You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
16 points

If ever a reliable method for measuring actual intelligence rather than IQ is invented I imagine we’ll be seeing a somewhat lumpier graph than that smooth mean distribution curve.

permalink
report
reply
24 points

No, this is how a graph showing quartiles will always look because quartiles, by definition, always include a fixed percentage of the studied population under them.

In this case the lower quartile will always have 25% of the population under it, 50% under the second quartile, and 75% under the third quartile.

Quartiles break a population into 4 equal portions.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

While that’s true, the actual empirical curve does not have to be smooth. Or gaussian.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Spendrill is not misunderstanding the OP. He’s just saying that if intelligence could be measured by a better metric, then distribution of that metric among the population would not look as smooth as the one in the OP.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Not if you’re breaking the data into quartiles. Holy shit, do you really think the curve will be any different? Really? All that will happen is that some people will move around in the distribution. And the smoothing does not at all relate to how intelligence is measured but rather how it’s reported - in this graph.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I know what this graph is, I was talking about a graph that actually showed something useful. If you’ve got a couple of hours to learn something useful then you could do worse than to look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

At the end of the day, reducing intelligence down to one single number is already kind of questionable. What does it mean for someone to be 1 point more intelligent than another person?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

It’s also, there are several different axes that you could measure intelligence along, spatial intelligence and awareness, emotional intelligence and so on. Also intelligence is a sliding scale, there are definitely times of the day, week month and year when I am less able to solve problems and more likely to cause them and then you’re into the social aspects, it’s been demonstrated that people’s ability to think straight is affected by how precarious their existence is and so on.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

If you took a test as a child, it was probably WISC-V.

This assessment provides the following scores:

  • A Composite Score that represents a child’s overall intellectual ability (FSIQ)
  • Primary Index Scores that measure the following areas of cognitive functioning: Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), Visual Spatial Index (VSI), Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI), Working Memory Index (WMI), and the Processing Speed Index (PSI).
  • Ancillary Index Scores are also provided: The Quantitative Reasoning Index (QRI) ; Auditory Working Memory Index (AWMI); Nonverbal Index (NVI); General Ability Index (GAI); and the Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI).

Which seems very reasonable to me. This was originally intended to be an aptitude test, not strictly to measure your intelligence.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

It’s the composite score, and especially the heavy emphasis on it as some innate unchangeable thing, that’s the questionable part.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

This is supposed to quantify intelligence but how are these criteria quantified? Seems like the same fundamental issue

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

Is there a c/woosh?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Is there a c/IGotTheJokeJustWantedToMakeAGeneralPointAboutTheArtificialityOfIntelligenceQuotients

I swear if all the snide little pricks come over from reddit too I am going to have to abandon Lemmy also.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

You could have communicated much more clearly. It was not at all clear that you understood the post and wanted to have a specific side discussion. It read like you were taking the post at face value to discuss the failure of IQ testing. It especially even more like a misunderstanding because the post wasn’t even about IQ tests, but standardized tests. In fact, your top level post and this one I’m responding to both felt snide to me. First snide about the graph and IQ tests, then snide about the fact that people didn’t understand your unclear communication. You came off as one of those snide reddit users zooming past the post to make a point, especially with your aggressive defenses. Slow down. Consider your messaging more carefully. We are here to have conversation. Make sure you are too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Lol. People read your comment and think you didn’t understand the original post. When in reality they are the ones who didn’t understand your comment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

It would almost certainly follow an approximate normal distribution just like the above graph. Why would it look different?

permalink
report
parent
reply

Memes

!memes@lemmy.ml

Create post

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

Community stats

  • 8K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 288K

    Comments