IQ

Online IQ tests and such are pretty meaningless.

I've taken plenty of them over the years and even when you purposely get every question wrong, you still end up with a high IQ.

Online, EVERYONE has an IQ of 147.

In the real world, only 4% of the population over 130.

So take your online IQ and subtract 47 points. There's your IQ.

Cute - but mine was taken long ago by the Air Force.  Not that I disagree with you on your basic premise.

Thanks, Ok, I can't run or throw far EITHER. 

I think people become wary (and yes, occasionally insecure) when "intelligence" is mentioned because "intelligence" covers a lot of ground.

As I stated in your other thread, IQ test examine academic ability, not comprehension levels, or any other cognitive abilities. 

Intelligence, however, is not simply an academic experience or ability, it also consists of the abilities to rationalize, solve problems (ethical, situational, as well as academic problems), and/or the ability to think in the abstract, or "outside the box."

So while someone may score high in their academics, he or she may have no ability to think abstractly, or may not be able to rationalize, being only able to state only facts from their education, but not connecting the dots as to how such things apply to them, or our society. 

Then there are also different types of intelligence, such as "creative intelligence."  Sure, someone may be able to recite pi to the trillionth digit, they may not be able to create a new technique or category of art, or even tell the difference between the technique employed by Picasso, versus the technique employed by Hieronymus Bosch.

 So when intelligence is brought into the discussion, it can be in reference to a variety of things, differing from person to person, and create a situation in which there is resentment because only one area of "intelligence" is being compared, and perhaps that is the one area that person lacks, though they may excel in another area.

The one that I took had nothing to do with academic ability.  It was administered by the military to fairly young children.  And it had to do with the very things you say IQ tests have nothing to do with (cognitive abilities and comprehension levels not to mention spatial recognition.)  Not sure what IQ tests test today, but if it's only academic ability, that isn't really an IQ test in my book.

Which test were you administered, out of curiousity?

Not a clue.  I'm 46 now.  Apparently you have to have an IQ of 150 to remember details from 35+ years ago  All I recall is at the time they gave it to children to test the very things you were referring to - cognitive ability, comprehension.

I never did real well in school (well, I got mostly Bs without ever working at it) so it sure as hell didn't test academic ability

After doing some googling to try and spark my memory, it very well could have been a Stanford-Binet or derivation.  Not real sure though, but those tests look similar to what I'm referring to.

Back on the subject, I still can't say I understand the phenomena to which I was originally referring.

You can test this for yourself - tell a friend they suck at throwing a ball, then tell them they aren't that bright and see which of the two elicits the most outraged response.  9 of 10 it's the "bright" statement (unless they're REAL good at throwing a ball, but even then, they'll just think you a fool and blow it off.)

Question someone on a forum about the content of their argument, and you may enter into some lively debate on the subject.  Correct their grammar, and watch what happens now.

Perhaps you have heard of the theory of multiple intelligences?

It is a theory based on the idea that there are more types of intelligence than just cognitive abilites in regards to academics, or comprehension and application of facts.

Based on that theory, an IQ tests scientific value is very questionable.

That theory is from what I draw my point. 

Intelligence covers many areas, and so referring to it by just an IQ number does insinuate that people are stupid, because not all of those areas are covered in an IQ test.  In fact, various IQ tests cover different things.  There are IQ tests that have questions on popular culture. (I would fail, haha.)  By and large, IQ tests are subjective.

That may be where those that are offended are coming from.

That reaction might also be reminscent of our eugenic practices, or some subconcious fear that varying levels of intelligence will lead to some sort of fuedal system.  It's happened before, based on race (and somewhat with intelligence), and it could happen again.

Why judge someone on something that they can't help?

Indeed.  It seems Da Vinci was the genius on the most different levels.  Can't remember where I read that, so it could be wrong.  But yes, I am quite familiar with the concept of multiple different kinds of intelligences.

It has to do with confidence in decisions made.  I've made this point ad nauseum, and no one likes it.  Shrug, no surprise here.  Let's hypothesize that there is a brand of intelligence called "Medical Intelligence."  Geniuses of this category are better suited to diagnose your ailments than non-geniuses, no?  That's exactly the kind of thing I'm driving at.  So I suppose you, having two doctors to choose from, won't choose the more intelligent one to diagnose your ills because the less intelligent one "can't help it?"  

When the Fudpucker Molerats hire a new QB for their NFL franchise, they judge him on all of his objective statistics in high school and college careers.  If his stats are good, they pick him in the draft.  If his stats are not, they do not pick him.  They are judging an objective quantity.  Why would they judge his competitors with lesser stats on something they can't help?  Even you show the bias I am referring to with the statement quoted.  Why should people NOT be judged on their intelligence?  And mind you, I'm not talking about getting in the weeds with various types of intelligence.  I'm talking about good old common knowledge, common skill level intelligence.  Can he/she read or write well?  Oh they can't?  Oh well, they might be a creative genius, not a writing genius, so we shouldn't judge them - they can't help it.  Horsehockey.

Tsk, that isn't what I said.  You had my point in your first paragraph.  Compare the creative's to the creative's, the writers to the writers, etc.  That is basically what we do to a degree now anyway.  Would just be more "scientific".

It could lead to better doctors, teachers, etc.

Or it could lead to a community similar to the one that Lois Lowry present in The Giver.

Is it?

http://www.americanidol.com/

Haha, point taken.  Reality TV (not so real) aside, however, yes it does tend to be what we do.  (Though only on a personal level, not a societal one.)

If you think your doctor has less abilities than another one, you will ditch said doctor (assuming insurance isn't an issue), and go with the better one.

If you believe that one artist is better than another, you will go support him. 

If you believe one writer creates a better story, than another one, you will buy that authors book.

On a societal level, it quickly gets to the point that it can be easily abused.  Do we start dictating that everyone with great "creative intelligence" does something in that career field, instead of becoming a CEO?  All those that have scientific intelligence must enter the field of science? 

Say we somehow develop a way to measure each state of intelligence, as you have mentioned you would like; what is to be gained from it?

Better informed choices?  Only if our doctors or teachers are required to tell us their IQ (which gets into the gray area of "rights"). 

Perhaps, but there's a precedent.  In California, at least, you can offer a million dollars for a house, but if it doesn't appraise for that, no one can write the loan.  By LAW.  I see a similarity in this.  The value of the house is an objective value based on all the things appraisers have to take into consideration.  Asking price > than appraised value?  No sale.

Perhaps it is lack of sleep, but I am missing the connection here...

Speak slowly, and in dumb blonde terms... 

I'd be just as happy if their class grades were public knowledge.  It isn't a catch all - some people aren't great with school, but they are fine at what they do.  Still, it would be a starting point.

Oh, forgot to explain the house thing.

In California, you can not get a loan for a house for more than it appraises for.  It's against the law - can't be done.  You CAN pay more, but if you do so, the difference comes straight out of your pocket in cold hard cash.

So in this metaphor, the house = the doctor.  When objectively appraised, the doctor has an exact value just like the house does.  If he's great, he should be able to charge an amount commensurate with his ability.  If he isn't so great, he should only be able to charge according to his ability.

The problem comes when you decide on how to appraise the doctor.  Instead of being objective about intelligence, something we're not able to really do, currently, because the subject is so taboo due to people's collective insecurity, we allow lots of wishy washy subjective judgements about intelligence.  I would like intelligence to be studied deeply and for objective benchmarks to be made a reality so that we no longer have to guess who REALLY has a clue and who is just a bullshit artist.

We do this with houses.  Why not Doctors?  Musicians?  Lawyers!

The obvious answer?  Because houses don't have emotions, or rights,

I think your process would def. be logical, but only as a beginning.  You would have to factor in education, and specific medical field.  (In regards to doctors.)  You wouldn't want to go to a doctor with high intelligence, but limited education. 

Again, it's getting into dangerous territory when you are limiting how much someone can be paid (therefore how someone can live) because of their intelligence, which is not something that any one person can help.

Intelligence is a natural trait, much like skin color, though it can be enhanced to a degree.  However, when it comes to deciding how someone lives because of a trait that they can't help, you reach into the realm of discrimination.

Regarding your argument about athletics and intelligence being compared, I see a parallel, but a difference at the same time.  Can we develop our brains to the same extent we can our bodies?  Yes, to a degree, but enough to overcome our natural intelligence limits?  That I don't know, and I do think it should be studied more.

Maybe I can take another tack at this.

I love Kobe Bryant.  Awesome player.  He just declined to opt out of the last two years of his contract with the LA Lakers, and instead is signing a 3 year extension for....*drumroll*....97 Fucking Million dollars.  To do an activity many of us do for fun with friends on the weekend.  (Albeit, he does it much better than we do)

Meanwhile, some researcher that still has 100,000 in student loan debt is toiling away in a laboratory trying to cure cancer for 80,000 a year.

Americas puts agility and strength on a pedestal and worships it, but brains go in the backseat with the wadded up burger king wrappers.  Something is wrong.

I think intelligence, and moreso high intelligence, needs to be more greatly appreciated.  No one is going to live a longer life or a higher quality life because Kobe threw up a triple double in game 7 of the finals. 

I have and I am certain it is true.  There are certainly people out there who are smart, but bad at taking tests (they just work slower, for example - big baddie on tests).  There are people who are smart but do really, really stupid things (un-common sense).  There are people who are creative and great artists/musicians who can't do a simple algebra problem, and others who are mathematical geniuses but can't hold a paintbrush or strum a guitar (left/right brain).

As for the original point made, I believe the reason that intelligence statements offend people more is that it can't be improved much.  Unlike physical activities that you can get better at with practice, intelligence doesn't come with practice; you either have it or you don't.

I believe people are insecure because everyone wants everyone to believe they have that intellect.  No one wants to be thought of as stupid.

I completely agree.  It could be denial, to an extent, a trying to avoid the existence of something which can't be obtained.  We are generally much more willing to watch any of the various sports on TV than Jeopardy.  (Though maybe it is because Jeopardy is just boring to watch?  On the other hand, people do watch Wheel of Fortune...)

I don't agree with this, at least, not all of it.

We don't know how much intelligence comes from our DNA, and how much comes from our environment/education.  I am sure there are effects of both in all of us, but to different degrees.  Along those lines, just as the bicep is a muscle, so is the brain, and it can be worked, and trained, just as any other muscles.  That can improve parts of "intelligence," I am sure, even if not all of it.