There is a lot of data on this question, and it flatly contradicts Asimov's claims. IQ scores correlate not only with academic performance but also with job performance as well as others' intuitive impression of how "smart" a person is. That's why the army gives intelligence tests to new recruits: high-IQ soldiers (and mechanics and carpenters) do better, on average, than their low-IQ counterparts. Other types of tests, such as the hypothetical test devised by Asimov's mechanic, either have no predictive power or are predictive only as far as they correlate with g, or general intelligence, which is currently best measured by IQ tests. The physiological basis of g is unknown, but it is highly heritable and correlates with a number of physical variables such as brain volume and myelination.
If you want to learn more about the subject, I suggest this book, which concisely disposes of these and other popular anti-IQ arguments:
indeed newer and better books than shown on the link I have just shared. One I particularly like, from a mainstream psychologist of considerable experience, is What Intelligence Tests Miss by Keith R. Stanovich.
Stanovich includes a huge number of citations to current scholarly literature in his book, and amply makes the case that many important cognitive functions that make up "rationality" are missed by current IQ tests.
Performance involves achieving goals, which obviously takes intelligence. However, I believe that as your intelligence grows you stop seeing what you are doing in a narrow fashion and tend to think more in terms of systems and many goals that are interrelated. When that happens, you will not optimize for one goal but for many. Someone with less intelligence may outperform you on a measure of one specific goal, but you will outperform overall (overall meaning not at your job, but at your life). So performance has its limitations as a measurement for intelligence.
> others' intuitive impression of how "smart" a person is
This only works for those somewhat close to the mean. People who would be many standard deviations above the mean may be so intelligent that their intelligence would be mistaken for foolishness or others may not be well equipped to measure it.
Last time I checked the data supporting the "IQ is good" had some horrendous lack of statistical information, the same applies to the "IQ is bad" people.
Their papers lack to understand where statistical significance fits in inference which they use, abusing the scope of validity, but I did not read much of them (5 from "IQ is good" and 6 from "IQ is bad"), by the way I understand nothing about biology, being not my area of interest I cannot criticize these papers on these grounds, I only think that's very strange that both sides do not construct their arguments using neuroscience.
While this is a fantastic article, I kind of want to disagree with some of the points listed.
IQ tests are standardized in a way that you don't need to be a scholar or academic to know how to solve and/or answer the questions.
Look at it this way, in my opinion, the standard IQ tests of today are moreso a test of how quickly you can learn or adapt and solve, rather than of what knowledge you have.
For example, I bet that a PhD candidate (or just a "genious") would have much less difficulty learning about the insides of a car and how to fix it, than a mechanic would have in getting his PhD or equivalent to that level of knowledge
I find that people with higher than average IQs have more work ethic and learn much more quickly than people who have below average IQs, and I don't think this is a purely coincidental thing.
I disagree with the work ethic point, but I do think it's interesting and instead of both of us speculating would love to see some actual data.
There are a ton of dumbass people out there chugging away at grinding jobs to stay alive, and a ton of brilliant people sitting at their desks reading hacker news (not to imply that I'm brilliant; it's the rest of you I mean).
in my opinion, the standard IQ tests of today are moreso a test of how quickly you can learn or adapt and solve, rather than of what knowledge you have.
Your opinion is mistaken in part. Most IQ tests include items that are explicitly based on learned knowledge, and all are embedded in a cultural context. See IQ testing 101 by Alan S. Kaufman (the author of several IQ tests)
It's interesting that that "quotation" from Albert Einstein, a sentiment I would love to attribute to him, because it encapsulates an idea I share about the importance of creativity, seems never to be traced to one of Einstein's actual writings. Has anyone ever checked the latest edition of Quotable Einstein
to see if that is a genuine Einstein quotation? In the English-speaking world, Einstein is second only to Mark Twain in having sayings attributed to him that he never said.
No single thing is a "true sign of intelligence", that is to ignore the mutual interdependence of things. You can't have imagination without any knowledge.
If its his point to claim that intelligence tests are bunk, I'd quibble with the declaration that any person, or even any academic, could make an 'intelligence test' pertaining to their particular field: that's not a test of intelligence, but of mastery, though how quickly one can master, and how widely they can apply that mastery may well be a test of intelligence.
Are intelligence tests tests of mastery in a field? I'd claim not, and I'd go on to claim that they're built by people who study intelligence, without the intention of testing a person's knowledge, as Asmiov claims such tests do.
I think it is a good point that there are different kinds of aptitudes, but I also think this point should be kept in perspective. I think it is misguided when people speak dismissively of IQ, SATs and the like, saying things like "well, all that proves is that you're good at taking those kinds of tests." (I'm not saying the article does this, but I do hear this rather frequently - ironically, usually from people with high IQs. Privilege Guilt?) There is no reason to be dismissive of the immense power of the type of intelligence that handles symbol/abstraction manipulation, particularly in technology.
I believe that the problem alluded to in this essay is not so much with the relationship between IQ tests and the value of abstract thinking, but rather the hegemony of such thinking in the modern world. Technical thinking is lauded in a society where production is the dominant measurement of value. This contributes to bias towards a certain type of cerebral intelligence.
Probably. Another factor could be that successful high-IQ people want to claim that their success is mainly due to "chosen" traits like perseverance, rather than lucky genes and/or environmental factors.
Beyond Privilege Guilt, there's a case that people are a great deal more complicated than just a few character stats. High IQ is often taken as a declaration that an individual will succeed, and indeed, on the average, it is, but the average implies a large group, not a specific person.
I'm trying (and doing it poorly) to express that Intelligence isn't the only thing in a person which defines their lives...but even given the static, it will very likely affect the aggregate.
you can't measure "intelligence" because there is no common definition for it. its a vague term which doesn't map to a single real world phenomenon directly, (e.g. brightness, heaviness, speed etc.) but its a derived value, which maps to a multitude of other derived values (comprehension, reasoning etc.) which are themselves difficult to define and measure. i don't know if a concrete definition would help anyway... i'm sure people would disagree because whatever it would be would conflict with their personal views of intelligence.
[+] [-] rkts|16 years ago|reply
If you want to learn more about the subject, I suggest this book, which concisely disposes of these and other popular anti-IQ arguments:
http://www.amazon.com/Question-Intelligence-IQ-Debate-Americ...
[+] [-] tokenadult|16 years ago|reply
http://learninfreedom.org/iqbooks.html
indeed newer and better books than shown on the link I have just shared. One I particularly like, from a mainstream psychologist of considerable experience, is What Intelligence Tests Miss by Keith R. Stanovich.
http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=97803001238...
http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psycholog...
Stanovich includes a huge number of citations to current scholarly literature in his book, and amply makes the case that many important cognitive functions that make up "rationality" are missed by current IQ tests.
[+] [-] techiferous|16 years ago|reply
> job performance
Performance involves achieving goals, which obviously takes intelligence. However, I believe that as your intelligence grows you stop seeing what you are doing in a narrow fashion and tend to think more in terms of systems and many goals that are interrelated. When that happens, you will not optimize for one goal but for many. Someone with less intelligence may outperform you on a measure of one specific goal, but you will outperform overall (overall meaning not at your job, but at your life). So performance has its limitations as a measurement for intelligence.
> others' intuitive impression of how "smart" a person is
This only works for those somewhat close to the mean. People who would be many standard deviations above the mean may be so intelligent that their intelligence would be mistaken for foolishness or others may not be well equipped to measure it.
[+] [-] zppx|16 years ago|reply
Their papers lack to understand where statistical significance fits in inference which they use, abusing the scope of validity, but I did not read much of them (5 from "IQ is good" and 6 from "IQ is bad"), by the way I understand nothing about biology, being not my area of interest I cannot criticize these papers on these grounds, I only think that's very strange that both sides do not construct their arguments using neuroscience.
[+] [-] jamesseda|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlgosse|16 years ago|reply
IQ tests are standardized in a way that you don't need to be a scholar or academic to know how to solve and/or answer the questions.
Look at it this way, in my opinion, the standard IQ tests of today are moreso a test of how quickly you can learn or adapt and solve, rather than of what knowledge you have.
For example, I bet that a PhD candidate (or just a "genious") would have much less difficulty learning about the insides of a car and how to fix it, than a mechanic would have in getting his PhD or equivalent to that level of knowledge
I find that people with higher than average IQs have more work ethic and learn much more quickly than people who have below average IQs, and I don't think this is a purely coincidental thing.
[+] [-] rdrimmie|16 years ago|reply
There are a ton of dumbass people out there chugging away at grinding jobs to stay alive, and a ton of brilliant people sitting at their desks reading hacker news (not to imply that I'm brilliant; it's the rest of you I mean).
[+] [-] tokenadult|16 years ago|reply
Your opinion is mistaken in part. Most IQ tests include items that are explicitly based on learned knowledge, and all are embedded in a cultural context. See IQ testing 101 by Alan S. Kaufman (the author of several IQ tests)
http://www.springerpub.com/product/9780826106292
http://www.amazon.com/IQ-Testing-101-Psych/dp/0826106293
for more information on item content of IQ tests and corrections of many common misconceptions about IQ testing.
[+] [-] jim_dot|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gvb|16 years ago|reply
— Albert Einstein http://quotationsbook.com/quote/21310/
(and Isaac Asimov had a lot of imagination)
[+] [-] tokenadult|16 years ago|reply
http://www.amazon.com/New-Quotable-Einstein-Alice-Calaprice/...
(I have checked the preceding edition)
http://www.amazon.com/Quotable-Einstein-Albert/dp/0691026963...
to see if that is a genuine Einstein quotation? In the English-speaking world, Einstein is second only to Mark Twain in having sayings attributed to him that he never said.
http://www.amazon.com/Quote-Sleuth-Manual-Tracer-Quotations/...
[+] [-] angstrom|16 years ago|reply
If you can imagine the outcome of your decisions you can avoid the suffering/regret of unfulfilled dreams, failed relationships, and misspent youth.
[+] [-] warfangle|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] itistoday|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Unseelie|16 years ago|reply
Are intelligence tests tests of mastery in a field? I'd claim not, and I'd go on to claim that they're built by people who study intelligence, without the intention of testing a person's knowledge, as Asmiov claims such tests do.
[+] [-] andywood|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hoprocker|16 years ago|reply
I actually just watched a TED talk on a related note, in which Ken Robinson discusses intelligence bias: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_...
[+] [-] orangecat|16 years ago|reply
Probably. Another factor could be that successful high-IQ people want to claim that their success is mainly due to "chosen" traits like perseverance, rather than lucky genes and/or environmental factors.
[+] [-] Unseelie|16 years ago|reply
I'm trying (and doing it poorly) to express that Intelligence isn't the only thing in a person which defines their lives...but even given the static, it will very likely affect the aggregate.
[+] [-] jheriko|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomlin|16 years ago|reply
The fact that a few extra hours of sleep or a big cup of coffee can completely sway the results renders IQ scores almost irrelevant, IMHO.
Great intelligence can be simple. Like caring for others, making informed decisions, asking why, etc.
[+] [-] confuzatron|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Heston|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] losethos|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]