>>11895377You realize the most well researched metric in a pseudo science is still a pseudo science, right? IQ is hardly an accurate metric over the overall potential of an individual.
>If it weren't then we would be seeing populations of low IQ individuals that were smart and vice versa yet we never do.This is actually an interesting point, has there ever been any research into this?
And anon, there are billions of people that don't give a shit about IQ and don't get tested. How do you know this subset doesn't exist?
I'll argue that this subset does exist. We see them all the time. Take talented musicians, leaders, or even athletes like Messi.
Wouldn't you agree someone like Messi is a genius in their own field?
Wouldn't you agree someone like Messi is more of a genius than the average PhD in mathematics? Messi is a once in a century talent, PhDs in math come and go.
What I'm getting at is different forms of intelligence exists. But IQ only focuses on reasoning, logic, intelligences that are common within the scientific and mathematical community. Don't you agree then it's ridiculous to claim IQ is an accurate measure of one's intelligence when there are so many other forms (verbal, musical, for example) of intelligence that are neglected or even excluded from the average IQ test?
The point I'm making is that an IQ test is not an accurate measure of one's potential.
And I'm only talking about the individual. Don't even get me started on the stupidity of using IQ to judge a group of people.
