IQ tests have gained immense popularity in popular culture as a tool to measure intelligence, with many believing in its predictability regarding one's success, brain size, school achievement, and job performance. This video delves into the origins and evolution of IQ testing, tracing back to Charles Spearman's concept of the g factor and the Binet-Simon test, leading to the standardized Stanford-Binet test. It explores the various sections and formats of IQ assessments, aiming to determine whether IQ can genuinely predict life outcomes and address the validity of online IQ practice tests and whether they can improve scores.

Despite the popularity and claimed predictive capabilities of IQ tests, they have a complicated history. The video reveals correlations between IQ and brain size, education achievements, job performance, and longevity. However, it also highlights the controversial aspects, such as genetic inheritability claims, the impact of environmental factors, cultural biases, and the manipulation of IQ scores throughout history, including during the eugenics movement. The creator reflects on personal practices to enhance IQ scores and reports on the actual outcomes of taking an official IQ assessment.

Main takeaways from the video:

Please remember to turn on the CC button to view the subtitles.

Key Vocabularies and Common Phrases:

1. skeptical [ˈskɛptɪkəl] - (adjective) - Having doubts or reservations about a particular thing. - Synonyms: (doubtful, doubtful, cynical)

There are a lot of IQ tests online, but I am very skeptical about their accuracy.

2. correlation [ˌkɔːrəˈleɪʃən] - (noun) - A mutual relationship or connection between two or more things. - Synonyms: (association, link, connection)

A correlation coefficient can vary anywhere from negative one to positive one.

3. Negative correlation [ˈnɛɡətɪv ˌkɔːrəˈleɪʃən] - (noun phrase) - A relationship between two variables in which one variable increases as the other decreases. - Synonyms: (inverse relationship, negative association, negative connection)

The correlation coefficient of negative one indicates a perfect negative correlation.

4. heritability [ˌhɛrɪtəˈbɪləti] - (noun) - The proportion of variation in a trait which can be attributed to genetic factors in comparison to environmental ones. - Synonyms: (genetic basis, genetic transmission, genetic heritage)

On average, across the whole lifespan, about 50 50 to heritability and environment.

5. meta-analysis [ˌmɛtə əˈnæləsɪs] - (noun) - A statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies. - Synonyms: (systematic review, combined analysis, pooled analysis)

A large meta analysis from 2005 estimated a correlation of 0.33 between IQ and brain size.

6. eugenics [juːˈdʒɛnɪks] - (noun) - The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. - Synonyms: (genetic engineering, population control, selective breeding)

Henry Goddard used the claims that intelligence was inherited and unchangeable to put IQ at the center of the american eugenics movement.

7. forensic [fəˈrɛnsɪk] - (adjective) - Relating to the application of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of crime. - Synonyms: (legal, judicial, criminal investigation)

My clinical practice now is forensic neuroscience, and about 90% of my cases are death penalty.

8. motivation [ˌmoʊtɪˈveɪʃən] - (noun) - The reason or reasons one has for acting or behaving in a particular way. - Synonyms: (incentive, drive, inspiration)

Even in the limited forms of intelligence that IQ attempts to assess, there are factors other than g which affect the final IQ, like motivation

9. predictive [prɪˈdɪktɪv] - (adjective) - Relating to the ability to predict future events or outcomes. - Synonyms: (forecasting, prognostic, anticipative)

Brain IQ is also predictive of school success

10. crystallized intelligence [ˈkrɪstəlˌaɪzd ɪnˈtɛlɪdʒəns] - (noun phrase) - The ability to use learned knowledge and experience. - Synonyms: (accumulated knowledge, acquired skills, learned wisdom)

Whereas crystallized intelligence involves the knowledge youve accumulated over your lifetime.

I Took an IQ Test to Find Out What it Actually Measures

In popular culture, the term IQ is everywhere. Do IQ exams do that? You probably need 120 points of IQ. Don't know what my IQ. IQ. IQ. IQ. Low IQ. Individual people who boast about their iq are losers. When people say IQ, what they mean is intelligence. An objective, rigorous measurement of intellectual ability. But does it actually work? Well, in this video, I wanna find out where IQ came from. What does it actually measure? What can it 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 kinda 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. Still, I figured some of them may be good practice for the real 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 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. 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 one to positive one. The correlation coefficient of negative one 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 positive correlation. A correlation of zero indicates no relationship between the two variables, and 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 one variable that can be explained by variation in the other variable. For example, if the correlation coefficient is 0.5, 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 students 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 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 students scores across subjects are correlated. Those with high g score well on all subjects and those with low g score poorly on all subjects. Spearman published his conclusions in a paper titled General Intelligence objectively determined and measured. But the correlations werent perfect. So on top of the g factor, Spearman proposed subject specific factors, or s factors. A student's performance in math, for example, would depend on their general intelligence plus their subject specific factor.

For mathematic, subject specific factors could increase or decrease performance on that particular subject. Spearman believed that specific factors could be trained, but general intelligence was fixed. So he wanted to find a way to reliably measure general intelligence. At around the same time in France, Alfred Binet was tasked with figuring out which kids needed more help in school. Together with Theodore Simone, he developed the Binet 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 face 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 eight year old, their mental age would be eight. 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 Binet Simone test was the world's first IQ test. It was translated by Goddard into English and brought to the US at Stanford. Lewis Terman standardized it using a large american sample. And with some modifications, it became the Stanford Binet 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 a decent approximation of g. Of course, there would always be some error, but that's why psychologists designed IQ tests with upwards of seven to ten 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. That's how it's still done to this day. 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 7011. 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. They give you one word, like sanguine, and you have to pick which of the multiple choice options is most similar in meaning. Is it gloomy, asinine, recalcitrant, optimistic, or reflective? They might 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. So pick the number that best completes the pattern. Three. 5812. 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. 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 twelve. So 17. The answer is c. Sometimes the numbers grow rapidly, like in the sequence 315 6180. What comes next? In cases like this, I look at the ratio of one number to the one before it. In this case, the second number is five times the first. 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's progressive matrices. These involve a three x three grid with symbols in each of the cells. And you have to select the 9th cell, which follows the pattern. 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 to figure out which symbols appear 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, but 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 ten to 30 seconds per question.

Okay, this morning I'm taking an official IQ test, and I gotta 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, who knows how this is gonna 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. So I'm gonna 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 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 0.33 between IQ and brain size. So high iq is literally big. Brain IQ is also predictive of school success. In 2007, scottish psychiatrist Ian Dearie measured the iqs of 13,011 year olds. And five years later, when these students completed national school examinations, deary compared their exam marks to their iqs. Their performance on an IQ test when they were eleven correlated with their performance five years later on the GCSE's about 0.8. That's an extremely high correlation. It means about two thirds of the variation in national school examination scores could be predicted by IQ tests taken five years prior.

Now, the correlation coefficient of this study is at the high end of the 0.2 to 0.8 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 GRe are basically IQ tests. They correlate with standard IQ tests at around 0.8. 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 jobs. How do you measure occupational success? You ask people's bosses to rate them. You ask what people's income is. You measure productivity in ways that economists use about the output generated. The correlations typically range from 0.2 to six, 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 three 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, 5478 people recruited under this initiative died 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 the military. 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 eleven years old. Now, 65 years later, they checked to see who from the sample was still alive at age 76. And 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 higher iqs have a lower risk of dying. During the timeframe investigated in each study, the last major thing that IQ seems to predict is income. This study shows a clear tendency for income to increase with IQ, and it found a correlation coefficient of 0.3. But the variance is huge.

In fact, the top three earners in this study all had iqs below 100. A large meta analysis of 31 studies found the correlation between IQ and income to be 0.21. That is significant, but small. It means that only 4.5%, 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, like just doing a real estate type scheme, maybe that doesn't require a huge amount of intelligence. Simultaneously, you have all these very highly intelligent people who maybe become college professors. That doesn't necessarily pay very well. Yeah, a lot of people who have very high intelligence scores don't have the same interest in accumulating money. The relationship with net worth is even 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 Goddard brought Binet's test to America, its use and interpretation shifted dramatically. In France, Binet 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. 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. These days, we would say it has a genetic basis. There is some evidence to support these assertions. IQ appears fairly consistent over one's lifetime.

So they had tests done when people were eleven years old. They found all those tests in a filing cabinet and followed those people up and gave them the same test when they were 90 years old. Much, much later, their scores, 80 years apartheid, were correlated at around 0.5 to 0.6. There's also evidence for a genetic basis to IQ. You find, for instance, that 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 Goddard used the claims that intelligence was inherited and unchangeable to put IQ at the center of the american eugenics movement. Eugenicists wanted to prevent those with undesirable traits from having kids. In many states, 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, moron, idiot, imbecile. Were used as scientific terms.

In his judgment, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, it is better for all the world if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them 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 horrific things in the past. At the Nuremberg trials, after the war, some Nazis quoted from the American Supreme Court decision. Given this awful history, I think it's understandable that many people completely disregard IQ today. On the science of intelligence, 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, about 50 50 to heritability and environment, you simply can't, for ethical reasons, estimate it in humans, 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 fluid and crystallized. Fluid intelligence is your ability to learn, process information, and solve novel problems, whereas crystallized intelligence involves the knowledge youve 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 purported to have average iqs below 70. That's the cutoff 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. The problem, I'd argue, is 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 100 years ago. Researcher James Flynn studied the average results of IQ tests over the past century. And every so often, the tests get updated and renormalized 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, 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 hundred years, adding up to around a 30 point increase. This is known as the Flynn effect. We're 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, 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 to make associations if you have more things to make the associations with. A third proposed cause is a shift in the types 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, but 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. 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 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 dont have good ways of measuring them, we see IQ puzzles as the definitive way to quantify intelligence 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, like motivation. How much someone is incentivized to complete the test can have a marked impact on their score. 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 rollers 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.

I just completed the test in some random notice, non barely talk. After that, it seemed pretty fair. There were lots of different sections. The math section in particular. I feel like 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. Test taking strategy is also important. 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. 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. I guess the overall review is, I think.

I think I did okay 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. There are three areas, three specific areas for the math, one for the numbers, ones. I think that's where I felt really comfortable, and I got there before the time was done, and then I could go back and look at a few things. You blew the roof off quantitatively. On the quantitative, it was 143, whereas on the crystallized intelligence index, it was 132. The fluid intelligence index was 118, which still is a higher score than 88.5%. It's not bad, but it's interesting that that one is 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 G for you on this set of tests, and it'd be different, if you took a different test, was it 134, which is higher than 98.8% of the population? Wow. Hopefully, you're not disappointed with any of that.

No. You know, I wanted to do well. You know, I feel like my motivation was high, possibly higher than 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 wrong? We know that we include, just like in the test that you took, there are embedded 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 may be interested in doing is to boost people's cognitive ability early in life so that it takes them if. Even if they go into cognitive decline, it takes them longer to reach the point where they'll have sort of 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, you know, reading labels, whatever it is that people struggle with when they get into kind of later stages of cognitive decline, I if we could discover a way to lastingly boost people's intelligence, that would be 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 and talented program because generally they'd observe them doing well in the classroom. But if you replace that with a standardized test, an IQ test, you find higher proportion of poorer kids and kids from minority ethnic backgrounds in the gifted intelligence 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 or who your parents knew or how much money your parents had, not so much about how you were doing. The idea that you could try to develop an objective ish measure that would try and iron out all those social biases was clearly a well meaning idea.

IQ is something that not only psychology, but the general public has a love hate relationship with. Tell me about that. 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've included intelligence as part of a neuropsychological evaluation of their kid, they'll say, well, yeah, yeah, 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 sides, which I think doesn't help. You have the extreme of people who say, this is the most important thing ever. People's iq is a majorly important factor that we must know about them, and we can classify them into particular schools or particular ways of education or whatever. That's on one extreme, and I think that's totally 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 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. People have more moderate views on these, on these sort of topics. So, you know, I'd recommend that people 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 how you interact with and help the people around you, which is why I think Stephen Hawking 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.

Intelligence, Psychology, Education, Science, Iq Testing, Cognitive Skills, Veritasium