Oo interesting. The term IQ is everywhere. Do IQ exams do that? You probably need 120 points of IQ don't know my IQ IQ IQ IQ low IQ Individual people who post about their IQ are losers chat when people here CH Here's my take it, a highq doesn't mean a very very low IQ actually has some sort of relevance at least a little bit. It some things at the upper echelons might.

doesn't really mean anything cuz like ah, whatever because you know, but whenever you're you have no logical thinking and you're so bad you have low. very low IQ What it has a in my op it has a little bit of a meaning. say IQ What they mean is I is an objective, rigorous measurement of intellectual ability. but does it actually work well in this video I Want to find out where IQ came from? What does it actually measure? what can predict about your life and I guess what is my IQ I have never taken an official IQ test before.

Honestly, I don't think I'm terribly smart I've always kind of considered my IQ to be maybe just a little above average exothermic or endothermic. I feel like that should be exothermic? Good job Science Guy There are a lot of IQ tests online, but I am very skeptical about their accuracy. That's me. Some of them may be good practice for the thing tomorrow.

I'm going to do an IQ test for real before I do that I Want to try to improve my score and so I'm going to try to do a whole bunch of practice tests. I Think this test is trainable, but tomorrow we're going to see whether that's true or not. The idea of intelligence testing goes back hundreds of years, but the first concrete break chat practicing isn't the end of the world. Okay, practicing CH will only shave up a little bit of time overall and increase I by a little bit at the end.

This all opin. I'm saying ahead of time in the video. Last pause Okay, because because because because it gives you an idea what kind of tests are going to are going to pop up and what you're looking for. Overall, even though they're not going to give you the actual answer itself, but you're not going to get surprised by it and you're not, you're going to be in the element beforehand that that's what practicing has like some sort of relevance, but not that much.

breakthrough occurred in 1904. English Psychologist: Charles Spearman was studying students grades in different subjects and he wondered how their performance in one subject like English would relate to their performance in another. Like math. One option would be that the better a student did in math, the worse they would do in English Maybe because they spent more time on their math work and so had less time to devote to English so performance in different subjects would be negatively correlated.

Another option was that performance in one subject would be completely unrelated to Performance in another. After all, different subjects require different skill sets, so maybe marks would be totally uncorrelated. What about interest? What about interest? Maybe maybe you're just more interested. So whatever, they speak words against your head.

Otherwise, it doesn't. The third option was that the better a student did in math, the better they would do in English. In other words, their marks would be positively correlated. A correlation coefficient can vary anywhere from negative 1 to positive1.

A correlation coefficient of negative 1 indicates a perfect negative correlation, meaning an increase in one variable corresponds to a precise, predictable decrease in the other variable. Similarly, a correlation of positive one indicates a perfect basic math, like a correlation of zero indicates no relationship between the two variables. Zero is like that. Any value between zero and one indicates a positive correlation, but the data has some random spread.

The square of the correlation coefficient tells you the amount of variation in in one variable that can be explained by variation in the other outliers in a cloud of Dos. For example, if the correlation coefficient is .5 then 25% of the variation in one variable can be explained by the other. When Spearman analyzed his data, he found a clear positive correlation. Students who did better in math also tended to do better in English and the correlation coefficient was 64.

But math and English weren't the only subjects the student studied. They also took Classics and French and when Spearman looked at the correlations between all of these subjects, he found the same pattern. Students who did well in one subject tended to do well in them all. So how do you explain this observation well? Spearman proposed that each person has some level of general intelligence what he call called the G Factor.

This construct was meant to capture how quickly students could learn new material, recognize patterns, and think critically regardless of the subject matter, which explains why student scores across subjects are correlated. Those with high G score well on all subjects, and those with low G score poorly on all subjects, right? Spearman Published his conclusions in a paper titled general Intelligence objectively determined and measured, but the correlations weren't perfect. So on top of the G Factor Spearman proposed subject specific factors or or S factors, a student's performance in math, for example, would depend on their general intelligence plus their subject specific factor. For math, subject specific factors could increase or decrease performance on that particular subject.

That's been interesting actually Spearman believed that I can't I cannot react People Okay, live in in a guys last pause of this kind. Okay, let me explain. Okay, okay, all the Twitter andies okay. get off my dick is last time I'll ever talk about this in this manner in this manner.

Okay, some things you don't understand aren't reactable. You want know why cuz it's informative and I'm watching everybody else. It's like it's like I'm with friends and we're watching a documentary about animals. right? Like I'm are learning something and I can't go like oh my God The S Factor: Well, oh my goodness.

Wait a minute. Wait a minute. chat. That is a letter of the alphabet and if there's you, look at G and S two of them are both on the alphabet.

We're having some sort of pattern here, guys. let's play. play the video specific Factor that's a graph you learn in school. seventh grade math.

much. got it Next, that intelligence was fixed. so he wanted to find a way to reliably measure general intelligence at around the same time in France Alfred Benet was tasked with figuring out which kids needed more help in school. Together with Theodor Simone, he developed the Benet Simone test.

Students were asked to name what's missing in the drawing Define abstract terms and repeat back sentences, and there was also this question asking which Fa is prettiest. There were 30 tasks in all, their performance was benchmarked against other students of different ages in order to assign them a mental age. For example, if a student performed about as well as the average 8-year-old their mental age would be eight. CH is my understanding chat that early child.

Early Child Development is extremely important because I I guess I studed a little bit of this okay, uh uh, in college or whatever s whatever you call it okay and Early Child Development such as giving your child toys that are that are educational little blocks, little stuff right? Any anything at all right will have a severe impact on on on how they're going to develop to to that point from from the early stage to that is crazy it it's like it is not negligible dude. little little Lego blocks, little whatever as a child I had all that dude and and um I was a failure in a Dropout So what I'm sing out is dog. This mental age was then divided by their actual age and multiplied by 100 to arrive at a so-called intelligence quotient and IQ was born. So the Benet Simone test was the world's first IQ test.

It was translated by Godard into English and brought to the US uh-oh at Stanford Lewis Turman Standardized it using a large American sample and with some modifications it became the Stanford Banet test and for decades it was the most widely used test in the United States. But this was just the start. Many other IQ tests were developed. They all had the same goal of measuring the G Factor.

The way they did this was by assessing many different mental abilities including memory, verbal, spatial, and numerical skills. Each one of these areas might have a subject specific shift, but by averaging them all together, the idea was the subject specific effects would cancel out, leaving. CH I I Want you to think about the implications of how dangerous this could be? Right? We don't even know what intelligence is at all, right? We don't how to quantify it. Whatever.

And all these tests, all these test even. they are literally useless right on paper. Imagine if you were to do this to kids and 2 them like who? who should you pretty much give up on because they're not smart enough? Or they're not whatever. Right? Because you don't understand what intelligence is and you're giving up on prodigies in in other realm or other other capacities and you don't even know you're doing it right? This? These things could have been or were dangerous.

A decent approximation of G. Of course, there would always be some error, but that's why psychologists designed IQ tests with upwards of 7 to 10 sections with distinct tasks to try to minimize subject specific distortions. All the different IQ tests differed in the number of questions and their difficulty. So to standardize the scoring system, each test was given to a large sample of the population.

Raw scores were normalized usually so the mean was 100 and the standard deviation was 15 and that's how it's still done to this day. Smart. This is known as IQ and it's meant to be a measure of an individual's G factor in comparison to the rest of the population. The way it's scaled, 68% of people have an IQ between 85 and 115.

only around 2% score over 130 or under 70. Me: 11 Lions Four cats and seven crows have a total of oh boy. as I was studying for my IQ test I practiced all the different types of questions that appear on Modern tests. One section will almost certainly be on vocabulary.

Chad Chad this this his approach CH to some of these things: I are like anti- content guys I Love this guy I this guy. but I feel like the whole point is to kind of cook yourself for content dude. just go into St Go straight to it dude. it's the word like sanguin and you have to pick which of the multiple choice options is most similar in meaning.

Is it gloomy? Asinine? recalcitrant, optimistic, or reflective? Um, that would be that would be. um, gloomy. Also, ask you to pick a word with the opposite meaning. So what is the opposite of perspicacious? Is it canny, obsequious, dull, fanciful, or sagacious? Another section tests your ability to spot patterns with numbers I'm so pick the number that best completes the pattern.

3, 5, 2, 3+ 4 what comes next? Originally I was looking for complicated patterns, but as I familiarized myself with the online tests I discovered the patterns were usually pretty simple. A good technique is to find the difference between adjacent terms terms. so in this case the first two terms are separated by two, the next by three, and then four. So The Logical next term should be five more than 12.

So 17 The answer is C Sometimes the numbers grow rapidly like in the sequence 3 15, 6, 180. What comes next In cases like this: I Look at the ratio of one number to the one before it. This, the next number is four times bigger and the next one is three times larger. So the answer should be two times the fourth term, which is 360.

Answer: B One of the best known types of IQ test questions are: Raven Progressive Matricies involve a 3X3 grid with the cells. You have to select the ninth cell which follows the chat. If you do not test chat, the late game version of this is insane. It is busted.

You can't do it. I Can't do it nobody. It's insane. I Found that the bulk of these puzzles obey one of only a few different logical rules.

One is translational motion, so the symbols move from one cell to the next in a predictable fashion. The second is rotational motion. One or several objects rotate from one cell to the next. The third is missing symbols where in each row or column, each symbol appears once, so figure out symb in the final cell.

You just have to spot which ones are missing and the fourth is addition where the first cell plus the second cell equals the third cell. In this case, lines that overlap cancel out a line. plus nothing equals a line in most modern IQ tests. All of the questions are completed under time pressure.

You may have only around 10 to 30 seconds per question. Okay, this morning I'm taking an official IQ test tests and I got to say that I'm pretty nervous I always want to do well on tests. You know it's something I pride myself on, but at the same time, you know, uh, who knows how this is going to go? I'm not allowed to take you in there because obviously people don't want the questions getting out and they don't even want video of what it looks like in there. You know they're very strict about these things.

You have to go there. I'm going to go in, do the test. I'll come out and I'll let you know how it went. Wish me luck.

What's remarkable about IQ tests is that an hour or two of questions on vocabulary. but this bro studied for an I test bro. that's like that's like studying for a for a a taste test or some. I feel like numbers and arbitrary shapes can predict a surprising amount about your life.

For one thing, the higher your IQ the larger your brain is likely to be. A large meta analysis from 2005 estimated a correlation of 33 between IQ and brain size so high IQ is literally big brain IQ is also Al predictive of school Success This is why H is so dumb Oh my God This is what Oh my God in 2007 Scottish Psychiatrist Ian Deiri measured the IQs of 13,0 11y olds and 5 years later when these students completed National School examinations de compared their exam marks to their IQs. Their performance on an IQ test when they were 11 correlated with their performance 5 years later on the GCS uh, about 08. That's an extremely high uh coration.

It means about 2third of the variation in national school examination scores could be predicted by IQ tests taken 5 years prior. Now, the correlation coefficient of this study is at the high end of the. 2 to point8 Range found in similar studies, but research supports the claim that IQ is a good predictor of school. Success It also predicts how much schooling a person will complete.

Maybe this shouldn't be so surprising since some school tests are essentially IQ tests. It's been argued that tests like the SAT Act and the Gr are basically IQ tests. They correlate with standard IQ tests at around CH. This is tough because in chat guys guys, it sucks to treat people as a statistic right and be like, well, you're more likely than not to succeed on this, so it let's not do that right.

It would really suck to do a test and be like, well, the math say that you're probably not going to make it really far, whatever and that really sucks. Like it. that's trash. Now on my SATs I got a score of 1330 which corresponds to an IQ of around 130.

So it'll be interesting to see if my official IQ score matches that or if I was able to increase my score by familiarizing myself with IQ style questions. I Don't know, but IQ also has predictive power outside of school. One of the most robust findings is that IQ can predict job success, particularly in technical or high complexity. Don't be dumb at dude, you being dumb or not has a lot to do with your early early stage factors.

If you have bad parents or bad spawn bad spawn points What if what if people said well you were born in this position in a city where where people well did did allot not allow them go to college. So I mean according to the stats nobody should be allowed to go to college that are born in in in this particular part of town want you? What a stupid thing to say. How do you measure occupational success? Uh, you ask people's bosses to rate same behavior You ask what people's income is. You measure productivity in ways that economists use about.

you know the output generated. The correlations typically range from. 2 to 6 and the effect is most notable for more complex jobs, which makes sense. The highest effect is for military training.

In fact, the US military will not accept anyone with an IQ under 80. They also limit to 20% the number of recruits with IQs between 81 and 92 during the Vietnam war. In order to increase the pool of applicants, they relaxed this last requirement. but what they found was that those below the threshold were 1.5 to three times as likely to fail recruit training and they required between 3 to nine times as much remedial training taken together.

This added so much strain that the military ran more efficiently without the extra recruits. In total, 5,478 people recruited under the died. What what if they track this data chat and instead they just put them on the front lines with they're like, more likely to like have a short like lifespan strategically like oh yeah, you're you're hired whatever And then and then they make sure they like really front line soldiers so that you know they're more likely to like die at a fatality rate three times higher than ordinary recruits. So the military reinstated their requirements and today anyone with an IQ less than 80 that is about 30 million Americans would be ineligible to join I'm just saying that seems like even outside the military, IQ seems to play a role in how long you live in a Scottish study, scientists uncovered IQ tests from kids when they were 11 years old.

Now 65 years later, they checked to see who from the sample was still alive at age 76. They found that on average for every 15 Point increase on the IQ test, you would be 27% more likely to still be alive at age 76. A large meta analysis confirms that people with high IQs have a lower risk of dying during the time frame investigated in each study. The last major thing that IQ seems toct is income.

This study shows a clear tendency for income to increase with IQ and it found a correlation coefficient of3, but the variance is huge. In fact, the top three until Tik Tok Social Media twitch YouTube Then this went flipo mode In this study all had IQs below 100. A large meta analysis of 31 studies found the correlation between IQ and income to be. 21.

That is significant, but small. It means that only 4.4% of the variance in income is explained by IQ. Maybe one of the reasons why we don't see as high a correlation for income is just because economically intelligence is not necessarily that highly rewarded in that Maybe there are jobs you know, like incorrect doing a real real estate type. Incorrect Guys, you guys say true that is inherently incorrect because intelligence is is inherently unquantifiable and the ways you can be smart in and the ways you can do and use your intellect to to make income is Intelligence on its own.

If you're if you the the core concept of of of making money or succeeding has a lot of things that are untangles that will make you get that income and that is smart on its own. It's just not. It's just not in a way that they it's why these so useless scheme like maybe that doesn't require a huge amount of intelligence. Simultaneously you have all these very highly intelligent people who become if you're so smart, you have such a high IQ and you're so intelligent you have so many degrees.

whatever. Why are you broke gotcha? Okay, intelligence has immobile facets that you're that you're you're failing to understand and and put in the equation College Professors But that doesn't necessarily pay very bro. I'm not evening I'm just telling you, a lot of people who have very high intelligence score don't have the same interest in goal make money in accumulating money. The relationship with net worth is even sorry I didn't mean to last PA I I didn't mean I mean I didn't mean to be hurtful about this sh my bad that was that was insensitive.

What I meant is that if your whole goal is to make money and you de yourself intelligent and that's your only goal to make money and and you're not achieving that, maybe you're not. Maybe you're not that smart. If if if because you're driven in a field that doesn't have a lot of money into it and you're very intelligent and you don't make a lot of money, That's fair enough that happens everywhere that almost in all the fields and especially in in science research. uh where there's not a lot of funding.

people that are very smart that have like a lot of big phds with with low funding. these are very smart people. They make a lot of money right because they're not driven on making money. But in the end, if you if you're incl to make make money, you're intelligent and you're not making making money well, you're probably dumb weaker.

It hardly seems to correlate with IQ even though people with higher IQs are supposedly more intelligent and on average they make more money each year. but this apparently doesn't Translate into saving or accumulating more wealth overall. But if IQ correlates with school achievement, job performance, income, and Longevity why don't we hear more about it? Why aren't more people tested I Think it's because IQ has a dark history. When Henry Godard brought Benet's test to America its use and interpretation shifted dramatically in France Benet Believed intelligence could be improved through education.

He designed his tests so that struggling students could be given more help to catch up. but in the US the modified test was given to adults to rank them by intelligence. That's not right and researchers like Spearman believed that G was unchangeable that whatever general intelligence you were born with, you would have for the rest of your life and many thought G was inherited passed down from parents to children. Chad This is like almost worse than Eugenics I've been in these days.

We would say it has a genetic basis and there is some evidence to support these assertions. IQ appears fairly consistent over one's lifetime. So they had test done 11 years old. We found tests in in a filing cabinet and followed those people up and gave them the same test when they were 90 years old.

U You know much much later, their scores 80 years apart were correlated at around5 to6. There is also evidence for a genetic basis to IQ chat yes, genetic but also also there's also environment relation to it. like like where you were born in come of your parents. Uh um, there's yes, there's there's biological things right? but as you're developing as a child, your environment impacts you severely on whether or not you're going to score high.

Therefore, this this Eugenics plus other things. So it's is like Eugenics on crack you find. for instance, if you get two identical twins and give them an IQ test, they have a very strong correlation. It's actually about the same as giving the same person the test you know a few weeks apart.

Henry Godard Used the claims that intelligence was inherited and unchangeable to put IQ at the center of the American Eugenics movement. Eugenesis wanted to prevent those with undesirable traits from having kids. In many states, Law laws were passed to enable forced sterilization of people who failed to meet a certain threshold on an IQ test. The constitutionality of these laws was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1927.

Even words that we now use as insults idiot imbecile were used as scientific terms in his judgment. Justice Oliveres wrote it is better for all the world if instead of waiting to execute degenerate Offspring for crime or to let the starve for their imbecility Society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. Three generations of imbeciles are enough. In total, over 60,000 people were forcibly sterilized as a result of these laws.

In fact, they served as a model for Nazi Germany Hitler Himself claimed to be inspired by American eugenicists. these have been used for. this is educational content Things in the past at the the Nberg trials after the war. some Nazis quoted from the American Supreme Court decision given.

Okay I had to pause again. this guy's hairline Bro: just give up man. listen I Got bro I got to keep it a stack. This guy, this guy brother.

it's done it. It's done man. stop from American Supreme Court Decision: he's got a line in the middle given this awful history I Think it's understandable that many people completely IQ Today on the science of elligence, there are a number of things those early researchers got wrong. One is that IQ is not entirely determined by genetics.

Can you quantify the effects of genetics versus environment when you look at twin studies on average across the whole lifespan, it's about 50/50 to uh uh, heritability, and uh, environment? You simply can't My for ethical reasons, What's up, What the is up now? I Call it are you Now you know with a reasonable degree of certainty or accuracy. Given my reading of that literature, it's a pretty broad range. probably somewhere between 40% and 70% Okay, and since education can improve IQ it is not completely fixed over a lifetime. Plus, intelligence might not be a single construct as initially imagined.

These days, scientists recognize two forms of intelligence: Fluid and crystallized Fluid Intelligence is your AB ility to learn, process information and solve novel problems, whereas crystallized intelligence involves the knowledge you've accumulated over your lifetime. Both types of intelligence increase throughout childhood, but fluid intelligence peaks in early adulthood and then declines, whereas crystallized intelligence remains more stable. But IQ has been further misused to promote the idea of racial differences in intelligence. There is, for example, an observed gap between the average IQ of Black and white.

Americans Articles have also been published on the IQs of different nations around the world. Many of these nations are reported to have average IQs below 70. That's the cut off for intellectual disability. How could this be? the conclusion? That some draw is that there are genetic differences between races or nations in intelligence, but I Think that's a gross misrepresentation of the data.

That's right, the problem I'd argue is that that IQ tests don't necessarily measure what you think they're measuring. And the proof is that there's a representative sample of white Americans whose average IQ is 70. Who are these people just ordinary Americans who lived around a 100 years ago Researcher: James Flynn studied the average results of IQ tests over the past Century Shut the up. Every so often the tests get updated and roral guys look, look, look, look, look okay.

that's edited IED to keep their average at 100. Now what Flynn noticed was that each time they got renormalized, the scores had to be shifted down a bit more by about two or three IQ points per decade. And if they didn't do this, what we would see is that the average IQ of the whole population was increasing at a steady rate for the last 100 years, adding up to around a 30 point increase. This is known as the Flyn effect where our immediate ancestors on the verge of mental retardation because 70 is normally the score for mental retardation or are we on the verge of all being gifted because 130 is the cutting line for giftedness.

Now, the genetics of the population haven't really changed over 100 years, So what caused the increase? Well, chat, power creeping. well. There is some debate about the true causes, but one of them is probably improving childhood nutrition and health. You know, height also increased across that time period, right? People got taller and taller and taller.

Another cause is better education. There's lots of evidence that school makes you more intelligent. You become better at problem solving if you have more knowledge because it's easier for you. Pause CH The way present, the way this present to me chat I'm the way the way the video present to me.

This my conclusion with the video is pretty much what I thought this what it conclus from the video I'm not making this conclusion it is that is that you can't make this comparison uh with like races or whatever And it's stupid because if you if you uh if you back up and you you um uh uh segregate or like um up an entire area of people or or like or like race well of course they have less less tools that they can use to develop that and then they're hindered in that so they're they're back. They're like they in the pass almost make associations if you have more things to make The associations with. A third proposed cause is a shift in the types of of work that most people do from Mostly manual labor 100 years ago to much more abstract thinking these days. and that shift may have made us better at answering the types of questions that are asked on.

IQ tests rotate again. The point is that IQ tests appear to objectively measure intelligence. they don't even in the same country, separated only by time. Cultural changes can affect the average scores on IQ tests.

So why shouldn't we expect cultural differences between groups at the same time to have the same effect? Some tests go so far as to label themselves culture Fair Meaning the questions should be equally valid for all cultures, but the truth is, it's impossible to construct such a test. Oh, does that work? No, Okay, no. I mean that's just a title, right? That's just a marketing term. I Don't think there is such a thing as a completely culture free or culture.

Fair Uh test culture Fair Tests assess visual relations, geometric shapes and patterns. Ignoring the fact that cultures differ in for example, whether they have words for shapes or spatial relations, These differences influence how people think about and use categories. It's also debatable whether cultures without printed materials even perceive them in the same way that we do. What culture Fair tests don't assess is ethnobotanical knowledge or training dogs to hunt or surviving alone in the rainforest.

Arguably, these forms of intelligence are more important for survival than knowing, say, the next number in the sequence. but since they are less common in our culture and we don't have good ways of measuring them, we see IQ puzzles as the definitive way to quantify int that makes a lot of sense and the people who make these tests agree. there are stringent requirements before a test validated for one population can be used with a very different population. Even in the limited forms of intelligence that IQ attempts to assess, there are factors other than G which affect the final IQ So as culture becomes more kind of like all all okay, I'm not going to go there think should equalize is what I'm trying to say like motivation.

how much someone is incentivized to complete the test can have a marked impact on their SC Many Studies have tried paying subjects to complete an IQ test. In some studies, they're offered a little say around a dollar. Other studies offer between $1 and $10 and the real high roll offer more than $10 A large meta analysis showed that motivating people in this way increased IQ and the larger the dollar amount, the greater the average increase at the high end IQ increased by up to 20 points. The effect is largest for those with below average IQs.

So in addition to G IQ tests also measure motivation. but it doesn't stop there. They do rotate training and coaching for an IQ test can boost scores by up to eight points. Yeah! I Just completed the test in uh, some random notice n to barely talk after that, it seemed pretty fair.

There were lots of different sections in that section in particular: I Feel I killed. Those questions were easy I would say having done the test I feel like that should be trainable like you should be able to train someone to do that well I know he's M about the shapes and like that late game they're so hard. strategy is also. some people are just better at taking tests under time pressure than others I think the hardest thing about the test was the time limits looking for the patterns in a series of shapes and it just normally takes me a little while and so I feel like I didn't finish those I called watching the video.

You have to know when to skip questions, how to eliminate clearly wrong answers, and when to guess. Anxiety also plays a role. Apparently a small amount of anxiety is good, but past a certain point it negatively impacts performance. Oh my.

God oh my. God Guess the overall review things I Tell you guys every day man I think I think I did okay uh and I think the training actually really really helped. That's my prediction. Let us fast forward to the future and see how I actually did I actually got my results from the author of the IQ test I took are three areas uh, three specific areas for the math.

one for the numbers ones I think that's where where I felt really comfortable and I you know, got there before the time was done and then I could go back and look at a few things. Yes, uh, you blew the roof off the quantitative one. On the quantitative it was 143. Course on the Crystallized Intelligence Index it was 132.

The Uh Fluid Intelligence Index was 118 which still is a higher score than 88 a half% Uh, if it's not, it's not bad, but that's it's. interesting that that one is is, uh, you know, significantly lower I guess and that's not an unusual difference around that. concept of G people have strengths and weaknesses. If we were to look at the best estimate of of G for you uh on this set of tests and it'd be different if you took a different test was at 134, which uh is higher than 98.8% of the population.

Wow, Hopefully you're not disappointed with any of that. No, you know I I wanted to do well, you know I feel like my motivation was was high, possibly higher than the the average person. So what is IQ good for my clinical practice now is Forensic Neuroscience and about 90% of my cases are death penalty. One of the most common issues is what's referred to the Atkins defense after the name of the US Supreme Court case that eliminated a death penalty for people with intellectual disability.

Can't the criminal just throw the IQ test? Can't they just intentionally answer every question? Rong We know that I mean we include just like in the test that that you took, there are embedded uh, measures of invalidity. It's detected using various mathematical algorithms. We're better than 95% accurate in detecting people who are attempting to fake poor performance. Oh wow.

One thing that we might be interested in doing is to boost people's con of ability early in life so that it takes them if, even if they go into con of decline. Uh, it takes them longer to reach the point, Uh, where they'll have functional actual everyday problems. Where they where they lose Independence Whether it comes to you know, dealing with their money, or whether it comes to dealing with um, you know, reading labels. Whatever it is that that that people struggle with when they get into kind of later stages of cognitive decline.

If we could discover a way to lastingly boost people's intelligence Massively helpful. Maybe its best use is in identifying individuals with strong intellectual abilities who haven't otherwise been able to demonstrate them. Teachers would recommend that a kid gets put in the gifted int Talented program because generally they they'd observed them uh, doing well in the classroom. But if you replace that with a standardized test an IQ test, you find um, higher proportion of of poorer kids and kids from from uh, minority ethnic backgrounds in the Gifted and Talented program when you use an IQ test.

And the reason is that you're using an objective measure, you're not just relying on some teacher's opinion. Getting into a good school was about who you knew, uh, or who your parents knew or how much money your parents had, not so much about you were doing. The idea that you could try to develop an objective is measure that would try and iron out all those social biases was clearly a well-meaning idea. IQ is something that um, not only psychology, but the general public has a LoveHate relationship with.

You know, tell me about that. We psychologists hate to talk about. you know intelligence and people's intelligence test scores and that kind of stuff. and I've had Parents You know when I included intelligence as part of a neuropsychological evaluation of their kid? They say, well, yeah, yeah, I'd I'd like to know his IQ but you know we don't really care about that.

What was it? And then I Also think you have the debate about IQ extremes on both. Sid I'm learning. Um, you have the extreme of people who say this is the most important thing ever. People's IQ is the is is a majorly important factor that we must know about them and we can classify them into particular School tools or particular ways of Education or whatever that's on one extreme and I think that's totally unpr.

unproductive. But there's another extreme. The Other Extreme is the kind of blank slate view, which is that these tests are completely useless. They don't tell us anything that they're only a tool of racism and uh, Prejudice and so on.

I Think that's wrong as well. and there's just this massive Firestorm on both sides happening around them and the people in the middle just get, just get forgotten. the people have more more views on these on these sort of topics, so you know I'd recommend that people. um, look for the more moderate views on this.

I Think the big mistake is thinking that IQ in some way determines someone's worth. What's much more important in my opinion is because once you know as somebody's IQ what's the next move, what do you do? What what? what use does it have on how you're going to treat them right, What what then how you interact with and help the people around you. Which is why I Stepen Hawkings said people who brag about their IQ are losers. While IQ tells us something, it doesn't tell us how our lives will turn out.

We have the ability to dramatically improve our outcomes by building knowledge and analytical skills. and if you're looking for a way to do that. Key: Concepts and everything from than I Saw at a at a party I Didn't want to shake his hand because I was too shy to say hello. um also he's pretty intimidating in real life to be honest.

he looks like he's like at a like always like in a business meeting. So I don't know. I was kind of up too though. so I don't know? Well that's well.

okay, well that is fake that. Okay that that actually did Oh my God dude. chat every link I CLI Today is all edited I'm not even kidding it. all of them are all of them are all of them are don't in the chat yo this is X X on the video you my voice as well.

Anyone knows that boy I don't know. he's just so anyone knows that boy I don't know he's just so s.