My personal take is that iq is effectively meaningless. Measuring intelligence is a problem that is extremely hard, maybe even impossible given that what constitutes "intelligence" can be subjective. Some people ascribe value to it iq because it's an extreme oversimplification of a problem they don't want to think to hard about, and as a bonus it creates another hierarchy in which they can baselessly feel superior to others.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Validity_as_a_measure_of_intelligence

has a pretty good summary of scholarly debate on that question.

TLDR: iq has an extremely narrow take on what "intelligence" means, and ignores the vast wealth of what people consider to be human intelligence. For that reason most scholars think it's nonsense.

[–] TrojanRoomCoffeePot@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Solid take, I hear more people saying this whenever it's discussed. Although it's a pretty decent measure for natural intellectual capacity, a lot of that potential isn't wholly practical even in modern society. Good for studies, math, science and Mensa, not so useful for nearly everything else.

[–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I wouldn't even give it that. Imo "intellectual capacity" is entirely a confidence thing. If you have the confidence to give an answer that may be incorrect, you have intellectual capacity. If you give an answer and it's wrong, you're learning. If doing that and being wrong over and over again a million times doesn't discourage you, somebody is probably about to hand you a degree. "Intellectual capacity" is a fairy tale for the privileged to ensure they aren't discouraged from pursuing an education, and a source of learned helplessness for most others.