105
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.
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.
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?"
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?
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.
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.
In any case, people should start viewing IQ testing as "cultural testing". We know it doesn't really capture "intelligence" but a western way of thinking about things. So basically some twins are more educated in western thinking than their siblings, and it has to do with their upbringing into the culture. Not surprised.
So ... what we've learned is that people with the same genetics will develop differently given different environments? Not exactly stop-the-presses news.
To the point where genetics is a rounding error is big news.
Yeah I hate when there are funded studies to tell us the obvious. NewsFlash: Eating double the recommended calories make people gain weight.
That's the whole premise of science though. To corroborate what we think is true with data. And more often than not it will turn out it wasn't even true in the first place.
Your example is actually a perfect example of that, because no, more calories doesn't make a person gain more weight necessarily. This was thought to be true in the fifties, but then scientists checked again. And today we* know that it is much more complex how the body handles calories and when it gains more weight.
* well scientists know. The public knowledge hasn't been updated since the fifties really...
Yeah, I know the details. I was being generalistic.
When I did power lifting I was probably eating 4000 calories a day and losing fat.
If I ate 4000 a day now though I would balloon up and be obese in no time.
The problem with the science world is they get paid for publishing, so sometimes nonsense studies are done.
By no means am I discounting science method.
But when I read full studies sometimes there are major flaws in the reasoning logic and it makes me irritated.
Yeah I hate when there are funded studies to tell us the obvious. NewsFlash: Eating double the recommended calories make people gain weight.
That's still wrong though and just because people get paid money for trying to gather data doesn't make it less valuable. Sure, the publishing system is utter bullshit, but the underlying scientific method applied is the same. So it doesn't really matter for the example at hand. So your previous comment has a major reasoning flaw as well...
Oh and btw the amount of recommended calories one should take in per day is total bullshit as well...
Portion of those studies disprove the obvious, which is why they keep trying.
I'm in general very skeptical of testing IQ.
This seems like an appropriate use of it. Not as a general intelligence score (which is useless), but as a way to compare the environmental factors between 2 individuals.
I disagree. The tests might indicate differences, but we cannot conclude its "major IQ differences". Because I don't think we can calculate the IQ, because that is not a single thing. It's like trying to put into scientific numbers how much you love a person.
Note: To get the difference between 2 individuals, you need some sort of overall score for both. So you compare two useless scores to get a more useless score that only shows differences. And get a wrong conclusion about the IQ and such.
You're still talking like IQ is this absolute immutable number that a person possesses, which is how it's been used but not how it should be. It only makes sense as a comparison score. It's like how we measure temperature. We define Celsius as water freezing at 0° and boiling at 100°, but that's only true at 1 earth atmosphere of pressure. Using the same scale, the boiling point of water on Pluto is -75°
Now measuring cognition is way more complex than measuring how wiggly atoms are (which is actually also very complex), but you need to have some kind of measurement to be able to compare things and be able to say anything of scientific consequence. Not saying it's a great measurement, but we don't have many to choose from and it does tell us something. Context can absolutely change scores and the goal should be to control for that as much as possible.
You’re still talking like IQ is this absolute immutable number that a person possesses
Wrong. It's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. You can't measure IQ, because it is not a single number you can compress to. IQ is a complex thing. And because you cannot measure it, you can't compare two individual's differences. It makes no sense to compare.
Measuring temperature can be done exactly. If water boils here or there does not matter, the measuring act of water temperature can be done exactly. Which we cannot say about the IQ of a human, because it is not something we can measure. We have to do tests, which are obviously flawed and incomplete, and then try to guess if the test works well or not. Basically an IQ becomes an opinion, not a fact we can measure like temperature of water. Your example with the water does not apply therefore cannot be used as an argument for or against an IQ test being useful.
I'm also arguing for that being wrong. I also said that it's more complex than temperature and didn't say it was an exact measurement (temperature isn't either, just closer). The example with the temperature goes like this.
Pseudoscience says that 90 IQ is stupid and water at -20°C is frozen. Science says those numbers don't make sense out of context. -20 is a gas when there's less pressure and 90 is extraordinary when the person previously scored 50.
To resay my final point from the previous comment. If we want to study cognitive ability, we need to measure it. IQ is a messy and imprecise measurement, but it's better than nothing.
Q is a messy and imprecise measurement, but it’s better than nothing.
I argue having wrong measurement (or something you think can be measured and compared to another humans IQ) is worse than nothing.
There are definitely many limitations to what IQ can tell us, and it absolutely cannot be used as a universal scale, but it is repeatable and has generated accurate predictions which is what science is all about. Not as accurate as predictions using temperature, but still useful. Including studies like this demonstrating that what we think of as intelligence is more nurture than nature. We can take the information with a grain of salt, it's still information.
but it is repeatable and has generated accurate predictions which is what science is all about.
No. If I program a program that equates 1+1=3 in a predictable manner, and many other wrong calculations, so we don't understand its inner workings. But still the prediction would be the same with this program. That does not mean its correct. IQ tests are not good indications of if someone is more intelligent than someone else. And no, they do not generate accurate predictions, that's not even what an IQ test is for.
You're displaying an ignorance on how science works. Repeatability and predictions are massively important to the scientific method.
And you keep misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I'm saying.
And I'm not saying that IQ tells you if someone is more intelligent than someone else. (it doesn't)
I fail to see how this is relevant to the article mentioned? I mean, IQ tests are reproducable, it's not like you will test significantly different now compared to a year ago.
My own experience is that you can get significantly different results when re-testing, even within a short time frame.
From what I remember about them, you will especially get different results if you test again within a short time span. After a year there should only be differences due to other circumstances, like stress or other stuff that influences the workings of the mind.
it's not like you will test significantly different now compared to a year ago.
It does. Simple but important things like sleep impact it hard.
I've had it assessed three times in a clinical context, and lowest was almost 10 points different than highest.
Isn't a standard deviation for IQ 20 points or so? If so, what you're saying is that you took a test 3 times and it gave pretty much the same results all three times.
That's like getting different blood pressure readings at different times and dismissing the validity of blood pressure tests. I and other people can raise blood pressure with a thought. That doesn't negate the value of the test, it just indicates one of its limitations.
Being reproducible does not mean the test is correct. I can reproducible do wrong math too.
And does that mean we should be skeptical of math tests too?
That's not the point. Math is well defined and can be checked outside of tests if it is wrong or false. We can't do that with IQ tests. But that is a separate issue. We have no way of knowing if the IQ tests are sufficient, because it includes more than "math". And are not well defined either.
Edit: The point is, something being reproducable does not mean its correct.
What's frustrating is that this seems like it could be twisted either way with respect to the real prize this research is after: the extent to which intelligence is genetic, or environmental. Am I wrong?
I feel like it's pretty blatantly saying that it's not genetic, how would you twist it the other way?
Because if different educations is the explanation for IQ differences, then that means that without external differences, the twins will have basically the same IQ. That makes it seem like, as long as you control other variables, twin IQ matches - what could cause that other than the fact they have the same genetics, now that other factors have been controlled away?
But like you said, this could also be interpreted as indicating that education is the "sole" or primary determiner of IQ. This is what I mean by the right way to interpret these results being unclear.
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2025
105 points (100.0% liked)
Science
14502 readers
63 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