I hear you. It means something though.

Yeah

My understanding is that 100 is the baseline average

I also 123 is getting into the smart cookie zone

My dick is huge

Richard Feynman had an IQ of 120, so it must not mean a lot
Edit: It's 125 actually

I think it means something on average. I'm guessing most physicists etc have higher than average IQ.

IIRC there's also a general correlation between higher IQ and success in terms of school/career.

I've never taken a professional IQ test, as I'm pretty sure you have to pay for that. But I've taken online ones. Based on those questions, I believe it's something that you can improve on if you do a lot of math, logic puzzles, programming etc. I don't understand the idea that IQ is static if it's based on these logic puzzle type questions.

Because the people motivated to want to do well in life are more motivated to do well on an IQ test. Most likely as a badge of honor. They found that you can literally manipulate how well somebody tests by offering something that motivates them to try harder like money.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011...really-measure

That's very questionable. Most people aren't offered any sort of reward for their IQ results, yet they largely correlate with something like good grades or high SAT scores, where the reward incentive is obvious. So if it were simply a matter of incentive then everyone would essentially have equal incentive to do well on the SATs. But that's not what happens.

There funny part is most people agree that a sub 80 IQ means almost certainly stunted Intelligence and that 140+ means almost certainly gifted. It's the range in between, where most of us fall, that we cast doubt upon. Maybe as a defense mechanism.

My thing is... If your IQ is 100 and they offer you 1000 bucks to get a 140, it ain't gonna happen.

Because, as I said, the people more likely to want to get good grades or score higher on SATs are more likely to want to score high on an IQ test. The reward for good grades and scoring high on an SATs is not obvious. It's not immediate it's a long term investment in the hopes of getting a career you want. Some people's incentive to score well on SATs is the satisfaction they get from doing well while others don't really care about that.

I don't think IQ means nothing, I think it isn't nearly as important as people make it out to be.

So you're jumping to the conclusion that somebody couldn't get a 140 if offered $1,000 (not saying they could) but you don't have any valid reason to believe it. That study showed that the higher the reward correlated with better results. Who knows?

they didn't come anywhere near that sort of result in their study.

Also, you are sorta missing my point. The people who are getting good SAT scores etc are the same people getting high IQ scores, for the most part.

So who's to say that if you give them an added financial advantage, their scores won't rise as well?

IQ is by definition measured against other people taking the same test. So if you can raise everyone's IQ via incentive that would reset the scores (because the average score is by definition 100) and we would be back to square 1. See: the Flynn effect.

I do think effort does play a role, not only in IQ scores but in general Intelligence. But it's not an easy relationship to untangle.

^off topic

No, you're not getting my point. The people who WANT to get higher IQ scores are more likely to WANT to get good grades and score well on the SATs. You get what I'm saying? Is it that they are smarter or more motivated?