Sort:  

I used to think that until I actually looked at the other statistics associated with it. There are outliers who refuse to fit into statistical prediction, I am one, but mostly they work quite well. Years ago I was convinced that all these tests are biased. Upon review, I found that general intelligence, or 'G' is the single most useful predictor of success in most aspects of life. Data is king, but statistics should not be used as a tool to limit the individual. Societally, it is a very good predictor of the ability to sustain comprehension and practice of liberty in the majority. Proliferation of criminal behavior jumps below 90, and goes higher as you go below 85. 130 makes a good engineer. There are all kinds of inferences that can be drawn. I'm not saying any IQ should be discriminated against, but for understanding generalities, it can be very illustrative. There is an amazing wealth of research material on the matter. With the increase in funding for brain science, in the last decade, the amount of data is becoming intimidating.

I used to think it was accurate back when I gobbled up everything my post secondary institution wanted to feed me. Just takes a little common sense to know that the IQ cannot measure all facets of intelligence.

IQ, obviously, cannot measure ALL facets of intelligence.. It is useful for generalities, such as which country to call home. I find it an excellent predictor of people who I find boring. There have been attempts to classify many types of genius. 'G' is still most useful. Functional intelligence can be improved.

Post secondary institutions have no hold on me. I am an incorrigible autodidact. If I have missed some huge subset of the data, I am all ears. More to the point, if you have some data on how I can much improve my life spending time with herds of people with 70 IQs, I should like to include it in my education. I think this is not a plausible likelihood.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.17
TRX 0.15
JST 0.028
BTC 58387.03
ETH 2359.14
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.37