• j5y7@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours 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
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours 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.

    • furry toaster@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 hours ago

      you’re supposednto take measures to improce it

      uhmm? No? As far as I understand IQ tests actively attempt to make harder to get better at them, of course thats a futile goal and as the SAT showed any test can and will be game’d and SAT promptly gave up on that

    • TerdFerguson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      in a world full of unregulated ego, nearly everything is used as a basis for a comparison toward the inferiority/superiority dynamic. Someone’s aggregate score for processing information is as valid as anything else.

      It’s the habit of a weak mind, to be doing that.