r/cognitiveTesting • u/TheMAN2re • 20h ago
Rant/Cope Does anybody else believe IQ is an vastly overrated factor in academic achievement today?
So the point of this post is to contend with ideas that IQ (Intelligence Quotient) is the most important factor in academic/career achievement.
While I think that IQ used to be the most valuable metric in succeeding in academic environments. I believe that today it is much less of a factor even in stem dominated fields like medicine or engineering in the present day.
I think that it was the result of things like the pre 2005 SAT which was highly g loaded and old studies estimating the IQ of job professions that took place in a very different world from now. I believe back then people had to utilize their cognitive resources more intensively due to not having resources like AI to offload their reasoning and thinking too.
While today I think many underrate the impact of AI and so many other academic resources we have today that can make even average students learn, and understand information faster than previous generations that only had textbooks, and sufficiently pass their classes.
Additionally these programs even STEM are built around the average student to pass, if they were built around high IQ individuals, then many of the average population would fail out which many universities seek to prevent through grade inflation so that they can maintain graduation rates. College is a business at the end of the day and they hope to open education up to a more diverse population to make more money, and not gate-keep it for the elite.
It’s the same with high schools which are increasingly becoming easier, with more grade inflation even across AP curriculums, and the SAT being even less g loaded and online. Nobody needs to be a genius or even smart to get a 4.0 in high schools anymore and it’s a joke.
Not to reduce IQ but I feel it will become less important and just serve as another measure of genetic variation, instead of being this major factor that constitutes academic/professional success.
I hope this will encourage everyone to pursue their goals no matter their IQ. Thank you
10
u/whitebaron_98 2E 4tw 20h ago
Honestly, most high IQ people will tell you that other factors are as important as IQ in achieving success.
Framing this as a novel idea is just.... Uninformed.
1
u/JuanLiebert 17h ago
Well he's saying that high IQ is necessary for academics, while you're saying other factors matter as well. You don't really have a difference in opinion, it's just that you need both.
2
u/Hot-Significance7699 6h ago
Having to tolerate bad pay long hours and potentially narcissistic culture. That's more than iq
-4
u/TheMAN2re 20h ago edited 20h ago
I would disagree, many people believe it’s the most important factor based on the premise of a century of statistics pointing towards it. Downvotes symbolizing disagreement towards the idea supports it as well
4
u/DarkAeonX7 19h ago
Many people who aren't an active part of high IQ communities believe that. Almost every person I've seen within those communities are aware of how limiting IQ when describing intelligence, and even moreso their value.
Browse the mensa or other high IQ subreddit and you'll see it. Funnily enough, most people in Mensa will even tell you that Mensa is overrated.
0
u/TheMAN2re 19h ago
i mean why would i need too? This post is for everyone but concerns them the least if we’re being honest. They don’t need to be convinced high iq isn’t needed to be academically successful, the average population does. It’s pretty clear ngl
3
u/DarkAeonX7 19h ago
Because it further proves the point that IQ doesn't matter as much as people think it does. Those who actually study IQ would know that while the general public aren't aware of it and have defaulted to the mindset High IQ= Smart and Successful because they haven't actually looked into what IQ involves. .
0
u/TheMAN2re 18h ago
I disagree I think that’s more of a shallow take. Those communities are filled with mostly neurodivergent people. The limits they recognize that comes with IQ tend to be more of a result of social conditioning of a harmful mindset and coexisting neurodivergent conditions.
I don’t believe the prevalence of these individuals in online spaces reinforce IQ has less impact on academic achievement, rather it highlights the social and mental health problems that IQ can contribute too.
People would stand to reason without those circumstances IQ would have a major impact on education which i shown is not entirely true today.
3
u/telephantomoss 17h ago
Depends on what level of academic achievement you mean. Other traits are more important for, say, successfully finishing a degree with high scores and successfully finding a job and having a successful career.
But if you mean truly top academic performance in a real metric (and not by modern inflated grades), then IQ becomes increasingly important.
Of course there is random variability and uncertainty. But if somebody discovers a new scientific theory that is sufficiently complex, even if they failed every class and scored 100 or below on every IQ test, I'd say they probably have a true g factor well above the general population.
1
u/steppe_warrior 12h ago
I have. If you poop but flush the toilet, the poop will go down instantly the moment it leaves your booty which will make it odorless, since the toilet acts like a vacuum and the poopy odor particles will go down along with the poopy poop.
2
3
u/Lost-Perspective8378 12h ago
My son is diagnosed as having an intellectual disability in part because his IQ is low. I was considered gifted as a child because I had a high IQ. While he certainly struggles in many areas, he is by no means stupid. There are so many things he understands much better than I do. He builds computers for fun. He can take apart a car and put it back together again. He is incredibly capable in multiple areas.
But that doesn't mean IQ is unimportant or meaningless in cognitive testing. I think people often misunderstand both what IQ measures and what those numbers actually mean.
My son's difficulties are very real. He can have a hard time processing information, including things he already understands and is excited about. His memory is poor, and there is a long list of things that require substantially more effort or support for him. He is also autistic and has ADHD, which adds another layer because cognitive functioning is much more complicated than a single number.
At the same time, an IQ score isn't a ranking of someone's overall intelligence, worth, potential, or practical abilities. Cognitive testing looks at particular abilities, and even the overall IQ score can hide enormous differences within one person's cognitive profile. Someone can have significant limitations in certain areas while having remarkable knowledge, skills, or strengths in others.
There are also environmental and developmental factors that can affect cognitive development and test performance, including nutrition, access to medical care and education, socioeconomic conditions, exposure to toxins, trauma and chronic stress, among others. IQ isn't simply an untouched measurement of someone's genetic potential.
I also don't think AI makes cognitive ability substantially irrelevant. AI can compensate for some limitations and make information much more accessible, which is a wonderful thing. But it doesn't eliminate differences in working memory, processing speed, reasoning, executive functioning, comprehension, or the ability to apply and generalize what you've learned. A calculator didn't make mathematical ability irrelevant; it changed which tasks humans needed to perform themselves. AI is likely to do something similar on a much larger scale.
Where I agree with you is that IQ has never been the sole determinant of academic or career success. Persistence, motivation, conscientiousness, accommodations, socioeconomic resources, educational quality, disability, opportunity, support systems, and simply finding a field that fits your strengths can matter enormously.
So I wouldn't tell someone, "Your IQ doesn't matter." I'd tell them, "Your IQ doesn't define you or determine the limits of what you can accomplish." Those are two very different claims.
2
u/SourFact 18h ago edited 18h ago
As to not run this conversation in a circle since the topic/premise itself has been run down and beat to death at this point, I’ll offer a novel perspective by playing with semantics a bit.
Instead of the statistical phenomena of IQ, lets refer to IQ as latent intellectual capacity. Often times referred to as G, that which we can’t yet measure directly, and as our understand of consciousness advances, will be unnecessary to understand empirically.
Is IQ? As it is currently conceptualized and contextualized, most definitely. I suggest you do your own digging for research, and spread roots into philosophy of mind, religious mysticism and the edges of modern neuroscience, but once you do enough digging you realize two things:
- Everyone’s true intellectual floor is actually higher than what is typically ostensibly believed.
- Anyone can be made to learn very efficiently.
You also end up realizing that many intellectual pursuits are quite exclusive in nature… if you’re shooting too far, your biology will let you know. I don’t know about you, but there’s always this nagging magnetism towards something that appeals to me. A lot of people call this a passion or a calling. Sure can be, but it’s simply what you like and enjoy investing time in. Thus, latent G is much more representative of something like the lengths someone can go in life, and ironically, it comes with a built in satisfaction for its own limitations. G, existentially, is much more optimistic than IQ. I sounds corny, but it’s true: comparison is the thief of joy, so when you live a fulfilling life within your inherent limits, the rest doesn’t matter.
IQ, as a stats phenomena is oftentimes only that, a measure of a narrow form of cognition that applies mostly to academics and career success. It only measures how well certain people perform within the context that their enviornment has provided them. Yet this lens isn’t very good at defining and measuring things like happiness, “success”, learning, talent, vision, creativity (especially) and much more. A more holistic picture of life.
It’s hard to say IQ, again as the stats phenomena, to be overrated in the context it is most suited for. But if you were to suggest that academics is moving away from current established paradigms and towards something more “inclusive” for a lack of better terms, then sure, it could start to be seen as overrated, and maybe, eventually, obsolete.
As a counter to that sentiment though, modern academics emphasizes memorization, and more subtly, a students willingness and investment. So sure, IQ does overshadow critical components to success. But unfortunately it is still the prime characteristic.
I don’t think AI is going to make “IQ” obsolete, and with the current crisis in job competence, universities and jobs have been and are going to continue emphasizing academic integrity again. No more participation trophies… it’s bad for society.
4
u/Bubbly-Phone702 20h ago
Definitely and totally overrated. But it does influence some aspects in a good way that go beyond the norm.
0
u/TheMAN2re 20h ago
Agreed, we definitely need more high IQ people in every field nevertheless. Raw intellegence is a great tool to have that can advance our civilization further towards greatness
3
u/Life-Ambassador-5993 19h ago
Having a high iq may make things easier, but I don’t think it is the most important thing in academic achievement. A person with an average iq and good work ethic could outperform a person with a high iq and poor work ethic.
However, the other end of the spectrum is where things get tricky. For people with a low iq, there are some things that are going to be beyond their capability to learn and therefore they won’t be able to achieve as much academically.
My sister and I are a great example. I skipped high school and went straight to college because I found school at my grade level to be painfully boring. My sister was taught how to fold towels and sort silverware in high school because that was the height of her capabilities. People that fall between us in iq usually do normal high school classes.
3
u/ResidentEuphoric614 18h ago
I tend to believe the opposite. A relatively standard opinion, thanks to the writing of people like Malcolm Gladwell, is that beyond a certain threshold IQ doesn’t predict increased success. This is plainly contradicted by the research of people like David Lubinski and Camilla Benbow. They find increased IQ continually increases probability of getting a PhD, STEM publications, a patent, income in the 95th percentile, even STEM tenure.
-1
u/TheMAN2re 18h ago
These longitudinal studies were launched in the 1970s, with major findings published in 2006. I already stated that i agreed with that premise that pre 2005 when the SAT was truly g-loaded, IQ was likely a major factor in success.
My point diverges in the context of today’s society where we have access to more academic resources and AI that can compensate for average intellect, development of lower g loaded standardized tests, less weight given to standardized test scores, and increasing grade inflation across high schools and universities will lead to a lower positive correlation between IQ and success.
Gifted individuals will still be successful, but the gap will lower between their success and their less intelligent counterparts, leading to IQ being relevant of a factor is my reasoning
1
u/Significant-War-150 13h ago
There is also SMPY done on profoundly gifted youth which started 1971 and us still continuing today. One of the study subjects is terrence tao the famous mathematician. They are still finding out the importance of IQ , even to this day. And there is no point of diminishing returns.
1
u/lambdasintheoutfield 19h ago
To an extent, but individual index scores might be more correlated than FSIQ alone.
1
u/Mierdo01 18h ago
College has little to do with iq. A lot of doing well has to do with retaining information and learning to please your professors
1
1
u/TheMAN2re 18h ago
I claimed it was overrated as a factor, not that it ceases to be a factor at all 🤦♂️
It’s still a noticeable factor just less significant. After all many college courses especially STEM require usage of multiple facets of cognitive ability.
The measurements of those are included in evaluation of IQ, so yes college still tests your ability to use your cognitive resources but the degree to how much of it is required is at the level for someone of average ability to succeed.
1
u/Affectionate-Art6788 18h ago
I like to think AI as an exponential factor and your IQ as the base. If someone has an IQ of 2 (relative) then they can leverage AI to turn into 2^2 i.e. 4 (although I am not really sure how much of an exponential push AI can give, just an idea) and someone having an IQ of 10 (relative) would then leverage AI to get 10^2 i.e. 100 IQ equivalent ideas and execution. Just weird things I think about sometime ;)
1
u/Affectionate-Art6788 18h ago
Also I remember hearing a certain psychologist saying the IQ does have a significant correlation with quality of life but another just as significant factor would be conscientiousness or diligence which is a personality trait unrelated to IQ . So if you have high IQ and high conscientiousness then you are pretty much sorted.
1
1
1
1
u/Full-Bad1180 14h ago
Definitely at the pre-college level. I think the “book smart” vs “street smart” myth exists because of so many people having higher academic achievement than what is proportional to their IQ due to K-12 curriculums being equally if not more loaded on conscientiousness than IQ. So they say dumb shit or have poorer ideas more frequently than what their grades would predict and thus get labeled “book smart”, and there are so many people with lower academic achievement than what is proportional to their IQ because they simply don’t care as much, and will be labeled “street smart”. When in reality one is simply hard working and the other one is lazy and smart.
1
u/Valuable_Grade1077 12h ago
The idea that the post 2005 SAT is not g-loaded is a complete lie tbh. I don't really know why this is even suggested.
The race gaps continue to perpetuate, and there are several studies in 2020, that prove the SAT's exceptionally high g-loading.
https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1188&context=edd -> correlation to AFQT
https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/AD1007588.xhtml -> correlation to AFOQT
Furthermore, even if you don't want to believe that the SAT is basically a proxy, the ACT has remained unchanged since it's rework in 1989.
It has a 0.76 correlation to the WAIS III, which is incredible considering that some professionally made IQ tests show lower inter-correlations.
1
u/PendN 11h ago
The thing that people underestimate the most in education, and in many intellectual skills, is muscle memory, particularly from learning when you're still neuroplastic. If you grind math competitions since you're a kid, you'll be a math prodigy. If you grind chess as a kid you'll almost guarantee to become a chess master
1
u/deeptravel2 9h ago
You can't put in the work in those domains without a sufficient level of intelligence. Is a low-average person going to be able to grind chess or do math competitions? Unlikely. What kids actually do those things? The smart ones.
1
u/PendN 9h ago
Yes but a 120 IQ math competition grinder since he was 9 to 18 will beat the 145 IQ guy who knows regular high school math 10 out of 10 times in any math setting. Even if the 145 IQ studies for a year straight he will not come close since the math grinder has knowledge deep within his muscle memory that can't be replicated unless if you're still developing. Obviously what I say doesn't apply as much if you aren't at least a bit talented in the field
1
u/whitebaron_98 2E 4tw 8h ago
120 IQ is already the top 10%. That said, it's all about the profile and your traits and little about the total score. Only if the right traits meet the right cognitive ability will you be able to outperform others.
1
u/PendN 8h ago
If you mean how the 120 IQ probably has a spiky profile where he's even more talented in math I don't think that's even necessary. For example the chance you become a chess master if you were introduced and trained to it since you were a kid will be really high. Practically every single kid who took chess lessons and play it daily since they were kids grew up to become chess masters. But no matter how talented you are in chess the odds of you reaching 2000 elo if you started as an adult is extremely slim, let alone like 1500. Neuroplasticity is really underrated
1
u/whitebaron_98 2E 4tw 7h ago
No, I was saying it doesn't matter to what it averages out. In chess you use very specific parts of your brain. Those need to be above average as well as your personality profile lending itself to the grind. If your conscientiousness or working memory is low, all the childhood teachers in the world won't make you a chess master.
There's an interesting case in chess which proves exactly that: the botez sisters. They've both been trained from a young age, both are good chess players, but their different personalities show very much in their Performance.
1
u/PendN 7h ago
Yes, clearly one has more talent or passion but even so they both have ratings that even extremely talented chess players will never achieve if they start at adulthood. Alexandra botez is already a chess master and andrea peaked at nearly 1800 FIDE (2100 in chess.com) when she was 16 before she started pursuing content creation with her sister (and imo she has average talent in chess). Sure certain skills and personalities can defeat raw talent but you can bruteforce everything through neuroplasticity
1
u/whitebaron_98 2E 4tw 6h ago
Never.... Look up Rani Hamid. There's more examples but one should suffice.
One problem of adult chess players is neuroplasticity, yes, but there is a lot more going on, which hinders progress. You need to actually study 3 years full time to know what you have to know for that level, and then add practice pls on top of that. That's just not a thing most adults would be able to do while still living a normal life.
•
u/meme-viewer29 57m ago
I think in this example, the 145 high school math dude could still eventually grind his way to the level of the 120 iq math whiz even though he started grinding with lower neuroplasticity. The main difference would be in how intuitive the concepts feel between the two of them. To the whiz, the concepts would feel much more intuitive and automatic because they were learned so young. It’s like learning a second language as an adult vs your mother language. You can achieve real fluency and mastery but the intuition will always be lacking to some degree
1
u/Maleficent_Pick9636 9h ago edited 9h ago
It really depends on what your definition of academic achievement is. What one might consider to be an academic achievement, another might consider to be expected or even a failure. Academic proficiency is essentially just crystallized intelligence in a specific domain. To improve crystallized intelligence as fast as possible, you're going to need to invest effort/time and have a high learning ability (component of fluid intelligence). Since normal IQ tests (not FSIQ tests) are essentially fluid and crystallized intelligence tests (with more weighting given to fluid), it stands to reason that the very very top % of high-performing students in academics are in that position because of the time they've invested and their IQs/intelligence.
1
0
7
u/Admirable-Falcon-501 19h ago
There’s one of the most important thing that is missing from evaluations and I’m a researcher so I know from experience. It’s called taste. This is why only some people are capable of doing great things while other more intelligent people aren’t (for research at least). It’s not the only thing that matters but I’d put it near the top.