And… hate to say it, but there are a lot of people with 80-90 level IQ in the US. Many of them struggle with things like projecting forecasts, longterm planning. They are extremely vulnerable to these manipulative marketers.
Did the IQ measurements change or something? I thought 100 was considered fairly intelligent, but lately I’ve seen multiple comments indicating that it’s a lukewarm average and anything less is unintelligent.
People use “room temperature IQ” as an insult, but I thought 70-80 was average and there’s really no need for concern until you get below 60.
Also, from what I can remember, IQ was calculated as some function of one’s “mental age” relative to their “actual age,” so it really doesn’t mean anything beyond one’s mid-twenties. It functioned mainly as an indicator of intellectual development among youths, relative to their peer group. And 80-90 would have meant you were above average…
I agree with the criticisms below about methodology; IQ is ultimately a measure of how good you are at those particular tests. And multiple skillsets are tested. But it is valuable when you’re talking about general trends or having a concrete point of comparison (for example, a certain individual compared to the general population).
100 is ALWAYS average for IQ. That’s how it’s meant to be measured. That’s the peak of the bell curve. What is considered average might change over time if people in general get more or less intelligent, but the middle will always be 100.
That said, take any IQ bullshit you hear with a grain of salt. Because it’s bullshit.
For some reason I vaguely remember learning something different than that, but I could be remembering wrong or maybe what I learned was bullshit. Oh well.
But yeah, people tend to conflate intelligence with knowledge. You can find a really stupid person with a lot of knowledge on certain subjects, or a really smart person with little to no knowledge on some subjects.
Being able to identify one’s own lack of knowledge and intrinsic biases is an indicator of intelligence. But too many people treat the person who “knows a lot” (or seems to) as intelligent, even if they can’t apply that knowledge in novel ways or perform abstract analysis on the things they know.
Likewise, people tend to treat you like a dumbass if you don’t know much about a certain subject, especially if you’re willing to admit to it. They don’t care if they can give you three basic facts and you can figure the rest out by logical deduction.
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, and is easily treatable once diagnosed (if one accepts the diagnosis). Stupidity is chronic, a lack of intelligence, and it can be managed, if the patient is willing to follow recommendations, but it can’t be cured except in rare cases.
But IQ is just a measurement, and its validity depends on the quality of the methods of assessment.
And… hate to say it, but there are a lot of people with 80-90 level IQ in the US. Many of them struggle with things like projecting forecasts, longterm planning. They are extremely vulnerable to these manipulative marketers.
While true about the vulnerability,
Did the IQ measurements change or something? I thought 100 was considered fairly intelligent, but lately I’ve seen multiple comments indicating that it’s a lukewarm average and anything less is unintelligent.
People use “room temperature IQ” as an insult, but I thought 70-80 was average and there’s really no need for concern until you get below 60.
Also, from what I can remember, IQ was calculated as some function of one’s “mental age” relative to their “actual age,” so it really doesn’t mean anything beyond one’s mid-twenties. It functioned mainly as an indicator of intellectual development among youths, relative to their peer group. And 80-90 would have meant you were above average…
Trump is probably around 80, for reference.
I agree with the criticisms below about methodology; IQ is ultimately a measure of how good you are at those particular tests. And multiple skillsets are tested. But it is valuable when you’re talking about general trends or having a concrete point of comparison (for example, a certain individual compared to the general population).
100 is ALWAYS average for IQ. That’s how it’s meant to be measured. That’s the peak of the bell curve. What is considered average might change over time if people in general get more or less intelligent, but the middle will always be 100.
That said, take any IQ bullshit you hear with a grain of salt. Because it’s bullshit.
For some reason I vaguely remember learning something different than that, but I could be remembering wrong or maybe what I learned was bullshit. Oh well.
But yeah, people tend to conflate intelligence with knowledge. You can find a really stupid person with a lot of knowledge on certain subjects, or a really smart person with little to no knowledge on some subjects.
Being able to identify one’s own lack of knowledge and intrinsic biases is an indicator of intelligence. But too many people treat the person who “knows a lot” (or seems to) as intelligent, even if they can’t apply that knowledge in novel ways or perform abstract analysis on the things they know.
Likewise, people tend to treat you like a dumbass if you don’t know much about a certain subject, especially if you’re willing to admit to it. They don’t care if they can give you three basic facts and you can figure the rest out by logical deduction.
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, and is easily treatable once diagnosed (if one accepts the diagnosis). Stupidity is chronic, a lack of intelligence, and it can be managed, if the patient is willing to follow recommendations, but it can’t be cured except in rare cases.
But IQ is just a measurement, and its validity depends on the quality of the methods of assessment.