>If that were true, then why are they not administered to every child?

We've never had a good understanding of what intelligence is, let alone a good test for it. We didn't even realize that until recently.

>I highly doubt adults at a company have hidden potential that is unknown

I think you'd be surprised how economic status can take a brilliant mind and squash it, or a rigid society can take a uniquely thoughtful mind and squash it

>Do you really believe we should be awarding scholarships for meritless human attributes?

You should see how easy it is to get a basketball scholarship if you're over 7 feet tall. And for good reason.

>it's like eye color, skin color, etc.. There isn't a damn thing one can do to change it (positively)

Can't make tall people grow more either. 7' people still have a much easier time with the sport than anyone else.

I guess I don't understand why you think we shouldn't be able to discriminate based on the brain? Should we just waste this wonderful natural gift in the name of fairness? Sounds like more of that "it's more important to do no harm than to do good" garbage.

▲

hirvi74 a day ago | parent [-]

> We didn't even realize that until recently.

How recent? IQ tests have been around for over 100 years.

> I think you'd be surprised how economic status can take a brilliant mind and squash it, or a rigid society can take a uniquely thoughtful mind and squash it

I do not disagree with this premise, but how would knowing an IQ score materially affect this? People aren't awarded medical degrees, doctorates of law, etc. by IQ alone. One still needs to put forth the effort and motivation to succeed. One's IQ has little predictability when it comes to stress tolerance, motivation, conscientiousness, etc..

> You should see how easy it is to get a basketball scholarship if you're over 7 feet tall. And for good reason.

How easy is it? How many people are even over 7ft to begin with? I'm not certain the number is large enough to truly make a difference. Also, I believe academic scholarships should not be awarded for athletics in the first place, but that is a different discussion.

> Can't make tall people grow more either.

Lionel Messi would disagree. There are also other methods like limb lengthening surgery, which I would strongly not recommend lol.

> much easier time with the sport

True, but easier != better. In some cases, it may though.

> Should we just waste this wonderful natural gift in the name of fairness?

Not putting people on a pedestal does not equate to wasting their gift. I believe we should treat the exceptional as normal until they are able to self-actualize. History presents us with a graveyard of childhood prodigies that never amounted to anything in adulthood. After all, the candle that burns twice as bright burns twice as fast.

I have asked this throughout this thread, and no one has given me an answer. When people mention 'gifts' people tend to talk about proclivities in typically one domain.

Take Von Neumann, for example. He was a mathematical god-like being, but he was not exceptional in musical abilities, art, athletics, etc.. He was allegedly able to multiple/divide two eight-digit numbers in his head at the age of 6. I will ask my question once again: what could IQ test tell us about Von Neumann (which he never took) that we did not already know? Terrance Tao, Einstein, etc.. didn't either. Do you believe they turned out alright?

What about Feynman that allegedly scored worse than his sister (125 vs. 128)? Most gifted programs that require an IQ assessment usually require an IQ >= 130. That would mean Feynman would have passed over. Which is precisely my point -- there are a lot of people that do not fit the mold that would be passed over because of some arbitrary point of datum.

Lewis Terman also tried this same experiment which took place over decades. None of his "Termites" (his group of 1000s of +130 IQ children) became anything remotely noteworthy. Two children excluded for being too unintelligent won Nobel Prizes in separate fields.

No matter what IQ is, one thing is clear -- it ain't everything.

▲

kulahan 20 hours ago | parent [-]

I think you may have a different idea of what IQ is than me. I’m simply interested in some way to consider the raw horsepower of a given brain. But it seems like an odd question to leave unanswered, even if you don’t see any benefit to it immediately. Scientists aren’t inherently trying to answer the most useful questions, just the ones they find interesting enough to research.

And hell, maybe it’ll have the opposite effect. Maybe we’ll find that absolute raw horsepower is a worthless metric, because intelligence is simply too complex multifaceted, or maybe it’ll simply turn out to be like BMI, where it’s only applicable to populations of sufficient size. Who knows?

For all I know, true horsepower is the rate at which you form new connections, or the amount of working memory you have, or the efficiency of your brain (less activity for similar tasks).

But that being said, the brain is just the engine. I don’t disagree that the driver makes or breaks it. Of course things like grit and training and emotional stability and socioeconomic status and… matter just as much in terms of how well we can use that engine/brain.

Edit: oh, and to answer your question, I think it was a study in 2012 in Neuron(?) that was considered the death knell for the IQ test as we see it today.

I should also mention that in a perfect world, this test would be more physical than mental - brain scans and metabolic charts or something like that.

▲

hirvi74 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> I think you may have a different idea of what IQ is than me. I’m simply interested in some way to consider the raw horsepower of a given brain.

Entirely possible, and if that is all you want to use the metric for, then I have no qualms with that. I just get very leery about using the metrics for policy. In my state, for example, IQ <= 69 immune from death penalty and an IQ >= 70 makes one eligible (assuming a 1st degree murder conviction). I know there has to be a cut-off somewhere, but I do not think the tests are accurate enough to demonstrate a large difference between scores in that range (same on the other tail end too).

> Scientists aren’t inherently trying to answer the most useful questions, just the ones they find interesting enough to research.

Fair enough.

> intelligence is simply too complex multifaceted, or maybe it’ll simply turn out to be like BMI, where it’s only applicable to populations of sufficient size.

I still hold such views despite reading plenty of the research. IQ certainly measures something, but I am not entirely certain we fully understand what we are looking it. Plenty of low/moderate correlates. From what I can honestly tell, it appears that IQ is a great predictor at the speed of which one learns, but coincidentally, that does not predict domain mastery.

For example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602... (Though, I do not agree the finds are "significant" -- those r^2 are brutal)

> Of course things like grit and training and emotional stability and socioeconomic status and… matter just as much in terms of how well we can use that engine/brain.

Well, thank you for being rational. It's quite rare these days.

> I think it was a study in 2012 in Neuron(?) that was considered the death knell for the IQ test as we see it today.

Ah! I know which one your talking about. Yes, that was a blow, but I think the field is chugging along just fine.

> this test would be more physical than mental

I have once considered how awesome this would be too. I think Sternberg, a field-famous psychologist, is working on something physical, albeit not in this realm. I believe he wants to create some kind obstacle course/escape room like measurement, if I am not mistaken. I was pay-walled a while back, so I couldn't quite tell what the paper was fully about.

	▲	kulahan 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The study sounds fascinating, I'll look it up. Thanks for the chat, this was enjoyable.