Adam Ruins Everything - Why IQ Tests Are Bunk | truTV

IQ tests are deeply biased, controversial tools that might not predict our intelligence at all.
SUBSCRIBE to get the latest truTV content: bit.ly/truTVSubscribe
Check out videos from Impractical Jokers: bit.ly/IJTruTV
Check out videos from Billy On The Street: bit.ly/BillyOnTheStreet
Check out videos from Adam Ruins Everything: bit.ly/ARETruTV
Check out videos from The Carbonaro Effect: bit.ly/TheCarbonaroEffect
Check out videos from Comedy Knockout: bit.ly/ComedyKnockout
Check out videos from Hack My Life: Inside Hacks: bit.ly/HackMyLife
Check out videos from Talk Show The Game Show: bit.ly/TalkShowTheGameShow
Check out videos from Upscale with Prentice Penny: bit.ly/UpscaleWithPrenticePenny
See more from truTV: bit.ly/FunnyBecauseItsTRU
Like truTV on Facebook: bit.ly/truTVFacebook
Follow truTV on Twitter: bit.ly/truTVTweets
Follow truTV on Instagram: bit.ly/truTVInsta
About truTV:
Seen across multiple platforms in 90 million households, truTV delivers a fresh and unexpected take on comedy with such popular original series as Impractical Jokers, Billy on the Street, The Carbonaro Effect, Adam Ruins Everything, Hack My Life and Fameless, as well as the original scripted comedy Those Who Can’t. The fun doesn’t stop there. truTV is also a partner in airing the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Championship.
Adam Ruins Everything - Why IQ Tests Are Bunk | truTV
bit.ly/truTVSubscribe

[@bigboxaleks9905]

'the only thing IQ tests tell you, is how good you are at IQ tests'. pretty much the same as what tests in school tell you then

[@Tespri]

Also what 100 meters running test tells you about your skills running the 100 meters ;)

[@dirtyharry1881]

Yes. A test in math tells you how good you're (in that particular moment) in math. Contrary to math, there is no clear or practically applicable definition of intelligence that can fit to a test.

[@hyrekandragon2665]

Modern IQ tests measure how good you are recognising patterns, problem solving, and just over all aptitude for learning and are actually legitimate in that sense. As for colloquial intelligence, the one we refer to in casual conversation , there is no test for it.

[@joshuacook2]

dirty harry1881 Sure, but the correlation between different kinds of intelligence is so high that distinguishing them doesn't help us gain much information.

[@Tespri]

+dirty harry1881 Expect there is. IQ test are problem solving tests. And those tests correlate perfectly with actually intelligent people. That is why you won't find nobel winners who's IQ is lower than average. I know you hate the idea that some people might actually be smarter than you and that you can never be as smart as they. But that is reality.

[@loganbutler9064]

I've never taken an IQ test like that all the ones I've taken revolve around solving pattern problems.

[@regularname1825]

Yeah i took one years ago (Not online but in an actual hospital for reasons i would not like to disclose) Yeah it is pattern recognition and quick pattern solving Its more of a speed test You have a limited time frame to solve pattern based problems So yeah its good to measure pattern recognition It has no practical use oncehowever tho

[@fixafix69]

This is because this video is definitely half bs and half biased stuff. Just because it was shitty when it was created doesn't mean it is now

[@JesusIsLordKH]

@@fixafix69 Shut up

[@JesusIsLordKH]

@@fixafix69 Modern IQ test like the Wexler Adult Intelligence score, and the woodcock Johnson test of cognitive ability actually do perform a valuable function in identifying areas of strength and weakness, and learning disabilities. However, they do not really quantify intelligence.

[@popcornsniper]

@@JesusIsLordKH You copy-pasted a comment? Really?

[@Mr.-Roybot]

I like when Emily is the Adam.

[@GrayebP]

Yeah

[@soaringsquid0.129]

I like when there is an Adam at all

[@ExTwigg]

Why can't we just agree that intelligence is so expansive it's full capacity can't be captured within a test

[@HipHopAn0n]

What's the point? IQ is the best standardized predictor of intelligence we have - you're not going to find any idiots out there scoring 140 and you're not going to find any geniuses scoring 70......

[@kodaxmax]

its not standardised at all though. It assumes alot of knowledge. For example if you wern't taught basic math and reading comprehension you will likely fail 100% of the test.

[@oppomirror5645]

Granville Pullen maybe not but it can be estimated to a certain degree and this test helps to estimate intelligence

[@kodaxmax]

Humans cant even define let alone agree on what exactly intelligence is. We can try and find out someones comprehension and or skill at specific tasks though. A math test for example is specifically to confirm there understanding of the things they were taught in class.

[@AlleyCatAlex]

kodaxmax This^^

[@roboticdreamer]

And the thing is, people tend to take IQ tests seriously, and feel bad if their score isn't high enough. I remember there was this "test your IQ" thing on TV that my family chose to do for fun, but it stressed me out because I needed a good score. If I new this when we took the test, it would have been the fun activity my parents decided to do with us, not pressuring me to see if I was actually smart.

[@Jevon177]

There's only three possible outcomes of an IQ Test. 1. You're smarter than you think you are, which will probably make you feel bad for not doing more with your life. 2. You're exactly as smart as you think you are, in which case the test was pointless. 3. You're dumber than you think you are which will just make you feel bad. Seems like a Lose/Lose to me.

[@demiserofd]

Generally they're not for you, they're for everyone else.

[@Niahc]

As someone who is good at taking tests, I have to say that most of taking a test is about being able to guess what the test writer was trying to ask

[@HipHopAn0n]

But if you weren't as smart, you'd be less able to guess what the test writer was trying to ask.

[@collinfant5146]

"don't give the right answer we want" said several of my teachers. This was in regards to math and history they were teaching people math and history wrong.

[@fbbWaddell]

As Einstein said, "Everyone's a genius. But if you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree, it will spend it's whole life believing it is stupid."

[@KTSpeedruns]

Yeah, it's always bugged me to death when people brag about their IQ. Whenever I took them, they seemed like school quizzes that tested to see if you studied instead of testing your actual intelligence. Even the guy who invented the IQ test said they were a horrible measure of intelligence and didn't think they should be used.

[@gdragonlord749]

This exactly. At best, they could determine your potential but not your current intelligence. They should be redone to include more problem solving than anything.

[@scythermantis]

What is "your actual intelligence" anyways? There's not a good definition for such a thing, or at least not one that is universally binding.

[@threestar4045]

Having a lot of impressive experience on your CV only demonstrates the ability to get impressive titles on a CV

[@jesseatwater393]

Says someone whose CV is probably "Worked at Walmart, 1999-PRESENT."

[@davidrgrech0]

Nice strawman you got there

[@casperday1397]

Have you ever questioned what IQ really is.... If you understand what it is, you will know that IQ tests don't really prove your IQ level

[@systemedits906]

Ur point isn’t valid as unlike “impressive experience” required to become a CV as you soo specifically ruled out, the ability to complete iq tests doesn’t hold any importance.

[@devontroester5035]

Ok but doing research for a CV proves you can do research. Answering IQ test questions for an IQ test proves you can answer IQ test questions. Clearly the CV proves a useful skill and the IQ test does not.

[@uvbe]

Who is he and where is the real Adam?!

[@Shmrky1]

Lets say its collateral damage of Rick and Morty adventures...

[@TheJjcczz]

Im Lord Guille The episode is called Emily ruins Adam for a reason.

[@freshmadgod]

TheJjcczz I'd like to see Adam RUIN Emily

[@WardNightstone]

thats every other episode of the show

[@luckylucas8596]

freshmadgod The double entendre is too good.

[@banquetoftheleviathan1404]

My doc once said “ iq test don’t show you how smart you are, they just show you how dumb you aren’t” and I always thought that was a better description.

[@atiqahdiyana5665]

I feel like the actor who plays H.H Goddard probably demands the wackiest parts in every Adam ruins everything episode and he's the most memorable part of them all

[@UndertakerU2ber]

Tbh, I still have to concur with psychologists in that IQ tests can represent real world intellectual performance. I'm not necessarily referring to the one or two point differences, but when you compare someone who is below 70 and one who is 100 or over, the differences become significant. I heard one guy who was in the 70 IQ range had trouble trying to fold papers into envelopes. It may not the end all be all factor of intelligence, but it definitely says something...

[@lillyg6763]

Yeah this is almost literally the first thing they taught in my psych classes. In fact, it's brought up in almost every single one I've taken. Can't wait to see the full segment, I hope they mention all the important and less important points.

[@Lizzehmeh]

Same. That's why I never understand when people who've taken even one psych course try to argue how great they are. They're flawed from the ground up, same with the Myers-Briggs test.

[@robertpostman3453]

Modern IQ test like the Wexler Adult Intelligence score, and the woodcock Johnson test of cognitive ability actually do perform a valuable function in identifying areas of strength and weakness, and learning disabilities. However, they do not really quantify intelligence.

[@lowereastsideastrologist7769]

I agree. They are good tools for testing elementary processing ability.

[@meghanachauhan9380]

I mean you can't really quantify intelligence since a lot of variable factors keep changing your overall intelligence. The best thing you can do is measure how quick someone is at certain cognitive tasks people generally link to "intelligence" like memory, pattern, sequence solving ability but that's about it

[@robertmittoniii5427]

You said what I wanted much more eloquently

[@robertmittoniii5427]

@@meghanachauhan9380 and that's kinda what the current IQ tests really are used for. Measuring cognitive skill levels

[@he.5865]

@@robertmittoniii5427 I think what you meant to say instead of eloquent was vague.

[@annaconigliaro2907]

Why don't they talk about the fact that there's more than one form of intelligence and that some of them you can't measure on a test.

[@davidshaver7765]

Exactly like there’s book smart people who can’t talk to anyone while there’s people who struggle to remember stuff and can probably manipulate a large number of people.

[@jacklazzaro9820]

They do. They have a guest say that intelligence is based of a variety of qualities. Specifically: memory, learning, mental agility, etc. This part is just not on the clip here.

[@Ejexion]

I don't know, but if they had, it would just be one more thing they got wrong in this ridiculous video.

[@tyronepines8694]

Brendan, it’s a clip.

[@cookiedove659]

I was thinking the same thing. I came to know about the nine types of intelligence but iq test don't include them.

[@WickedKnightAlbel]

If you're the kind of person that bases the majority of your self-worth on IQ tests, you don't have any

[@Volentry]

Start video at 0:00, and keep pressing the left arrow key: WEE WEE WEE WEE WEE WEE WEE WEE WEE

[@StreetDrilla]

that neck tho

[@baggu69]

vids about iq are made for comments like this

[@padregrande523]

weeth weeth weeth weeth

[@itismethatguy]

WEEE

[@deadhammerwow]

this was honestly better than the video itself

[@amyx231]

Free IQ tests are bunk. I just took one that told me I didn’t do as well as I thought, but to see my wrong answers I need to spend $10. And by paying you can try the test 3 more times. Lol.

[@JonathanSmith-ge4pi]

You thought that free online IQ tests that don't tell you where they're from were reliable? Their only purpose is to make money. Also, the score is so artificially inflated it's insane.

[@Aethelia]

@@JonathanSmith-ge4pi You don't like those IQ tests that rate everyone above 180 in defiance of what the average is supposed to be?

[@davidmunoz4022]

Guys, this isn't saying intelligence doesn't exist or that it doesn't matter, but that we need to consider the tools we are using to measure it and how effective they really are, which is a great thing.

[@maxgustafsson7802]

except IQ tests actually help predict life and university success along with the psychological trait "conscientiousness"

[@edu.santos]

@Vera_chan you mean how asian you are?

[@spencerbar9072]

I like to tell people "I have a high IQ, it means I'm good at puzzles"

[@demiserofd]

Life is mostly puzzles.

[@CaribbeanCitizen]

I love when Emily takes over the show.

[@dathomasii]

"Not fair! I don't know the elements of a regatta!" -Adam Hey Adam, an IQ test would never ask you that question. IQ tests aren't about knowledge.

[@carultch]

Q: Why are regattas never fair? A: Because the boats are rigged.

[@starquake7061]

I watched the full IQ episode and it shows that's how IQ tests were in the beginning. In fact, they weren't meant to measure intelligence at all, they were used to see if french kids were doing good in their current grade. (By no means I assume you're wrong because currently IQ tests are not knowledge base but they WERE in the beginning)

[@shady8045]

i took one and one part of it literally involved knowing knowledge

[@nikibronson133]

I don't think you realize that that part was showing you how iq tests used to be. They literally start that part off by saying early IQ tests used to have very specific questions that only wealthy people would know because they would have the exposure to those things. But moreover IQ tests are definitely about knowledge because you have to have some knowledge to do them. Basic skills but that's besides the point

[@matthewthomson1768]

@@nikibronson133 Those tests have nothing to do with modern test though, they just go by the same same. Modern tests are constantly adjusted to make sure they keep the average iq at 100 and to make sure that all of the questions correlate with the overall score, and they're almost entirely about logic and reasoning. Even if they do have knowledge, it's always knowledge that everyone would know regardless of social class or race or whatever, and there's a strong correlation between knowledge and intelligence.

[@TNinja0]

I remember Adam character being the denier once, but it's been a while. It's really weird how he keeps jumping in information.

[@loveadeola]

As a gamer, I eventually learnt that passing exams was like beating a game. It's not really about how good you are at the course, but rather about how good you are at passing the exam on the course. Just like you can be excellent at playing Call of Duty, and not even know how to shoot a gun in real life.

[@zadeh79]

As a 21 year old STEM major with a 4.0 (at junior year), my IQ correlated negatively with significant real world accolade.

[@frostreaver1]

Success in school often isn't correlated with intelligence. The greatest indicator of academic success is diligence.

[@frostreaver1]

Also, your "real world accolade" is nothing since you're still in school. Get a career in your field and become successful, then you'll have some real world success. School gpa is meaningless the second you get your first job in your field.

[@zadeh79]

My IQ was tested at 98 on the WAIS when I was 16 (though I wasn't focused or motivated at all, when I took it), 103 at 18 years old on the WAIS, and 105 in University on the Woodcock-Johnson III. Some peculiarities include almost all my sub-test scores are higher around 110, but my verbal score always low at 85, and my concept just a bit below 100. Because Verbal and Concept sub-tests are weighted higher, it dragged my IQ score down. Also, I scored off the scale (> 160 IQ) on the associative memory sub-test, but it didn't count towards my total score, as it was anomalous with respect the other sub-tests.

[@jpisback]

I got a 147 in high school.... And I smoked a lot and can't remember half of what I learned

[@kaleyhall1177]

Doing well at a job, isn't more meaningful than understanding theoretical knowledge, and demonstrating the ability to utilize it - which schooling is a better indicator of. Jobs don't wan't to hire based on education level, like it has always been in the past. And there is also a complete absence of mid-level jobs. Most employers just want someone who has the ability to adapt to elementary systems. I've never applied for a job that requires the use of college algebra - but that doesn't mean there is not the hypothetical possibility for those jobs.

[@Findusmann]

That's not an approved IQ test. IQ test are supposed to be about pattern recognition and measure your logic based intelligence. Every question in a proper IQ test is 8 different patterns followed by a blank space and the test asks you which one out of 6 different possibilities comes next. Not one of them has anything to do with what you have learned, it's made so it could be taken by anyone as long as it can be explained to them.

[@pjha3585]

If you listened to what was said in the video, she said that IQ tests STARTED off as those(the ones shown in the video) types of tests.

[@ChrisAK360]

Findusmann just watch the full episode instead of a 90 second clip

[@Justagirlwithasmile]

Findusmann You're wrong. I have administered the WAIS IQ test and what you described is not an IQ test. There's a verbal comprehension index, a perceptual reasoning index, a processing speed index and a working memory index. Not all of those four things can be measured by pattern recognition.

[@T0N1H1N4S]

There are different types of IQ tests, what you are describing is a RAVEN test, and I agree that this video as it is shown does a very poor job of debunking IQ tests

[@sumanoskae]

That sounds like an arbitrary and deeply questionable method by which to determine someone's intelligence.

[@SurgStriker]

they have a lot of different types now though. I got one and didn't even know it, i thought i was just getting a cognitive function test. It was memorization, noticing differences, simple puzzles (similar to some childrens toys, where you get different shaped geometric pieces and have to construct them to make specific pre-determined designs). The only parts that had some bias was things like "label off animals beginning with the letter f", and there weren't very many of those. I didn't know it was used for IQ until i got my results, and that was one section (and it also had two IQ-one that included a factor of how fast you completed the tasks, the other that didn't. In my case i was 5 points lower when they factored in time). basically any 'online IQ test' is complete trash though, barring a few points of pattern recognition they generally are questions about knowledge; and that is where a lot of bias comes in. A genius isn't the person who knows the most, it's more about things like being able to grasp concepts that are abnormally difficult or having reasoning abilities that go beyond typical human logic (like that sherlock homes type reasoning, where you can piece things together effectively by understanding causality)

[@slipstreamxr3763]

True, people fail to realize that being knowledged is not the same as possessing intelligence. You may be the most book smart person in your class but that doesn't necessarily mean you're also street smart, a natural logician or possessing of common sense.

[@jesseweiss424]

I had no idea about this but whenever someone starts talking about their IQ I just laugh

[@NewMessage]

When I tested high on an IQ test at age 15, I became insufferable until my my shrink informed me that they are a better test of how on the ball you are on the given day of testing, than they are as a test of raw intelligence. Then I showed him, and answered "No that aren't!" and he got learned real good.

[@JonathanSmith-ge4pi]

There's no proof that IQ tests can be effected by your mood, level of sickness, psychological situation, or much else for that matter.

[@fixafix69]

@@JonathanSmith-ge4pi eh actually a little, but it's like 1 or max 2 points so it doesn't really change much. I also have no idea what the top comments means since it one of the worst written phrases I've read in weeks

[@mauzeking6661]

The truth is that mood does effect it, so does perspective on your chances. that being said your intelligence is effected by those two factors aswell so it does a good job of measuring your IQ on that given day, often when being tested you will be test more then once with variation of the same test to factor out this (and often you do better oh the second and third attempt.) There are currently studies determining if using easiy or hard practice question can help reduce the vairation between the first and second test. As well as using funny questions (funny names or situations.) can help reduce vairation.

[@zetahurley294]

@@JonathanSmith-ge4pi bruh if you think you'll score as good on an IQ test right after you found out your pet died as you would on a day when you're feeling good and calm and focused... well let's just say that'd be a much more significant indicator of your intelligence than a bad IQ score

[@edumazieri]

@@JonathanSmith-ge4pi There's no proof that they serve any purpose whatsoever. Maybe stop doing IQ tests and do some actual learning, it will serve you better. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/

[@AschKris]

lol there are a bunch of comments by insecure people that have defined their self-worth on IQ tests.

[@myspacebarbrokenevermindif9892]

Henry Ward the Kosciuszko Lion actually, east asians score higher on IQ tests than whites but whatever, "muh racism" wins always

[@darryljones3009]

"People who boast about their IQ are losers" - Stephen Hawking.

[@karlthejarl2819]

I think this viedo is so dumb they think without sources and without saying that iq tests have developed they can convince a rational human that psycology is all a lie becuase jordan peterson said if you dont belive in iq tests you cant belive in pshycology

[@Satsujinhan]

Or perhaps they're people with a rudimentary understanding of psychology and they are disgusted by propaganda that is actively trying to misinform people.

[@Agtsmirnoff]

No, there are a bunch of people in the comments that have high IQs and are insulted by the lack of a good arguments (or any arguments at all) in the video.

[@Hyperoxygenated_]

They never talked about current IQ test

[@j.c.2240]

It's only a fraction of the full episode.

[@Finalhellmaster]

Which are still full pfflaws, because they tend to concentrate only on one single aspect of human intelligence, and DO NOT, usually, tell you that.

[@ahmadukasyah2312]

@pbhtllt yet its still a fraud

[@BUSeixas11]

@@Finalhellmaster Iq tests do not focus on only one aspect of intelligence. A full battery measures working memory, math ability, verbal ability, and reasoning skills.

[@thegoldroom7828]

I love how they filmed this at the Newhall mansion. Simply glorious

[@theactualplanet]

I love when Adam gets taught something, especially when Emily is the one teaching him

[@pop5678eye]

The problem with IQ tests starts with the fact there isn't even a single working definition of what 'intelligence' means.

[@themoderndaygamer637]

Aside from the fact that IQ test have evolved and both my little brother and I have taken the modern ones offically and it never had “rich” white kid questions. It was all due to problem solving and memory

[@fixafix69]

Yeah the video is pretty much all biased bs

[@prinnyramza]

Still true. Sister is a school lawyer. She sees a lot of cases where children are tested on concepts they couldn't know because of their financial siutations.

[@nickdegugs7190]

Ok, I’m calling BS on that last statement, most of the IQ tests that I’ve taken test on basic math and logic puzzles.

[@JonathanSmith-ge4pi]

Well he's talking about earlier IQ tests. Most IQ tests now are similar, although there have been certain tests made for people of all languages, and culture.

[@robertmittoniii5427]

I mean things like the WCJ are basically visual puzzle tests.

[@l3en.]

bro, there are two types of IQ

[@argella1300]

1:33 Oh hey Paul F. Tompkins, fancy seeing you here.

[@Mekaniac]

Christ, finally found the PFT comment.

[@dark0ssx]

IQ is the strongest predictor of life success you can measure out of anything in all the social sciences. Talking about how silly and bad they were 100 years ago doesn't mean modern IQ tests aren't good tools.

[@lq3552]

Modern studies show that they only show you your socio economic status not your intelligence lmfao

[@dark0ssx]

@@lq3552 not true at all, you made that up or heard it from someone

[@lq3552]

@@dark0ssx no go search it on Google scholar and look at the *peer reviewed* studies on the matter and check their methodology You'll find that your IQ is mostly decided by your socio economic status and there isn't a real connection to intelligence Intelligence isn't just one thing and it's literally just impossible to measure it with a test even assuming that IQ tests are the best way to go about it (and they aren't even close) Edit: also funny you say that when you haven't done any research and probably heard what you believe from someone online and assumed it's true without checking lmfao

[@TheJjcczz]

For the people in the comments jumping to conclusions after seeing a minute and a half of a 22 minute show. The episode is called Emily Ruins Adam and covers mistakes the show has made IQ tests and the backfire effect. So maybe wait until you have seen the other 20 minutes and 30 seconds before jumping to conclusions about the episode.

[@jedigecko06]

You mean... _The Errata Strike Back?_

[@sircrabsalot9507]

_Hindsight Ruins Everything!_

[@lastcharmed88]

Wait people commented on the only part of the video available that tru tv chose to present not the other part that wasn't linked to. Outrageous!!!! Utterly ridiculous! O_o

[@baolocle6849]

Why not? You can look at it as a little trailer for the episode or as an ad. Doesn't really hurt anyone and at least I learned something new today.

[@pkattk]

To get you to watch the show, toomanydocs.

[@vanessadotson8067]

When I was like 10 y/o I asked my aunt who is the smartest person in the world and she said there is no such thing bc I could teach ppls things they didn't know and they can teach my...

[@Thad_Naniko_PaperBottle]

(Long post but please read through and be civil in the comments) As far as I'm concerned, what is being mentioned here are those bunk af written on paper "IQ tests" or those BS online ones. I've taken a few IQ tests from licensed psychologists and practitioners (though it's really MUCH MUCH more of an EVALUATION by the psychologist/practitioner than a test really) and there are disconnects from what is shown on this video and what IQ Evaluations actually are. For one, someone already mentioned it, but as far as I'm concerned, nothing associated with high class white lifestyle knowledge is really tested. Knowledge is tested, but more so on practical and useful (or not useful if you deem it) knowledge, such as who was Cleopatra, and what is the distance between the Earth and the Sun. I think this tests the level of long term memory retention, but of course in a about three hour evaluation or longer if spread over time, you can only do so much so this is definitely subjective. Something else proper IQ tests do is test speed, such as how fast can you translate a given piece of code given a key, or how many basic math equations you can do within an allotted time. Not only is that sort of knowledge tested, but also visual information as well, so puzzle solving and translating visual information. Memory is also something that is quite rigorously tested, particularly short term memory retention. I've been asked to recreate a basic drawing MULTIPLE TIMES throughout the ~3 hour session, after having it been shown to me for a short while at the beginning. Word retention and auditory information short term retention is also tested. Though not specifically pointed out as bad in the video, the association part, which is tested, is important in the grander scheme of things, making connections. This part of the eval is quite loose overall, as synonyms are a thing. There are many other things an IQ evaluation test, but these few are some the reasons that a proper IQ eval would never be administered on a piece of paper or on a website. The practitioner, again, will be timing you, looking for body cues, engaging in the test with you, and just generally the test is a fairly long affair. Without a doubt the test has flaws, and it's arguably impossible to sum up how "good" a brain is on a test, but the whole notion of what an IQ test is has changed dramatically over time as psychology and behavioral science have evolved. It's not perfect, and neither will it ever be, considering how complicated the mind is, but it's as good as it can get today. Another thing, (my psychologist says this and this is his opinion which I agree with), the whole confusion over "IQ tests" is the "Intelligence" or "I" part of IQ. Intelligence to most people suggest knowledge, which is associated with being "smart". IQ, (again just an opinion my psychologist and I share), more describes how well or poorly an individual can PROCESS information. Like I've mentioned, knowledge, especially specific class-associated is something not at all tested extensively within the test. My favorite analogy says that your IQ is like how good a computer processor is. As such, smart people can have high IQ, as well as smart people with low IQ and not so smart people with high IQ. It's not the end all be all of knowledge, neither is it for the brain as a whole. Your IQ can actually fluctuate throughout the course of your lifetime, from when you were born to when you die. This video is a little dangerous as well, due to the fact that IQ tests and IQ is very important out of the whole "smart" context. IQ tests can help differentiate from IQ itself to a multitude of things, such as autism, learning disorders, and lots of other mental health issues/disorders. IQ tests are in fact important in the psychology world. I would highly doubt that if IQ tests are really that bunk, psychologists would still be using it to this day.

[@MrBug-qp1zz]

Let's get this comment on top,everyone needs to read this!!!

[@draconicon2]

Going through this point by point just for free time... Knowledge retention (such as the, admittedly, rather useless fact of distance of Earth to Sun or who Cleopatra was) is not intelligence. It is memory. If you were never taught these facts, which you wouldn't have been depending on your background or studies, then the exaggerated "rich white folk" critique applies. You're still going to have your score go down because you were not given these extra bits of information, and if your memory isn't great, then a test meant to measure your ability to process information is short-circuited by information that you don't actually have. In that case, the difference of background is a huge thing, because it lowers your score right off the bat by not knowing these things, giving you no memory to draw on, or if you have a difficulty with remembering things, leaving you at a disadvantage for a processing test right from the start. Speed is a different thing, closer to processing, but not quite there yet either, particularly if you're only processing one thing. A lot of people will be quick to process one type of concept, but not others. There are plenty of people that understand a logic puzzle, but are far slower with numbers. Unless this is taken into account, the test is flawed against that, as well. A test that is based on processing should not be focused on memory. If you want to see whether someone has a decent memory or not, there are other ways of doing that. I agree that people see IQ and hear 'intelligence', whereas in reality, they should hear that it's more a test designed to see how you work with information and what you are capable of. However, that test shouldn't be giving you a number stating that you have x IQ. Instead, these things should be testing you in how you process the different types of information. An overall number tells you nothing, and that is what so many tests seem to brag about these days if they are under the label of 'IQ tests'. Now, if there are IQ tests that actually break it down into different categories, awesome. I'd love to see that, and see more people take that, but that's not been my experience in looking this stuff up. If it can be used to test that stuff, great, but again, feels flawed as a diagnostic tool. And finally, people will keep using a test long past its viability. See the lie detectors, see the Myers-Briggs, see astrology, see dowsing, see all sorts of things that persist. Even when better tools and tests come along, people will refuse to stop because it is embedded. I'm not saying there's NO value to it, but while the show exaggerates - and sometimes badly - I feel that it's closer to right than wrong here.

[@Ivan-___]

@pbhtllt how has this episode got anything to die with the evolution of people? What a ridiculous statement.

[@mikeboon6160]

You should check out modern IQ tests such as the stanford-binet or the wechsler. Those tests are comprised of subtests which are designed to measure different facets of intelligence. They also try and remove cultural bias as much as possible although the information section of the test is almost always culturally relative. In short, modern IQ tests still have some bias, but are now much better indicators of overall intelligence regardless.

[@zetahurley294]

using them to assess "overall intelligence" is still a very foolish pursuit, as the correct weights between all the different facets of intelligence are very subjective - rather using them to assess the individual facets and help see how you process information ETC ***can*** be an effective approach

[@edumazieri]

@@zetahurley294 The issue is still that the questions are about nonsensical problems that nobody ever needs to solve, therefore whatever score you do get says nothing about how good you will be at anything practical. Which is not surprising, the idea that a lazy questionnaire can accurately measure how a human brain works is ludicrous.

[@jealousyofthesun]

SAT scores correlate highly with IQs. Hell until 1995, SAT scores were accepted as IQs. Both of these tests correlate highly with lifetime success and there's a reason colleges use them, or things like them, to determine who gets in.

[@JonathanSmith-ge4pi]

Well, they don't neccessarily correlate to being more successful. IQ isn't a measure of how much you know, it's a measure of how you can apply logic, and patterns. If someone has a high IQ, it doesn't mean they apply themselves. Also, the reason why SAT correlated to IQ scores was because the SAT was created as practically a form of an IQ test. But recently there have been changes to the SAT to test what students learn, not just their capacity.

[@fixafix69]

@@JonathanSmith-ge4pi pretty sure every CEO you've ever heard of that is worth more than 10 millions has a minimum iq of 130

[@siddhartacrowley8759]

@@fixafix69 Ah yes. For sure🙄

[@jaredouimette1]

Really? Because pattern recognition is universal

[@carultch]

Yeah, I don't get it. Why didn't they use a single example of a question on an actual modern IQ test?

[@HipHopAn0n]

Because they're Buzzfeed for _really_ stupid people.

[@JackPyro333]

Well, at this point, I just assume Adam ruins everything is actually living up to his name and is trying to legitimately ruin everything by telling the exact opposite of the truth. It helps, that way you can find the truth by going the opposite way of what Adam is saying. :D

[@ljb8157]

@@20035079 do you just feel the need to go against anyone that uses facts and logic because it hurts your feelings or... .?

[@aliciarubel6477]

Actually folks who are used to sitting down and taking a written test about abstract things have an advantage. This way of behaving is unusual in many cultures. I wouldn't say an IQ test measures nothing though.

[@Herb615]

The concept of intelligence is very broad and it should never be determined by something so specific as a random test.

[@F.A.--]

I don't know man, if the understanding of astrophysics is not intelligence,then I don't know what it is.

[@bassel2bleach]

well said

[@Brickcellent]

AKA "We know whites are smarter than blacks, please don't prove it because we then we'd all realize blacks serve absolutely no purpose".

[@kawaiipanda6850]

Herb615 so many big words how am I supposed to read it

[@Sassol66]

Herb615: The test is not random. Random means no predictive power whatsoever. IQ has TREMENDOUS predictive power. High IQ scorers tend to do well in society. Low IQ scorers tend to do poorly. On any measure. This FACT is a knock out blow to the clowns who made this video.

[@petehamm896]

Great example of using a specific issue that has been corrected as a means to dismiss something completely...this person used iq tests this dumb way, ergo they dont measure intelligence.

[@jennosyde709]

The people who I usually see defend IQ tend to be those who have at some point scored decently high on an online IQ test but otherwise struggle in school, at work, etc. People who have a very fixed mindset about human development and capabilities are more inclined to defend this model, in the belief that there is something intrinsic about themselves that will guarantee that they will succeed, even when this is often not the case. Setting this precedent often sets up a person for failure in the long term.

[@goldiefatale]

wait which episode was this on? i missed this one.

[@GlowZoe]

In austrailia people from farms and people from cities have to do the same IQ test

[@cameraboimykul]

But the modern IQ test is about 8 patterns

[@chuggaa100]

So what? IQ tests don't test knowledge.

[@Mr._Moderate]

"The Grand Wizard of the KKK" has left the chat 💁‍♂️

[@SinisterRubberDuckie]

Where in Australia can i watch the full episodes of this? Having trouble finding where i can watch it

[@EstrellaViajeViajero]

This feels like the first half of a longer segment.

[@gorkskoal9315]

because it is.

[@lizzsszzy7800]

The main issue with IQ is the people who treat it like the holy grail for everything in life. It's how good you are at solving puzzles and THAT'S IT.

[@JackPyro333]

It shows you how good you are at pattern recognition, as well as how fast you are at it (which is why it is timed). Both these variables seem to indicate your overall intellectual ability, (i.e. how fast and how much you CAN learn/understand/etc.) and not your current amassed knowledge base. This has been rigorously tested and observed through different analyses. IQ is the most rigorously tested scientific field within psychology, so if you throw out IQ as a predictor and descriptor of intelligence, you might as well throw out all of psychology.

[@JackPyro333]

But you are right about the first part. People shouldn't elevate it to godhood.

[@greenacorn1151]

Modern IQ tests focus on quantitative/qualitative reasoning and pattern recognition, giving results that highly correlate with intellectual achievement. It's really sad how far this show has sunk.

[@EnlightenedByKnowledge]

+Green Acorn True, but even then, an IQ Test is ultimately a measure of intellectual potential. It doesn't guarantee the test taker's ability to do anything with their intellect. I'm of the personal inclination that intellect isn't something so rigid that it can be easily measured with a test. Everybody on earth has a unique intellectual map which is built up from their environment, education, and nurturing, among other factors. That being the case, not all intellectual maps are equal. This isn't to say that there isn't a way to measure everybody's IQ somehow, but even the most legitimate IQ Tests taken under rigorous conditions (i.e. team of psychologists, no cheating) can only yield so much information about the test taker's intellectual potential. But that's just my take on it based my experience taking a legitimate IQ Test under rigorous conditions. Take it with a pinch of salt. 😊

[@annaconigliaro2907]

Green Acorn but some forms of intelligence are not measured on IQ tests. It only is a test for those skills.

[@andrewgodly5739]

IQ tests aren't reliable at all. When taken repeatedly they rarely give the same results. In fact, to correctly get a score you're supposed to take multiple tests then calculate the average of the scores. Confidence actually has a huge impact on your score, IQ tests are a good measure of confidence. Hundreds of factors could effect your score, like the way you feel, the day you've had, how focused you are, how tired you are, if somethings irritating you, etc. As the show said "IQ tests are really just a way of measuring how good you are at taking IQ tests", which is actually a quote from someone who studied IQ tests Intelligence is very complex. No simple pen-and-paper/standardized test could ever measure it. The only trait we know of that separates our intelligence from a common animal, like a dog, is that we can remember an event in detail while a dog can only remember what an event made them feel like. Beyond that what we understand of intelligence is guesswork

[@fringeelements]

You know, there are actual studies on the test-retest reliability on IQ tests. No need to speculate, the research has been done.

[@TheReaverOfDarkness]

Intellect and intelligence are not the same thing. Intellect is synonymous with wisdom, knowledge; it is knowledge or training you can apply to situations. Intelligence is your ability to solve problems by extrapolating from data you possess in order to generate new data. IQ tests measure intelligence, not intellect. However it is known to science that IQ tests are not an accurate measure of intelligence, and that we do not yet fully grasp the concept of intelligence and therefore cannot confidently measure it.

[@mypkamax]

[1:30] Regatta: boats, water and speed. A regatta is a series of boat races. It's an sports event consisting of boat races. But in the end it turns out to be boats, water and buoys.

[@tuxedo_productions]

Marie Curie, positively *glowing* Good one.

[@tanukioh]

The thing with is IQ tests is that they are updated every few years to correct problems that have been pointed out, and renormalize the scores (populations tend to get a bit smarter over time so a score of 110 today is different than one from 1985). While the test may be bunk for your personal life in most situations, a proper battery of tests can help uncover strengths and weaknesses in kinds of intelligence and demonstrate that a person may have either a disability or a large intellectual potential (one they might not meet, but still). It's far from perfect but it is continually improving and has some proper uses. Just don't get carried away and use it for job qualification or restriction of college application. Also don't confuse a proper battery of IQ tests for a one off quiz. These things are meant to be taken over long periods, sometimes years.

[@ThreeGoddesses]

Iq tests are just bunk, in general. The best they can do is indicate whether or not you have a learning disability or need extra help in a academic setting. They don't test for things like creativity, artistic and athletic ability, or how people would perform in specific jobs that are more or less tailored to their talents. Someone with an iq of 90 might be average according to the tests, but they could be absolutely brilliant at architecture or interior design. As well, the human mind is elastic. In optimal learning conditions (unique to the individual) you can learn or practice nearly any skill and get good at it, so long as you don't have serious memory issues. People have been taught in studies to replace their inner ear balance with machines, you can forget how to use fingers individually and their segment of the brain gets taken over by other functions, and you can teach them to move their fingers individually again. Iq tests are, at their best, a snapshot at how good you are at iq tests, because a severely dyslexic person can score low at reading comprehensions but if you read to them the same test, they could ace it anyways.

[@jesseatwater393]

> The thing with is IQ tests is that they are updated every few years > to correct problems that have been pointed out Every *few years*? Cite that, please. Besides, Adam pretty much implies they haven't changed since 1904, which of course is bunk, but between the two of you, you have to agree on some point of attack. > and renormalize the scores (populations tend to get a bit smarter over time so a score of 110 today is different than one from 1985). IQ is estimated to increase one to two points per century. www.wsj.com/articles/smarter-every-year-mystery-of-the-rising-iqs-1432110750

[@user-ez9is7lb9p]

@@jesseatwater393 you’re links broken but you Keith want to check that. As far as I was aware Flynn effect went into reverse long ago.

[@sebastiaankruis3006]

"Describe everything required for a regatta" is not actually a question in any serious IQ test.

[@JonathanSmith-ge4pi]

It was a joke, everyone knows it's a joke.

[@juleslefumiste9204]

@@JonathanSmith-ge4pi it may be a joke, but it ain't funny, cause it ain't accurate:)

[@Terra_1998]

this was a misconception that everyone already caught on to

[@Sai4651]

The I.Q test my school gave me wasn't specific at all. It tested by ability to solve problems, how fast I could do it, my memory, my ability to reason, and my ability to process the information. The only thing that was specific, was the vocabulary part of it.

[@zdavis9091]

Ulquiorra Cifer Then your school did a good test. But almost none of the tests are reliable.

[@antiope-d9780]

I agree with this. I'm one of the smartest people in my grade but the IQ test says I have an IQ of 57

[@SweetRian]

I'm just saying, if you need a paper to tell you how smart you are, it's not looking good for you.

[@jesseatwater393]

No "paper"tells you how smart you are. If you were smart, you would understand that. Congratulations, you just proved what you set out to debunk.

[@briannab4037]

@@jesseatwater393 Congratulations, you completely missed her point. You don't have to keep embarrassing yourself in this comment section y'know. If you have issues with the _full_ truTV episode then write a critique of it elsewhere instead of spending all your smarty points to end up making yourself look a fool.

[@JimboRustles]

If IQ tests are meaningless then show me the rocket scientist or neurosurgeon with an 80 IQ, I double dare you.

[@zdavis9091]

JimboRustles Francis Crick

[@Thommy2n]

What probably drives me the most nuts is that people think that there is no upper threshold in it's measurements, when in fact it does. Because it's a test score, and depending on the exact form of the test can be 161 for adults and 162 for children for the standard. And yes, doing that good on it probably means you're wicked smart, but you could say the same thing about a high or perfect score on the ACT's, SAT's, LSAT's, MCAT's, and countless others. And yet for this one we prop it up to some sort of mythical status. I mean, for any of those other tests it's actually for something (the first two prep for college, the latter for Law school and Medical school), the IQ does not. Just Mensa, a snobby elitist group where you can get newletters patting you on the back at how much smarter you are than other people. No seriously, that's pretty much all they do. God forbid they use that brainpower and non profit status to actually help the world somehow, like say, education. Oh no, then more people might actually think twice over this blind reverence and they'd lose their mystique. Not to mention movies and tv like to create characters who's iq's defy any sort of logic, 200's, 300's. Or even one time where a fictional character guessed theirs was somewhere between 1200 and 1450. Ridiculous.

[@waurennn]

Please ruin veganism. It was touched on in the Adam Ruins Going Green episode but it would be a great full episode

[@spyderpig991]

lauren I'd love to see that

[@pooppopopopisfh5903]

They already ruined like conservatively stuff in the beginning of the channel

[@HeyHey-ms3oh]

i think it'd be a lot easier to do "Adam ruins the meat industry"

[@jx7945]

Lauren Fudge vegans. Plants have feelings too.

[@melodytheskulldog9305]

Lauren I want that

[@allisonvanderwall4598]

Binet actually said that he was nervous about making the test because he wanted them to help people, not measure people. But after he died, they started being used to measure people. These tests aren’t at all used for what Binet wanted.

[@Nevertoleave]

I use to like taking them online and try to figure out the correct answer by answering the same and then changing my answer one at a time to see how it the score changed

[@1andonlyzara]

Was that Paul F. Tompkins at the end?

[@dreajp]

No matter what, there are ALWAYS those people that are like "this was too short" and/or "they didn't talk about this". I'm just sitting there like "OF COURSE NOT. THE EPISODE ISN'T EVEN OUT YET" LOL they just do this to get people hyped. It's meant to make you wonder what else they'll say but not for to basically accuse them of forgetting things, you don't even know they're going to show. It could go in ANY direction whether or not they do it the way you want. At least realize the clip is an almost 2 minute preview for the show, not the whole segment. Jeez people, I apologise but y'all need some common sense because you're not making the A.R.E people look dumb, you're making yourself seem that way when I'm pretty sure, you aren't 😊.

[@patrickderp1044]

nope, I can guarantee the full episode will be a useless exercise in left wing propaganda IQ determines success for GROUPS. end of story, It does not guarantee that an INDIVIDUAL will be successful, but it WILL guarantee that the GROUP will be successful, compared to a lower IQ group

[@Progster0192]

Spoiler: Strawman, strawman, blablabla end. That's basically the episode. You're welcome.

[@dreajp]

Patrick herp LOL who cares if you "somewhat" know what it's about? My comment is clearly for those who complain on YT about the scenes being too short when it's not the entire clip... yet everyone still does it. Also in one of his episodes "Emily Ruins Adam Ruins Everything" they literally explained that, yes, many things may be correct, subjective or hard to believe but the only thing that's actually true is that everyone will believe in different things. Everything they say is not meant to change someone's mind it's just to give people added knowledge to what they already know because whether people believe in the truth or not, that's their own opinion, and they have a right to believe in whatever they want. You literally take it how you want to.

[@Progster0192]

Luscious Angel You haven't actually seen the episode have you? xD

[@dreajp]

Progster0192 Dude, didn't I just say who cares? LOL do you not know how to read?

[@godonlyknows13]

I took an IQ test (administered by a psychologist, not just some crappy online test) once that had a question that was like, define these words. I got every one right, with ease, except one word. The word was "Palliate." And it was a word I should have known b/c my aunt works in Palliative care. And I am exceedingly confidant that I WOULD have recognised it, except for the fact 1) I had never heard it used in that tense before. Which would have been fine except that #2, - unbeknownst to me - my family pronounces it wrong. We tend to say it like "Pal-a-tiv" instead of "pal-ee-a-tiv" so it didnt click in my brain. Long story short, I got this question wrong b/c of forces entirely outside of my control. For all intents and purposes, I had never heard this word used irl and therefore could not possibly have known the definition. I lost marks on this IQ test for unfair reasons. I knew then that IQ tests were not exactly scientific...

[@Aethelia]

"Marie Curie... glowing" I understood that reference

[@Sheuto]

I like how they do not provide any proof that IQ tests are garbage, they just say they are and tell you their results were questionable long ago in the past which is somehow supposed to be a proof that they are still wrong. It's a form of informal fallacy. "IQ tests originated as tests for children and were wrong in the past. Therefore, IQ tests we are currently making must also be wrong"

[@greg3284]

Uh, iNezumi, I think you're quoting a formal fallacy, not informal--the all true Scotsman fallacy is a formal. Still, good on you, ya got a decent education.

[@Sheuto]

Oh, maybe I got that wrong. Thought informal fallacy is when your argument is not necessarily wrong, but your arguments/way of reasoning don't prove it. Maybe got that mixed up.

[@greg3284]

The most important thing is you caught it, not enough of that nowadays. Your premises (everything before "therefore') are true, but the conclusion is wrong, that makes it a formal fallacy. Informals have a false premise, and of course, a wrong conclusion. Either way, rock on!

[@GoodnotGreat88]

Notice she says "early IQ test" asked questions only rich would know. This hasnt been the case for a long time and IQ test are very unbiased now and while not perfect, a good indication of intelligence.

[@WickedKnightAlbel]

"Unbiased" is a word thrown around and weaponized constantly by rich white kids and their parents to keep their arbitrary systems of power in place

[@tamarpeer261]

I can't agree. Im in a expensive class thanks to those tests.

[@systemedits906]

My opinion of IQ tests is pretty straight forward, unless your IQ is noticeably high or small (scores above 130 or scores below 85) then it won’t tell you anything.

[@agbook2007]

Buoys... like BABA BOOEY?! 😂

[@adonissakellariou6051]

Considering IQ is one of the two best predictors for success I think it’s more than what you’re claiming

[@9mmisahighcaliberround546]

Have no clue where you got that from.

[@DivkvanDyke6913]

Because people who score average are often blocked out of higher learning opportunities such as gifted programs. There is literally no control group so it’s not a scientifically proven fact that IQ tests measure success. Would you trust a vaccine that promised to cure cancer but was never tested using a true scientific method requiring a control group? Probably not, because that vaccine may not actually work. It’s not being compared to anything so the results are untrustworthy.

[@PromethiumOxide]

This whole section boils down to "Old IQ tests were ineffective." Say it with me guys: that's not an argument!

[@scoobydoop5257]

PromethiumOxide watch the full episode ya bozo

[@briancarlson9778]

No, this shows arguments are always bad i would rather not waste my time on someone who thinks pattern recognition and math are RACIST

[@brucedelaplain7138]

Yes, it was a very odd episode. I don't believe they said even once what modern tests were like. There was no rational argument at all. It's curious they would be so illogical in an episode about IQ.

[@erikmerrill8280]

Bruce Delaplain It’s quite clear actual. We are trying to work around the inconvenient truth that different ethnic groups have different IQ averages.

[@shadowmaydawn]

Erik, Bruce, Brain, and Promethium: Or maybe you guys shouldn't judge an entire 20 minute episode on one small clip

[@ThePsychicPineapple]

What episode is this from?

[@ongakuwotabeta]

Jimmy Neutron's dog is named after the guy who used I.Q. tests on non-children? That's pretty clever, Nickelodeon!

[@WateverWatever04]

YES. I love it when Emily educates Adam ✊😅

[@jacobcrooks7855]

I usually really like these "Adam ruins everything" segments, but I have to say that this particular iteration has some serious flaws. The origin of IQ tests, while interesting, has much less to do with their current incarnations than this video would have us believe. Intellectuals around the world continue to use IQ as a benchmark for intellectual aptitude for a good reasons. This is not to say that intelligence can only be measured by the individual areas of an IQ test, only that the areas that are measured represent the most easily and accurately quantified aspects of intelligence that are being screened for.

[@lowereastsideastrologist7769]

Even if IQ is a good predictor of 'general adaptability' and 'elementary learning speed', which employers (rightfully) widely desire, measuring such a thing beyond 21 years old, post higher education and developed intuition, outside of the consideration of short-sighted corporate interest, is plainly a backwards practice.

[@tommygeraghty-slevin5828]

@@lowereastsideastrologist7769 IQ tests test your reasoning and problem solving ability. Adaptibility and elementry learning Speed are meerly indicated by it

[@lowereastsideastrologist7769]

@@tommygeraghty-slevin5828 Problem solving is more than IQ

[@tommygeraghty-slevin5828]

@@lowereastsideastrologist7769 I mean, pretty much any information source that isn't KZbin and 99% of psyscholigists agree with me

[@lowereastsideastrologist7769]

@@tommygeraghty-slevin5828 You don't say? 99% of psychologists who are white, male, rationalists? Them agreeing with you doesn't do $hit to legitimize your deluded views.

[@blamethesocialmedia5871]

I love it when they switch places

[@Teri0is0Resa]

Yay! Surprise Paul F. Tompkins as the shocked rich person at the end! Always a delight to see PFT.

[@chrismr5851]

This episode is complete crap. The tests they are referring to aren't used enymore. The regata exemple is if anything, a proof for the ongoeing improovement of the tests because it was taken out due to it´s useless for testing.

[@jillandjack7631]

The spelling and grammar errors in this comment make me think that it’s a joke

[@lowereastsideastrologist7769]

Oh so modern tests are better? pfft.

[@JuliaMozena]

ThoseWhoBelieveInCircles OweItToTheMoon modern tests rely more on our fast thinking capacity, like being given a number of patterns and trying to figure out what the next pattern would be, something anyone can do regardless of their knowledge on stuff like reggatas (sorry idk how to spell it). So yes, IQ tests today ARE better because they measure your logical thinking capacity, they actually DO measure intelligence, it's just that in this episode they used a different kind of test as an example, a test that is out dated and not reliable. IQ (your intelectual intelligence, as in understanding patterns) and EQ (your creative inteligence, as in CREATING patterns) are two things recognized by psychology. So this video is completely unreliable and uninformed (English isn't my first language so I'm sorry if I spelled anything wrong)

[@lowereastsideastrologist7769]

No. They measure 'intelligence' under a rationalistic paradigm. (specifically a paradigm of Kantian 'pure reason'). They are not extremely Western (although their is predominately Western support for them), however, their is a rationalistic (subgroup of Western philosophy) monopolization of intelligence. It doesn't mean studying and expertise doesn't make someone 'intelligent' . If one looks at the pristine idea of intelligence from a developmental perspective, they are viable models where developed intuition (based on acquired knowledge) in some field(or micro-field) is, indeed, very important to intelligence. Empiricism is nothing new, and has been adopted by philosophers beginning with Aristotle to Galileo, to Pascal, Von Neuman, Einstein, and Feynman. It doesn't mean that empirical knowledge is ENOUGH for intelligence, but knowledge forms the basis of intelligence. On IQ tests, they give you the set 41, 28, 164, x and you are 'smart', for an inventing an operator to form a consistence relationship - but with an empirical paradigm, rationalists simply COPY THE WHOLE SET. Instead, for empiricists, you are 'smart', if you are able to first invent the objects, and freely select the orientation (order) between the objects (in this number example, making the novel association between the concept of horizontally flipping and numbers). This is a creativity activity. To some extent that is determined by high IQ, but only in higher fields which the vast majority of common people will struggle to learn. Mathematician and Physicist invent objects, sets, and systems, all the time, but that is far less of IQ exercise, then one that relies on subconscious processes mediated by brain structure (functions of local expertise, associative distance, the connectivity density between distant regions).

[@josephthomas9197]

ThoseWhoBelieveInCircles OweItToTheMoon IQ is a measure of certain cognitive functions. Whether or not you want to relate these functions and their ability to intelligence is entirely up to you, as you can define in your personal vocabulary intelligence however you want. Your personal definition doesn't change the fact that IQ can predict success and prosperity greater than any other tool out there, and is objectively provable.

[@realPidge]

Yes it measures complexity of cognition within their constructs. So yes, they are accurate. People who score high can be considered intelligent. Tests like Raven's Matrices are accurate if you feel culture biases are a thing.

[@peterhuang4427]

Why is no one talking about the Paul f thompkins cameo? Lol

[@stagger9660]

Took an iq test. Got a 94. Now im here

[@3ternalsage]

Wait.. if IQ tests are bunk, why are they the highest correlated measurement related to success in life?

[@caleb98963]

Eternal Sage but they aren't owlcation.com/social-sciences/Why-Emotional-Intelligence-is-More-Important-Than-IQ

[@3ternalsage]

Caleb Gladwin Looked at your source and the links in the more about EQ section. It says, "Review finds that, in most studies, poor research methodology has exaggerated the significance of EI."

[@3ternalsage]

MS Finale Or its only one of the many factors, and in comparison to other factors it has a bigger correlation, even if in comparison to the whole it isn't that huge.

[@PENDANTturnips]

Riley Cottingham your first 4 traits would come about naturally with a high IQ. Show me scientists who accomplished something of value with very low IQs. Show me successful people with low IQs who aren't just actors or sports players. Show me a successful low IQ country. IQ is not a nice measure but it beats out everything else.

[@LucianoRobino]

OP, muh dude, you are putting the cart in front of the horses. IQ tests have been design to predict academic achievements, not the other way around. It's like you were asking if placebos are a bad thing then why do double blind testing exists?

[@cinderwood3218]

Culture Bias isn't taken seriously. Because groups the tests are supposedly biased against do worse on the 'culture free' tests and questions. And IQ actually is very predictive of life outcomes.

[@cinderwood3218]

The video is also painting a strawman that people think IQ tests are perfect measures of intelligence, and using a Genetic Fallacy (namely that the first IQ test not being intended as an intelligence test matters, it doesn't)

[@llamamall3653]

Correlation isn't the same as causation. Good nutrition and education help with IQ tests, and also indicate a high economic status.

[@terrancevanliew1814]

Llamamall You don't understand correlation. You're just spouting cliches. Scientists have controlled for things like, income, health, temperament, level of education, parental success and more. Iq turns out to be a better predictor of future success than ALL of these variables.

[@caleb98963]

Terrance Van Liew source?

[@briantotse3]

@Caleb Gladwin Instead of asking for proof that blacks and whites are not equal, why don't you offer some that they are?

[@yoyoboy87]

A wild Paul F Tompkins has appeared

[@dragoon617]

Hmm, i wonder how the entire episode is. The episodes always go into more detail

[@xenosnake]

I remember taking these.... The smart girl in class got really depressed when she gut a 72 rating... And started crying... Me as the weird guy in class got a 127...

[@justine3396]

xenosnake the weird kids are often the smarter ones

[@bluebird5173]

If she really was smart, then there was probably something wrong with that i-q test.

[@gavinkemp7920]

@@bluebird5173 not necessarily IQ test represent very little in terms of intelligence and academic scores. it represents like 25% maybe a bit more.

[@briannab4037]

I somehow doubt you're telling the truth.

[@JonathanSmith-ge4pi]

@@gavinkemp7920 While IQ tests don't do too much in predicting academic scores (they do more than 25%, but they still don't do too, too much), most experts, and psychologists agree that any score below 80 means being incredibly stupid, and anything below 70 meaning you probably have a mental disability. While IQ tests don't do that much to predict academic grades, it's generally agreed that you need at least 95, and a lot of effort to get very good grades.

[@jonathangrey2183]

IQ tests ARE highly g-loaded, which means they DO correlate strongly with intelligence. A better debate is what IQ tells us about an individual's future.

[@Kryptsanies]

And there is really not much debate about that either because IQ correlates highly with future health, socioeconomic status, occupation, and happiness among other factors.

[@Narabedla4]

they correlate barely. at least in my experience, where i've seen multiple 130+ iq persons fail at basically everything. math, science, languages, everyday life, logical connections, taking responsibility etc. you may be able to see a difference between 80 and 120 iq on average, but to think anything about a single person based on an iq test shows how little you have come around :) I am talking here about the iq tests by doctors, not even those on the internet (a friend of mine exploitet one, by just repeating over and over and having the correct answer in a blink he got over 300 iq sooo yeah, i don't even talk about that).

[@Kryptsanies]

at least in my experience? Please read some literature on the topic. Search through the journals Intelligence, Nature Genetics, and psych journals. Also learn how statistics and probability work.

[@Narabedla4]

Krypt Sanies i know this is just my experience, but the stigma of iq saying so much is just dumb. don't come at me with "muh statistic" i said it was my experience and didn't claim it would never say anything, just the bias is way to strong. iq tests are *heavily* flawed.

[@Kryptsanies]

Narabedla I can only tell you that they are not and the evidence shows it. IQ tests are one of the most replicable research areas in all of psychology especially in this p hacking age and statistical revolution that is happening in psychology.

[@humanbeing1429]

I think the human mind can never be fully understood because as we learn more, it further evolves thus leaving us with more things to learn.

[@redgeoblaze3752]

I don't know if he's always been like this or if I'm only now smart enough to see it.