IQ is a dismal measure of intelligence (2019)
It’s a <i>dismally used</i> measure of intelligence. But the validated IQ tests are pretty good at doing what they claim to do.<p>IQ tests have their place, but they are grossly and frequently used inappropriately, imho.<p>Note that actual psychology researchers like Howard Gardner and Robert Sternberg (and many others) have written quite a bit about various aspects of intelligence that the author alludes to. IQ is just one fairly narrow component of intelligence, and I don’t think that this point is debated much by modern researchers.<p>Let’s take the author’s arguments point by point:<p>&gt; Problems with IQ<p>Summary: People use IQ scores in ways that are not appropriate for the measure. Boohoo.<p>This isn’t a problem with the test, it’s a problem with how the results are used.<p>&gt; Intelligence cannot be separated from knowledge<p>IQ test creators acknowledge this, and they try to abstract out knowledge as much as possible. It’s not perfect, but it’s as close as they can get (especially for examinees in “the West”).<p>The author goes on to complain at length about “the injurious environment we push our kids into”, but this seems to be a different issue.<p>&gt; IQ is no measure of intelligence<p>The author starts with “Intelligence is the ability to solve problems”.  I would say that it’s the estimate of the <i>capacity</i> to solve problems. As the author mentions, other things come into play with regards to solving real-world problems. IQ tests don’t measure this and don’t claim to.<p>Interestingly, the author says “IQ tests might be as well replaced with tests of how fast people can count nickels”, and I think that this may not be as bad of a proxy for IQ as he thinks. The problem with nickels specifically is that some people may have done it before and&#x2F;or may have been taught shortcuts. But if you give a test in which people have to count a variety of things of various shapes, sizes, values, etc. while on a timer, I’m guessing that the results would correlate fairly strongly with IQ.<p>&gt; IQ is unreliable<p>Ah, totally agree, but I don’t think that it invalidates the test. This is a theme that I will come back to.<p>Any single IQ score should be seen as the <i>minimum</i> IQ  for that person. There is a theoretical maximum (at least imho) for each examinee that is not always reached. There are so many things that cause people to score below this theoretical maximum, but very few things other than incredibly lucky guessing that will cause them to score above their theoretical maximum (and even this is eliminated when you factor in the confidence interval of a given result).<p>&gt; Intelligence can be boosted<p>The theoretical maximum cannot be boosted. All one can do is improve the chances that they score as close to their theoretical maximum as possible (e.g., by getting good sleep, eating well, etc.).<p>&gt; The psychological harm of IQ<p>Yes, if people misuse the score in ways that it was not intended (and many do), then it can cause psychological harm.<p>Any tool can be used in harmful ways, so I don’t think that this is news, and it certainly doesn’t invalidate the test.<p>&gt; IQ myth<p>This section is just a weird diatribe of the author. He basically says that IQ doesn’t measure what he wants it to measure. As mentioned in my intro, psych researchers have explored the topic of intelligence writ large quite deeply.<p>&gt; Child&#x27;s IQ<p>Yeah. “Mental age” is an approximation. It’s not a bad one, but it is also misused. If people would just use it as a “directionally correct” measure, then it becomes more functional.<p>&gt; Schools improve IQ<p>Same as above. School helps people score closer to their theoretical maximum. It doesn’t improve their theoretical maximum.<p>&gt; IQ bloopers<p>Ugh. The author talks about IQ tests that have probably not been validated (at least not recently), and issues with not measuring the theoretical maximum.<p>Every standardized test used widely enough over time will have these “bloopers”. Every. Single. One.<p>&gt; New forms of intelligence<p>Cool story. Arguably not intelligence. Definitely <i>not</i> the part of intelligence that IQ tests claim to measure.<p>&gt; White supremacy<p>Very true.<p>Fwiw, it’s not just white people who think they are superior in terms of intelligence.<p>I have lived in some countries in which people have told me to my face about how much dumber on average white people are than [their race], using some sort of test score (typically a crude IQ proxy) as evidence. Of course, I’m the exception as a white person according to them, so I get a pass.<p>This is just another case of people misusing test scores. It’s rampant. It doesn’t make the test scores any less valid for their intended use.<p>CONCLUSION<p>This article just seems like a pseudo-scientific rant against IQ tests.<p>IQ tests aren’t perfect. They have a lot less utility than people think they do. That said, they do have some utility.<p>IQ tests are pretty good at discovering people at the extremes. One could argue that the folks at the extremes might warrant some different treatment.<p>IQ tests also do a decent job at identifying large gaps between individuals. This has less proven utility, but there is an idea that people with significantly different IQs perceive the world in different ways. This is a bit of a rabbit hole, but it’s an interesting line of inquiry.<p>tl;dr - Your IQ score is not you. Don’t worry about your score if it’s not at the extremes or if it’s not vastly different than your partner’s (it’s probably not, and if it is, you probably already expect that this is the case).