It’s not a terrible metric if it’s used as it was initially intended. IQ was supposed to be a benchmark to show where you’re at, like weighing yourself on a scale. Then you’re supposed to take measures to improve it. It was never meant to be a defining attribute or a contest. Bragging about having a higher IQ than someone makes as much sense as bragging about how much skinnier you are than someone else. Bragging about having a 135 IQ makes as much sense as bragging about weighing 135 lbs.
you’re supposednto take measures to improce it
uhmm? No? As far as I understand IQ tests actively attempt to make harder to get better at them, of course thats a futile goal and as the SAT showed any test can and will be game’d and SAT promptly gave up on that
in a world full of unregulated ego, nearly everything is used as a basis for a comparison toward the inferiority/superiority dynamic. Someone’s aggregate score for processing information is as valid as anything else.
It’s the habit of a weak mind, to be doing that.
dgdft@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Where are you getting this from?
Galton was a eugenicist who thought intelligence was baked into one’s bloodline, Spearman’s entire career was that the g-factor was a relatively immutable cross-domain constant, Binet was measuring skulls phrenology style, etc.