity in IQ. This inherently acknowledges at least some level of validity in IQ tests measuring intelligence, at least ...[text shortened]... tcha" is fun and you left yourself wide open to a little fun by how you presented your argument.

"What you did is attack Sam's point that IQ tests were valid by pointing to the fact that his example referenced a wide disparity in IQ."
the fish example referenced a wide disparity in intelligence. a situation you could figure out with 1 minute of conversation with the subject. it's like saying a thermometer is awesome for being able to distinguish between ice and boiling water.

You can't say anything about a 130 IQ person opposite a 120 IQ one. Not aptitude, not likelihood to succeed, not ability to carry a conversation. The only thing it says is how good a person is to figure out what a psychologist wanted him to figure out.

"What you *meant* was that you acknowledge that IQ tests have some correlation to actual intelligence but that they're overrated and small differences should not be used to draw conclusions."
They might point out who is mentally challenged but even that should be questioned. Show an iq test to a respected eschimo leader or maybe a tibetan buddhist monk. How well would they do?

"You *meant* "Well, yes, a 40 point spread is meaningful, but smaller spreads such as the ones reference din the OP are not necessarily meaningful."
what i meant was a thermometer who can only say if a bow of water is freezing or boiling is not particularly useful (it isn't useful at all). I can do that by myself, anyone can.

"But, hey, it's the Internet and playing a little "gotcha" is fun and you left yourself wide open to a little fun by how you presented your argument"
that's your opinion. you've shown nothing to support it.

You can't say anything about a 130 IQ person opposite a 120 IQ one

Dogmatic ideological belief which can't be argued against. In other words, usual internet liberal dribble. You can't prove it either way, so my belief must be right because I'm a libtard.

Originally posted by Eladar
[b]You can't say anything about a 130 IQ person opposite a 120 IQ one

Dogmatic ideological belief which can't be argued against. In other words, usual internet liberal dribble. You can't prove it either way, so my belief must be right because I'm a libtard.[/b]

so you admit you can't say anything about a 130 IQ person opposed to a 120IQ one? Can you say that 2 130IQ are equally qualified for something? Are they equally intelligent? Are they equally paid?

Bottom line is that the people that study psychometrics and have the big degrees say IQ tests are a valid way to measure intelligence, people who say IQ tests aren't valid have no business saying so because they aren't qualified to even have an opinion.
(Look up Dunning-Kruger effect)

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so you admit you can't say anything about a 130 IQ person opposed to a 120IQ one? Can you say that 2 130IQ are equally qualified for something? Are they equally intelligent? Are they equally paid?

You can't say anything either way about individuals, but I think it is safe to say that you can say that as a population the IQ 130 people will out perform the IQ 120 in areas like Physics which require higher IQ's. Of course with Physics it might be a bit skewed towards the mathematics part of the IQ score.

Originally posted by Eladar
You can't say anything either way about individuals, but I think it is safe to say that you can say that as a population the IQ 130 people will out perform the IQ 120 in areas like Physics which require higher IQ's. Of course with Physics it might be a bit skewed towards the mathematics part of the IQ score.

Yeah a 10 point difference is slim, I believe the standard deviation on the Bell Curve is 17 points and that is something where you'll start to see a noticeable difference in ability. A college student with a 120 IQ versus one with a 103 IQ is a good predictor of academic success, etc.

Originally posted by FishHead111
Yeah a 10 point difference is slim, I believe the standard deviation on the Bell Curve is 17 points and that is something where you'll start to see a noticeable difference in ability. A college student with a 120 IQ versus one with a 103 IQ is a good predictor of academic success, etc.

From the link in the original post:

Qs are typically classified as follows:

130+: Very superior intelligence
120-129: Superior
110-119: Above average
90-109: Average

Originally posted by Eladar
You can't say anything either way about individuals, but I think it is safe to say that you can say that as a population the IQ 130 people will out perform the IQ 120 in areas like Physics which require higher IQ's. Of course with Physics it might be a bit skewed towards the mathematics part of the IQ score.

"but I think it is safe to say that you can say that as a population the IQ 130 people will out perform the IQ 120 in areas like Physics which require higher IQ's"
nonsense. you don't take into account actual aptitude, education, ambition.