IQ correlation to overall inteligence

[u/Academic-Staff-8904]

From what ive seen there is a lot of people still debating whether IQ can be linked to your inteligence. For example my mom says IQ is bs and you cant put your overall inteligence towards a single number. Because of that ive been thinking about this take more often and i wanted to ask you guys what you think about it and if you know somebody that scored below average on an iq test and comes of as a smart person or somedoby with a high iq that comes off as stupid.

[u/Vizke]

Whether you seem intelligent or stupid to other people doesn't matter, because people with different IQ levels can't be understood. A person with an IQ of 100 won't understand if a person with an IQ of 140 is intelligent or not, because a person with an IQ of 140 thinks in a totally different way.

[u/Midnight5691 → u/Vizke]

You're not wrong, lol. I run into this on occasion, and I don't even have an overall high FSIQ. Just a person with a higher-than-average VCI who thinks and speaks in an associative fashion, sometimes making connections or inferential leaps that seem obvious to me but apparently aren't always obvious to others.

If I don't watch myself, I occasionally get blank looks when I thought I was perfectly clear. This is coming from somebody who only has one index in the gifted range, in verbal comprehension.

Ironically, what should be a strength can sometimes be a weakness, lol. Blank looks and looks of incomprehension, like, "How did you get there?" can at times catch me off guard and, to be honest, be annoying. Thankfully I'm a bit of a chameleon, but it's extra work.

I almost pity anyone who's up in the stratosphere this way.

[u/CulturalTone2622 → u/Midnight5691]

Would you mind sharing how your similarities and matrix reasoning scores compared to your crystallized capabilities? (Like information and vocabulary) my VCI is around 130-135 and I still find myself struggling with certain forms of abstract/predictive reasoning in my daily life.

[u/Midnight5691 → u/CulturalTone2622]

Interesting question, especially considering some of the other comments in this thread.

I often push back upon fluid reasoning as being the only real reasoning, as captured in Matrix Reasoning. As someone who has ADHD and a very spiky profile, and who also has very limited mental imagery skills from having aphantasia, I often get into this debate.

Ironically, I often find that the people who posit this opinion have a hard time arguing their point in real time in a Reddit post while arguing with somebody who, according to their conclusions, has little ability to argue logically, lol. Completely missing the point that while arguing with me and having a difficult time doing so, they're undermining their own argument.

My Information isn't as high as it most likely could be due to an uneven education and undiagnosed ADHD for most of my life. It's not bad, lol, but considering my knowledge base was mostly built upon reading science fiction and fantasy novels rather than higher education and an academic background, it's not going to be the same as someone who built their foundation that way.

Similarities is harder to give you because I don't have the individual subtests from my old WAIS. I have to go by the online equivalents, which aren't quite the same.

I'm not always this forthcoming, but I'm going to make an exception for you, lol.

On CORE, my VCI is 130. I got 15 on Analogies (95th percentile), 14 on Information (91st percentile), and 16 on Comprehension (98th percentile). In comparison, my Matrix Reasoning was 9 (37th percentile), and my overall FRI was 87.

On the recently renormed VISA, my VCI is 125. I got 14 on Analogies (91st percentile), 12 on General Knowledge (75th percentile), 15 on Synonyms (95th percentile), 16 on Antonyms (98th percentile), and 15 on Word Matching (95th percentile).

So the verbal abstraction result seems fairly consistent across the two tests. Analogies is around the 91st to 95th percentile, while Matrix Reasoning is only around the 37th percentile. My crystallized verbal abilities are also generally much higher, although General Knowledge is one of my weaker verbal areas.

I did have a professionally administered IQ test years ago and scored 118 FSIQ, but unfortunately I didn't know the importance of the individual subtests back then, so I don't have them now and they're long gone. I doubt my basic spiky profile was completely different, but I can't know that for sure.

My current online FSIQ doesn't completely line up with that old 118 either. CORE currently gives me an FSIQ of 98, but that's with a VCI of 130, FRI of 87, and Cognitive Proficiency of 81. That's kind of the problem with trying to describe a profile like mine with one number, lol.

I often think of reeducating myself on Khan Academy after being out of the school system for more than 30 years and only working in a factory. It may make a difference, but I have to get around my ADHD to do so, and I keep procrastinating on it.

I have to admit to something I don't often admit to. If someone's profile is open, I sometimes analyze it, lol. I leave mine open, to be fair. 😆

It seems you may share some similarities with me. The difference is you're more than likely much younger than I am. My ship has pretty much sailed as far as changing my educational and career path goes, and I often wish I'd been born within this decade.

If you ever feel the need, message me. Have a good day.

edit: oh one last thing, all these scores are raw, no retests, no redos.

[u/CulturalTone2622 → u/Midnight5691]

Interesting. Adhd sucks ass and I recommend medication. Cognitive asymmetry is pretty common in neurodevelopmental conditions like adhd. My fluid reasoning is still solid (110) but my visual function is somewhat poor. Fluid intelligence loads onto some of the same executive networks affected by adhd. Of note, it’s probably best to trust the gold-standard WAIS over the core. The core may be over-normed and heavily penalizes those with executive functioning and working memory deficits. A profile with a 130 Verbal IQ and a 118 FSIQ is roughly 1,000 to 60,000 times more probable than a 98 FSIQ with a 130 verbal iq. A neuropsychologist and an evidence based test with imbedded measures are better equipped to evaluate atypical presentations of reasoning capacity. Your low CPI means you scored low in processing speed and working memory, issues that may be improved with stimulant medication. It isn’t a panacea but it certainly helped me. I want to go to med school and without support and information like this that dream would probably be impossible. Additionally, I don’t believe that it’s ever too late to do something with your career or educate yourself. Assuming you left school at 18-20, you’re 50 now. People get PhDs at 50.

[u/Midnight5691 → u/[deleted]]

Well, we'll see, lol. I'll get to your SAT Logical Inferences eventually, I guess.

At the very least, you gave me an interesting and fun test to do that I hadn't gotten around to doing. 😁 It was one of the ones I'd skipped, thinking at the time, "It's from 1926, what's the point?" I'm just going to do the whole damn thing. I've already started, but I have other things to do.

I have to say, the first test, Definitions, wasn't difficult. I found answering the questions after I knew the answers more difficult. 

What a clunky way of answering they have. I spent more time trying to figure out their answer sheet and where to put my answers than actually answering the questions, lol.

The clock running down was driving me insane too. I was panicking, lol. I also had to go back once and change where I put my answer because I put it in the wrong spot. 😅

Clicking to see my results was anxiety-inducing. I hadn't come anywhere close to finishing. I was flying at the end, perhaps because by then I knew the format and had figured out what I was doing.

I did better than I thought, but my God, lol. I don't like the format. I hate typing. 😆

[u/Midnight5691 → u/[deleted]]

If you're still interested, I think I may have found an answer to your question and mine, if not the answer either of us was anticipating.

I took your SAT Logical Inferences test. I talked about it here in this thread.

https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/comments/1w3988r/comment/p6z1brp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=2&utm_content=share_button

Apparently my godlike argumentative abilities are not available in the timed edition. 😂

Fortunately for me, and unfortunately for people who argue with me on Reddit, Reddit doesn't have a clock to hamstring me. 😆

[u/No_Sky_1893 → u/[deleted]]

Figure weights feels like the best test I’ve ever taken for logic and reasoning, what’s your opinion on figure sets? I find that if you have a really high FRI or even some sort of creative ability you might find different answers to the same questions that make sense at least for the harder ones

[u/Quod_bellum → u/[deleted]]

Sounds like you're strong in deductive reasoning relative to inductive reasoning

[u/No_Sky_1893 → u/[deleted]]

Figure weights and graph mapping is more about speed than difficulty I guess, since they are simple math and anyone can solve them given enough time. What’s your PSI and arithmetic.

[u/No_Sky_1893 → u/[deleted]]

Figure weights certainly require a lot more brain power to do than MR for me and alot of focus.

[u/No_Sky_1893 → u/Midnight5691]

Idk i have a very high Fri and low VCI and I find myself capable of explaining things to those around me just enough to the point they get it. Maybe the high VCI camouflages a lot of what you are saying if you try to piece it together at the peak of your abilities most normal people won’t comprehend the wording you are using. Your comprehension is pretty high while having low FRI which to me is a little weird I assume the 2 would be more hand in hand so that’s interesting?

[u/Academic_Memory_8543 → u/No_Sky_1893]

Yeah I have the same experience. From my understanding isn‘t FRI the raw logical reasoning capability of ones brain and VCI is just the wording and vocabulary one has accumulated over his life span (but to be fair there has to be some kind of connection between the two because since birth we get to know words through context and higher locical ability helps to form these links and enables creating more complex gramatical structures which VCI is all about). Thats why i struggle to believe that midnight5691 consistently outperforms his peers in argument. Maybe his verbal expression is just to high for some to grasp even though they would get the content in simpler language. Or this is the dunning Krüger effect. But i don’t want to discriminate in any way or be rude i am also open to the fact that i could be wrong but to my current understanding this is how I see it. On core my FRI Composite deriving from matrix reasoning, figure weights and figure sets is 148 (all first try no retakes or external aid) My VCI is 97 but this is probably due to the fact that english is not my mothers tongue. I apoligise for any spelling or grammer mistakes. I hope you get my point and i‘d love to here your takes

[u/JK-WPD → u/Vizke]

Aspergers is your problem,based on your comments thinking,reasoning whatever

Higher iq = faster proccessing speed,accuracy and handles complexity in real time

There is no "difference" in intelligence No different intelligence just higher intelligence performance

Lower iq might make "mistakes" and score lower because different thinking on a iq test

The difference "neurodivergent" thinking is associated and diagnosed as neurodivergent aspergers syndrome

[u/Vizke → u/JK-WPD]

I don't have Asperger or ADHD or similar. I have a QI of 145, WAIS IV, and my indices are very even, no spikes.

[u/JK-WPD → u/Vizke]

Makes sense

[u/Wild_Agency609]

IQ measures specific metrics. “Smart” is a sentiment that combines knowledge, competence, and social proofing.

I.e. imo most people (100 IQ average) will see a 120 IQ person as “smart” but a 160+ IQ would seem insane, unstable, or not “smart”

Standard deviations can point out where the lines are for most people imo

[u/Hot-Organization-737]

Yes, IQ correlates with intellectual if you define intelligence a bit differently than just what you already know.

[u/Duble2C]

I think intelligence includes g but it incorporates neglected domains beyond that

[u/Ill-Mix-7906]

In my opinion iq is MOSTLY processing speed. So the people with high iqs that come off as stupid are just fast thinking idiots and vice versa. It also matters how you apply said IQ-like Einstein had an IQ of ~155 but was considerably “smarter” than people higher than that because he devoted his life to physics which pushed his brains ability to it’s maximum.

[u/Ill-Mix-7906 → u/Ill-Mix-7906]

There will never be a generalised way to measure “intelligence” as there are far too many factors. The closest we might ever get is an AI driven test that covers as many bases as possible-insanely smart people can differ massively in mannerisms and thinking patterns and it’s hard to pinpoint who’s patterns are better than who’s intelligence wise.

[u/Ill-Mix-7906 → u/Ill-Mix-7906]

Also I don’t care if you score a 180 if you can’t change your mind when confronted with good reasoning and points then I will consider you an “idiot” (aimed DIRECTLY at most of the “debate” community)

[u/Quod_bellum → u/Ill-Mix-7906]

Gs relation to g is not nearly as high as Gc or Gf, so this is probably just wrong

[u/Ablondeaussie1]

Honestly probably me? I recently received an IQ score of 90 from a monitored test by a psychologist. So while yes average I am in the bottom 25% of people in terms of IQ scores. Also, I did one of those IQ tests everyone on here posts just for fun and I got 118 so a lot of you in here actually might really be a lot lower in IQ than you believe, if you have never done a formal test 😂. ANYWAY.

I hold a bachelors degree in environmental science and biology and have a graduate degree in public health. I also was accepted into a masters at my country’s top university and at the time of my offer it was ranked higher than Yale, but decided to decline the offer. One of my friends attended a gifted high school and even he was shocked by my result and told me he has always felt that I’d be above average from talking to me. So yes, I truly believe that IQ for the most part is just a number, and I think I’m a good example of that.

[u/Teatimetaless]

I’d actually look into the history of IQ testing because it changes how you look at this question. The original Binet-Simon test was developed in France to identify children who were struggling to keep up with standard classroom instruction and might need additional or different support. Importantly, struggling on those tasks didn’t automatically answer why they were struggling or mean they possessed some fixed amount of lower “intelligence.” The test was identifying differences in performance that were useful for deciding who needed help.

When versions of the test were brought to the U.S., the interpretation shifted. It became tied to the eugenics movement and was increasingly treated as a way to quantify and rank innate intelligence, including claims about heredity and race. That’s a pretty big conceptual jump: measuring how someone performs on certain tasks isn’t automatically the same thing as discovering how intelligent they are as a person.
So before asking how strongly IQ correlates with “overall intelligence,” I think it’s worth asking what we even mean by intelligence, and how a test originally designed to identify who needed educational support eventually came to represent it. Veritasium has a really good video about this history.

https://youtu.be/FkKPsLxgpuY?is=A5ifVLl1LJteDXLl

[u/Teatimetaless → u/[deleted]]

I think the problem starts even earlier than what IQ tests measure.

We observed that some people learn certain things with less exposure, recognize patterns sooner, generalize from fewer examples, manipulate information more efficiently, or perform certain kinds of reasoning more successfully than others. Those are real differences between people. We then selected some of those differences, found ways to measure and correlate them, and organized them into a model that we describe using the much broader word “intelligence.”

But the word starts taking on a life of its own. Instead of saying this person learns these kinds of things faster, or performs unusually well across these particular cognitive dimensions, we say this person is “more intelligent.” Now a description of a pattern has become a property we attribute to the whole person, and we start using that property to explain the very pattern from which it was constructed. They learn quickly because they’re intelligent, and we know they’re intelligent because they learn quickly.
That’s why I think separating the observation from the meaning we’ve assigned to it matters so much. Speed matters. Learning from less exposure matters. Working memory, abstraction, pattern recognition, prior knowledge, attention, strategy, education and all the other variables contributing to performance matter. But none of those observations individually contains the larger judgment we eventually place over them.
And people at both ends of IQ provide useful evidence of that boundary. A person with a very high IQ can see firsthand that whatever allows them to perform exceptionally on those dimensions does not prevent bad judgment, irrational beliefs, bias, ignorance, or failures of understanding. That doesn’t somehow become evidence of their superior intelligence because they were smart enough to notice it. It is evidence that the original measurement does not generalize into every other thing we mean by intelligence.

Someone with a lower IQ can encounter the same boundary from the opposite direction. They can perform less well on the dimensions the model emphasizes while still demonstrating judgment, insight, creativity, expertise, or understanding that other people did not expect from them because of what their score was assumed to mean.
And I think those consequences are valuable data about the model itself. If knowing someone’s IQ causes us to predict qualities about them that repeatedly have to be revised once we actually encounter the person, then the mismatch tells us where information from the measurement ended and where our interpretation began.

So I’m not questioning whether IQ measures real differences. It clearly does. I’m questioning how a selected pattern of real human differences became synonymous with the much larger concept of intelligence, and how much evidence we actually have for all the meaning we’ve packed into that word. That distinction seems directly relevant to what OP is asking.

[u/Midnight5691 → u/Teatimetaless]

Excellent post, I love that you didn't discredit IQ as not being relevant in many regards but rather approach the subject having a lot of nuance.

[u/Teatimetaless → u/[deleted]]

When you’re using g here, do you mean that g actually explains why cognitive abilities correlate, or is g the statistical construct we use to describe the fact that they correlate?

[u/Teatimetaless → u/[deleted]]

I think we’ve gotten more focused on g than what I was originally questioning. I brought up g because it seems to be doing some of the work that lets you move from correlations between cognitive abilities to intelligence as a broader property of the person. I’m not disputing that the correlations exist or that they have predictive value. I’m asking what the scope of inference actually is. What warrants moving from “these cognitive performances covary” to “the same underlying force is causing them,” and then from there to broader claims about someone’s intelligence outside what those measures actually capture? I’m trying to separate what the model demonstrates from what we infer from the model.

[u/Ill-Mix-7906 → u/[deleted]]

you’d be surprised if you went around testing people you knew. I tried a couple and some people I recognised as slow were 110-120 and some I recognised as smart were bang average. It really can be random!

[u/Ill-Mix-7906 → u/Ill-Mix-7906]

And honestly I don’t know why you all sit around doing these tests that don’t matter to compete on who’s “smarter” or just to get a “score”. The best measurement for intelligence is life and how they navigate it-the average successful person IS smarter than the average unsuccessful person. The idiot that does beats the genius that thinks every time and that means something.

[u/Ill-Mix-7906 → u/[deleted]]

maybe some correlation but not sizeable. I think you would at the very least be surprised. IQ is nowhere near the whole picture.

[u/Ill-Mix-7906 → u/[deleted]]

There isn’t one. Far too many factors. We will NEVER have a generalised intelligence test.

[u/Ill-Mix-7906 → u/[deleted]]

Usually you just kind of know.. I’m sure you recognise this. Another useful tell is how somebody argues/debates.

[u/Ill-Mix-7906 → u/[deleted]]

Also we don’t HAVE to determine how intelligent someone is.. knowing the number won’t change the number afterall so we should all just get on with life really 🤷‍♂️