• TerdFerguson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    The real IQ test is whether or not you give a shit about IQ.

    Everyone who cares about it is some kind of fucking idiot or another.

    • j5y7@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      It’s not a terrible metric if it’s used as it was initially intended. IQ was supposed to be a benchmark to show where you’re at, like weighing yourself on a scale. Then you’re supposed to take measures to improve it. It was never meant to be a defining attribute or a contest. Bragging about having a higher IQ than someone makes as much sense as bragging about how much skinnier you are than someone else. Bragging about having a 135 IQ makes as much sense as bragging about weighing 135 lbs.

      • dgdft@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 days ago

        Where on earth are you getting this from?

        Galton was a eugenicist who thought intelligence was baked into one’s bloodline, Spearman’s entire career was that the g-factor was a relatively immutable cross-domain constant, Binet was measuring skulls phrenology style, etc.

  • TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    IQ is just one factor of intelligence, and not even the most important one. And even so, 94 is only just below average, it’s not so bad.

        • turdas@suppo.fi
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          17 days ago

          Maybe, but I don’t know if that’s a good thing. Social intelligence is how CEOs and other charlatans get disproportionate success in society, and if all we had was social intelligence humanity would be nothing but smooth-talking cavemen.