There’s a bunch of different ways to test IQ, and most if not all tests are known to be pretty flawed. The concept of intelligence being something that can be compared on a single numeric scale is in itself pretty much bullshit - there are different types of intelligence, and the tests tend to focus on random things like pattern matching.
A bunch of “high IQ” people are barely functional on a day to day basis. Basically low scores on an IQ test indicates that you lack the skills to do that exact test - I wouldn’t read too much into it.
Edit: Read another comment where you elaborate and don’t want to come across as dismissing your experience at all, I can see that it’s frustrating when people keep insisting it doesn’t matter. But having completed my PhD and having met a lot of people that would do incredibly well in IQ tests, I can safely say many of them too face significant challenges in lives deriving from their lack of situational awareness and understanding of for example social situations.
If it isn’t intelligence and what is it then? It’s undeniable that some people are better mentally than others. Like obviously someone with down syndrome is going to have less knowledge then someone without down syndrome. Right?
IQ tries to measure intelligence on one dimension, which is usually pattern matching. In reality a bunch of different things go into what we consider intelligence. Social intelligence and emotional intelligence are two big ones, that are often completely unrelated to pattern matching. But even within what one would consider “book smart” there’s a bunch of variation - someone could be incredibly smart in some ways and unbelievably dumb in others.
I think the variation within the chess elite is a good example. They are all intelligent in a way that would rank them favourably in IQ tests. Some of them are also brilliant people, but others buy into propaganda or conspiracy theories, some of them may be sexist and backwards, and some of them it’s almost a wonder they know how to breathe.
Another example is practical vs theoretical skills. A lot of theoretically intelligent people would be completely helpless in practical tasks like building something or fxing a broken machine.
There’s something particularly weird about watching academics deal with practical problems. Their stupidity can be unbelievable.
I think a lot of people with downs syndrome can have pretty high emotional intelligence for example, where they can empathize and relate to the feelings of other people.
It’s not a perfect system, but it’s not entirely useless. Obviously stuffing someone’s intelligence into a single number is a lossy conversion, but IQ correlates with many things that make it a useful measurement. To dismiss this is to dismiss the real science behind it.
There’s a bunch of different ways to test IQ, and most if not all tests are known to be pretty flawed. The concept of intelligence being something that can be compared on a single numeric scale is in itself pretty much bullshit - there are different types of intelligence, and the tests tend to focus on random things like pattern matching.
A bunch of “high IQ” people are barely functional on a day to day basis. Basically low scores on an IQ test indicates that you lack the skills to do that exact test - I wouldn’t read too much into it.
Edit: Read another comment where you elaborate and don’t want to come across as dismissing your experience at all, I can see that it’s frustrating when people keep insisting it doesn’t matter. But having completed my PhD and having met a lot of people that would do incredibly well in IQ tests, I can safely say many of them too face significant challenges in lives deriving from their lack of situational awareness and understanding of for example social situations.
If it isn’t intelligence and what is it then? It’s undeniable that some people are better mentally than others. Like obviously someone with down syndrome is going to have less knowledge then someone without down syndrome. Right?
Not necessarily.
IQ tries to measure intelligence on one dimension, which is usually pattern matching. In reality a bunch of different things go into what we consider intelligence. Social intelligence and emotional intelligence are two big ones, that are often completely unrelated to pattern matching. But even within what one would consider “book smart” there’s a bunch of variation - someone could be incredibly smart in some ways and unbelievably dumb in others.
I think the variation within the chess elite is a good example. They are all intelligent in a way that would rank them favourably in IQ tests. Some of them are also brilliant people, but others buy into propaganda or conspiracy theories, some of them may be sexist and backwards, and some of them it’s almost a wonder they know how to breathe.
Another example is practical vs theoretical skills. A lot of theoretically intelligent people would be completely helpless in practical tasks like building something or fxing a broken machine.
There’s something particularly weird about watching academics deal with practical problems. Their stupidity can be unbelievable.
I think a lot of people with downs syndrome can have pretty high emotional intelligence for example, where they can empathize and relate to the feelings of other people.
It’s not a perfect system, but it’s not entirely useless. Obviously stuffing someone’s intelligence into a single number is a lossy conversion, but IQ correlates with many things that make it a useful measurement. To dismiss this is to dismiss the real science behind it.