"intelligence" is different than an intelligence quotient score. People are more than a number.

IQ measures the ability to learn, not what you've learned. You can have a high IQ and know jack shit.

Yeah, numbers are toopid.

The way things work is that if you have a high IQ (and high motivation too), you receive high scores (SAT, ACT, grades), thus getting into the better universities and receiving better a education, which leads to fields of study and employ that generally require above-average intelligence people.

That being said, I don't really believe there is a truly accurate measure of intelligence.

I think it's easier to measure stupidity.

if IQ tests were accurate all the time, then maybe.

How about personality tests?

Your IQ score accurately measures how well you have done on an IQ test.

aye, it do.

EQ > IQ I always say.

A sky breaching IQ with no EQ (emotional quotient [people skills and the like]) is useless. But even someone with low IQ but high EQ can go far. Very far.

Tail Post
 

Human beings cannot be quantified (by currently available methods); we aren't like computers with "specs" you can measure. For example, one "leap" of associative thinking can out-perform a thousand linear calculations. Which kind of thinker is better? Neither. If you can get the job done, you can get the job done.

Many famous people, in their respective fields, weren't the "right type" of person to do that job (as was traditionally understood); but they excelled in that field by breaking down the barriers that others were not equipped to understand. . . . And I'm citing that right out of my ass.

People who are really smart, but are not sensitive to others, rise to the top and dont care who gets hurt on the way.

People who are really dumb, but have great sensitivity don't rise to the top, but they don't care about that because they're too dumb to know the difference, and people like them because they're so nice.

People who are really smart and really sensitive are fucked.

Maybe you are but I think you're right. The "right type" of people for the job, often become the "right type", by following the traditional path to the job. That means they don't bring much new to the job in the way of experience and education.

You go to medical school to become a doctor. The course of study should be (more than) difficult enough to weed out anyone who's not bright enough.

The problem is there are people who lie, cheat, steal, or coast through to becoming a doctor. Regardless of IQ, you don't want this person to be your doctor.

Nope just skill and aptitude. IQ tests are just tricks and tell you nothing.
Someone raised on a farm will test very low on IQ tests yet may be a genius, the questions are based on "common" knowledge.
Shows those who came up with them must have had low "IQ"s.

If I am honest on an IQ test I do pretty well, around 170-175, but if I decide to give answers that I know the test "wants" I get insanely high scores.

Both tests are the same in this respect.

Someone may have an aptitude that has nothing to do with their general knowlege... it is a ridiculous idea.

My heart doesn't enter into it. Physical requirements are easy to measure: speed, strength, whatever. However, IQ is a good indicator of potential, but it is not a hard and fast measure of intelligence or aptitude for a specific task.

Discriminating based on a task's physical requirements makes sense (if you also take into account other qualifications also). Using IQ to determine whether someone can complete a task is nonsense.

Ideally, you discriminate based on past accomplishments (education, work experience, references, whatever) and physical ability to do the work. You can't use one in exclusion of the other and make a good decision.

If someone with average IQ has shown they can do the job as well as I can, let them do it.

(I hope that made sense. I usually don't make serious posts...)