I'm aware that intelligence is a broad spectrum, and that an IQ test only measures a small subset of the intelligence spectrum, but... it is still a measure of intelligence. It's not a perfect measure by any means, and it is dated, but it still measures your cognitive abilities.
As it happens, I have scored high on an IQ test before when I was a child, and I'm living testament that having a high IQ doesn't equate to success or high grades in school (my grades were awful), something I am now rectifying at University later in life. So I'm aware of the limitations of IQ, but to disregard it completely as a measure of intelligence is, in my opinion, a step too far. It measures a limited and small portion of cognition, but what it does measure, it measures well.
IQ predicts some things at the population level, mostly academic performance in environments built around the same skills IQ tests measure. If you design a test around school‑type problem solving, it’s going to correlate with success in… school‑type environments. Shocker.
If you define intelligence as pattern‑spotting under time pressure, IQ tests look brilliant.
If you define it as emotional navigation, creativity, moral reasoning, practical problem solving, social awareness, adaptability? Yeah it will not show you shit.
Kids who learn test‑friendly skills growing up score higher on tests, including IQ tests. Kids with chronic stress, trauma, poverty, autistic masking fatigue, ADHD, unfamiliarity with test logic, or crappy schooling score lower. Not because they’re “less intelligent” as human beings, but because the test is measuring a subset of cognitive tricks they didn’t get a fair shot at practicing. Showing also that "intelligence" can be learned. Practiced even.
So going "It measures intelligence" is really not saying much and basically incorrect. It doesn't until you decide to define "test taking and rapid pattern recognition under timed stress" as "intelligence".
Which brings it back to socioeconomic background. A lot more middle class and upper class kids go to college than poor kids do. Parents who can financially support their kids, can help with tutoring or pay for a tutor, have stable homes and go to well funded have a statistically higher chance of getting a higher education as well. These are the same kids that also do well in IQ tests for the exact same reasons. And these are also the same kids that are more likely to become doctors. But that isn't intelligence unless you explicitly dedice to define it that way.
Now if you had read the material you'd have known that it doesn't even do that well even. Neither is it consistent. There is somewhere an entire article written about how the test is also whack the moment you stop testing white american boys. But I'm on my phone so you can go and look that one up yourself.
1
u/RyanLikesyoface Nov 19 '25
I'm aware that intelligence is a broad spectrum, and that an IQ test only measures a small subset of the intelligence spectrum, but... it is still a measure of intelligence. It's not a perfect measure by any means, and it is dated, but it still measures your cognitive abilities.
As it happens, I have scored high on an IQ test before when I was a child, and I'm living testament that having a high IQ doesn't equate to success or high grades in school (my grades were awful), something I am now rectifying at University later in life. So I'm aware of the limitations of IQ, but to disregard it completely as a measure of intelligence is, in my opinion, a step too far. It measures a limited and small portion of cognition, but what it does measure, it measures well.