105
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2025
105 points (100.0% liked)
Science
14502 readers
73 users here now
Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Can't believe IQ is still a thing or taken seriously.
This is actually the exact, singular purpose IQ is good for, and what it was initially created to do. It's definitely overused in society, but when you're trying to test a student to see how well their existing classwork has prepared them, it's a fine measure to use.
The idea that “IQ shouldn’t be taken seriously anymore” mostly comes from a misunderstanding of what IQ actually measures, not from any flaw in the science itself. It’s one of the most studied and replicated findings in all of psychology, and it strongly correlates with things like learning speed, academic performance, and even long-term health outcomes. It also survived the replication crisis better than nearly any other psychological measure and remains one of the most robust measures in behavioral science. The issue isn’t that IQ tests are unreliable - it’s that people often misinterpret what the scores mean. They don’t measure creativity, emotional depth, or moral worth - they simply measure a person’s ability to reason and solve problems relative to others.
The frequent misunderstanding of what IQ means probably arises due to the vagueness of the term. "Intelligence quotient" is very non-specific, despite IQ measuring a very specific kind of intelligence. I wouldn't even say IQ measures "a person's ability to reason and solve problems relative to others." The problems found on an IQ test are of a very specific nature. "Complete the following number sequence", "Which of these shapes doesn't belong", etc.
A problem that won't be found on an IQ test is: "Jeff believes his manager has made an inappropriate remark toward one of his colleagues. What should he do?" This is a problem that needs a solution, but isn't within the purview of IQ measuring. You mentioned that IQ tests don't measure things like emotional depth, which is true, but emotional depth (or emotional intelligence) is still intelligence, so the term "intelligence quotient" only referring to certain kinds of intelligence seems like it will naturally be misunderstood by the masses.
I guess my takeaway is that the term "IQ" could use re-branding to avoid this problem.
Tell us you don't know your EQ from your IQ.
Does the scenario you provided even measure emotional intelligence? I feel like it measires confidence and willingness to confront someone, neither of which feel particularly related to emotional intelligence.
Also, to be frank, I don't think many people consider the ability to revognize the emotions of others and to empathize as "intelligent". A blind person isn't unintelligent because they cannot see, so why would you use the term emotionally unintelligent for a person that is blind with regards to recognizing emotions?
I wasn't suggesting that particular example was for emotional intelligence; it was just an example of a kind of problem solving that isn't covered under IQ. It was a segue into the adjacent topic of emotional intelligence.
IQ is not a completely useless metric. Yes it has its flaws and definitely shouldn't be used as an absolute scale of intelligence, but it can be useful to compare individuals and trends if used in the right context. We don't have many ways to test cognitive function.