I don't know my IQ. I was a straight A student who skipped grades and was considered "gifted" as I'm sure most people watching this kind of content were. That being said, If you ask me to figure something out and give me a time limit, I WILL NOT figure it out. I don't care how easy it is 🤷‍♂ The fact that Richard Haier seems to be unable to understand you can't put a time limit on intelligence is quite strange for a man in his position.  I can present my case simply.<br>If I take a timed test with 100 extremely difficult questions. I'll get maybe 10 questions right based on my anxiety. According to Richard, this does not mean I'm "Unintelligent," however, it does still factor into my level of intelligence based on the G score.<br>That makes no logical sense to me.<br>Because if my G Factor is lower based on Time and someone who is faster than me has a higher one, then the person faster than me should be considered a percentage more intelligent than me.<br><br>However,<br>If I was given a test with 100 extremely difficult questions, and then allowed to take the test back to "My Cave" and figure it out. I will get 100% of the questions right when I return.<br>Someone who is much faster than me, might not get all the questions right.<br><br>So if I can figure something out, that another person can't, shouldn't that be considered highly relevant to my G factor?<br>To restate:<br>If someone can figure out 80 things faster than me.<br>But then, given unlimited time, cant figure out another 20 things that I can eventually conclude. How is it that he/she/they/them/it/non-binary or whatever is more intelligent?<br><br>Shouldn't the person who can correctly solve the most questions be considered the most intelligent?<br><br>The entire flawed system seems biased towards speed and performance rather than actual intellect. What am I missing? 🤔,(reply>), @NemPlayer time isnt the only factor. A parcticularly intelligent chimp with an iq of 80 or 90 will never solve the quantum paradox even if he could read, write and had acess ot the entirety of human knowledge. Its like trying to play crisis on an intel 486 the hardware is simply not suited for the kinds of calculations neccesary to run it.,(reply>), From what I understand, the assumption is that any person can solve any problem given enough time. Intelligence only measures speed at which you solve problems meaning that if you give a person with a higher IQ a problem, and you give a person with lower IQ the same problem - both of them will solve it in some amount of time, but the higher IQ person will be expected to solve it faster.,(reply>), Most IQ tests measure cognitive ability and cognitive processing speed on <b>simple</b> tasks.<br>They don't directly measure intelligence (which is not a well defined term anyway), but since the outcomes of other kinds of intelligence tests correlate well with that of simple IQ tests, we use simple IQ tests as a proxy for "general intelligence".<br>It doesn't mean that this correlation holds for every individual. A few outliers can solve very complex problems if given enough time and not do well on conventional IQ tests.<br><br>I wish Lex had pointed out the irony that we often use IQ tests to find outliers, such as individuals with a score higher than 130, but we completely ignore the above mentioned outliers.<br>I would be curious to know how the false negative rate changes as a function of the g-factor. I wouldn't be surprised if the FN rate turned out to be quite high for people with high g-factor. Since these people are rare by definition, they have little weight in the correlation that Richard Haier mentioned.