# Average IQ **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 21, 2013, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/average-iq/653545 "2013-03-21T15:57:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![mashedbutton1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ed655f/32.png) [@mashedbutton1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mashedbutton1)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/average-iq/653545/21 "2013-03-22T13:19:05Z")
IQ has nothing to do with intelligence. I have discovered that the higher IQ a person has, the lower EQ he or she has. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/average-iq/653545/22 "2013-03-22T13:40:42Z")
> [@mashedbutton1](#): > > IQ has nothing to do with intelligence. I have discovered that the higher IQ a person has, the lower EQ he or she has. This couldn’t just be anecdotal evidence, could it? Naw, I’m sure you did a really big study on it. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/average-iq/653545/23 "2013-03-22T13:42:19Z")
Quite to the contrary, IQ tracks very well with the general conception of “intelligence.” IQ predicts outcomes in the same manner that intelligence would be expected to. I anticipate that by EQ, you are referring to emotional intelligence? This construct is not particularly well established and not especially reliable. More to the point of the present discussion, what evidence do you have for your assertion that IQ is inversely related to EQ? Why would this mean that IQ is independent of intelligence? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/average-iq/653545/24 "2013-03-22T14:05:22Z")
> [@copperwindow](#): > > does this mean that people who score **very** poorly might be just ss smart as everyone else? What is your reasoning here? I’m not seeing the connection. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/average-iq/653545/25 "2013-03-22T14:42:43Z")
> [@copperwindow](#): > > does this mean that people who score **very** poorly might be just ss smart as everyone else? I’ve got to make a really important point. IQ IS NOT INTELLIGENCE. IT’S YOUR ABILITY TO DO WELL ON A CERTAIN TYPE OF TEST. Because it’s just about test-taking, we can say a few things to a high degree of confidence. One is that if you take the test several times your scores are likely to vary across a range. If it’s a well-designed test, that range will be about a standard deviation, 15 points. Even so, because of personal factors - you could be hungover, or actively on drugs, or half-asleep, or ill on the day of a test - your scores could vary by even more. However, for a large population, scores that are more than a standard deviation apart should be statistically meaningful. Scores that are several deviations apart, therefore, can be read as saying that the two individuals are very far apart in their ability to take IQ tests. This is likely to be true generally, although different tests designed and taken at different times will not give identical results. IQ does correlate with certain types of verbal and reasoning skills that we call being smart, but that’s a circular definition since the test was designed to give those people a high score. The real problem is that “smart” is a slippery word and can mean about anything people want it to mean, just like the word “intelligence.” One of the founders of quantum theory - Heisenberg, Schrodinger? I’m pulling a blank at the name - was so awful at laboratory experiments that people claimed he could ruin one just by walking through the room. (Think Sheldon vs. Leonard on Big Bang Theory.) Many people with classical education are so ignorant about science that C. P. Snow called the split The Two Cultures. Are one of those groups not intelligent? We need to stop thinking about IQ as having any real meaning for general purposes and maybe throw it out entirely, because all it does is confuse people. ---
**Author:** ![copperwindow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4af34b/32.png) [@copperwindow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/copperwindow)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/average-iq/653545/26 "2013-03-22T14:57:06Z")
then why do people make such a big deal when someone is put to death who has an IQ score of 46? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/average-iq/653545/27 "2013-03-22T15:19:19Z")
> [@copperwindow](#): > > then why do people make such a big deal when someone is put to death who has an IQ score of 46? Because people use it as shorthand to mean developmental disabilities of a variety of kinds. A low IQ is representative, as I said above, of a lack of ability in reasoning and verbal skills that might have any number of causes and manifest themselves in any number of ways and have additional effects of any number of types. That’s hard to get across. It’s easier to use reductionistic thinking and reduce the individual to the lowest common denominator of explanations so people don’t have to think for themselves about what it all really means. That’s not only a knock against IQ tests, it also says a lot about people as a group. People are stupid. And the way that people are stupid IQ scores don’t measure at all. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/average-iq/653545/28 "2013-03-22T15:59:21Z")
Thanks to the above who corrected me on median. However, I find it interesting that we can control the distribution of IQ to make it fit a normal curve. Doesn’t that assume that intelligence is distributed normally? (Also, I didn’t know or remember that for normal distribution, average equals median. I’ll have to look into that.) > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I’ve got to make a really important point. > > IQ IS NOT INTELLIGENCE. IT’S YOUR ABILITY TO DO WELL ON A CERTAIN TYPE OF TEST. It does, however, correlate very well with other estimates of intelligence, including achievement and other people’s estimates of intelligence. But there are definitely outliers. My son is one. He has great difficulty with reading and writing. In 5th grade, he was tested (at a local U’s program, not by the school system) and found to have a 1st grade ability to decode text, with collegiate level vocabulary and higher than grade level comprehension. He tends to do terribly on tests, but he is great with oral tests or moving puzzle pieces around. I don’t know his IQ, but I doubt it’s indicative of his Furthermore, IQ tests result in a single number, but many cognitive scientists feel that there are a number of somewhat independent composite contributors. I’d have to search for a cite on that, and don’t know whether it’s the concensus now, but I’m confident that it’s the case. Anyway, my point is that IQ _correlates_ well with what we call intelligence, but it doesn’t mean that it’s precisely what we call intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/average-iq/653545/29 "2013-03-22T16:06:10Z")
> [@copperwindow](#): > > then why do people make such a big deal when someone is put to death who has an IQ score of 46? Because in the US, you’re supposed to be allowed to defend yourself in a trial. People who aren’t considered rational enough or fit to stand trial certainly shouldn’t be not only put on trial but given a death sentence. That’s one argument. Another legal argument is that, in the US, you aren’t considered “guilty” unless you were in control of your behavior and knew what you were doing was wrong. Thus the insanity defense. Note that ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse that applies here, even though it does based on my oversimplified explanation. IANAL, but this is my understanding. ---
**Author:** ![lazybratsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ba8739/32.png) [@lazybratsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lazybratsche)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/average-iq/653545/30 "2013-03-22T16:12:22Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > Thanks to the above who corrected me on median. However, I find it interesting that we can control the distribution of IQ to make it fit a normal curve. Doesn’t that assume that intelligence is distributed normally? (Also, I didn’t know or remember that for normal distribution, average equals median. I’ll have to look into that.) I believe the raw scores on an IQ test are directly mapped to a normal distribution. I.e., if your raw score is at the 50th percentile (of the standardized score), you get an IQ of 100. If your raw score is at the 86th percentile, you get a 115. That doesn’t mean that the “true” intelligence is normally distributed. The distribution of raw test scores would highly depend on the test design. If you were really careful, you could design your test so that the raw scores fit just about any sort of distribution you’d like. There really isn’t an unbiased (in a statistical sense) way of measuring intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/average-iq/653545/31 "2013-03-22T16:20:12Z")
> [@](#): > > IQ does correlate with certain types of verbal and reasoning skills that we call being smart, but that’s a circular definition since the test was designed to give those people a high score. That’s not called circularity, that’s called _construct validity_. That’s like saying that if a measure of depression correlates with people’s experience of being depressed, that’s just circularity. > [@](#): > > We need to stop thinking about IQ as having any real meaning for general purposes and maybe throw it out entirely, because all it does is confuse people. Nonsense. Unless you want to just throw out the concept if intelligence altogether because it’s of no use. But if you tell me you actually cannot use concepts like “smart” and “dumb” in everyday life, I’m simply not going to believe you. IQ is not identical to intelligence. It is the best proxy that we have for it, though. If IQ didn’t predict well to a fairly broad range of outcomes, like academic performance, occupational performance, antisocial behavior, and health and mortality, you might have a point about throwing it out. Since it does, it’s too useful to just throw out. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/average-iq/653545/32 "2013-03-22T17:01:20Z")
> [@lazybratsche](#): > > I believe the raw scores on an IQ test are directly mapped to a normal distribution. I.e., if your raw score is at the 50th percentile (of the standardized score), you get an IQ of 100. If your raw score is at the 86th percentile, you get a 115. > > That doesn’t mean that the “true” intelligence is normally distributed. The distribution of raw test scores would highly depend on the test design. If you were really careful, you could design your test so that the raw scores fit just about any sort of distribution you’d like. There really isn’t an unbiased (in a statistical sense) way of measuring intelligence. Thanks – that makes sense. It’s not really saying much that wasn’t already said, but I’m kinda slow sometimes and appreciate you spelling it out. I guess my IQ is lower today. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![copperwindow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4af34b/32.png) [@copperwindow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/copperwindow)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/average-iq/653545/33 "2013-03-22T17:21:11Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > Thanks – that makes sense. It’s not really saying much that wasn’t already said, but I’m kinda slow sometimes and appreciate you spelling it out. I guess my IQ is lower today. 😉 Does ones IQ fluctuate day by day? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/average-iq/653545/34 "2013-03-22T17:22:27Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > That’s not called circularity, that’s called _construct validity_. That’s like saying that if a measure of depression correlates with people’s experience of being depressed, that’s just circularity. You’re correct on this but my point is that we do not have a universal definition of intelligence to begin with. It is possible, even likely, that what IQ measures is an insignificant and misleading portion of what constitutes “smart”. > [@](#): > > But if you tell me you actually cannot use concepts like “smart” and “dumb” in everyday life, I’m simply not going to believe you. Of course we do and I said so specifically. But we use those terms to point at things, and those things are themselves only vaguely correclated with one another, not really one thing at all. > [@](#): > > IQ is not identical to intelligence. It is the best proxy that we have for it, though. > > If IQ didn’t predict well to a fairly broad range of outcomes, like academic performance, occupational performance, antisocial behavior, and health and mortality, you might have a point about throwing it out. Since it does, it’s too useful to just throw out. What percentage of people have been formally tested for IQ? I don’t know the answer, but I know it isn’t 100%. I never have been. The lack of an IQ has literally never been an issue at any time in my life. The myriad of other proxies - grades, SAT scores, achievements - have been completely sufficient throughout school, work, and personal life. We do not need to know our IQ. Period. I make the case that it causes more problems than it provides answers. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/average-iq/653545/35 "2013-03-22T18:35:24Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Exapno** : > > One of the founders of quantum theory - Heisenberg, Schrodinger? I’m pulling a blank at the name - was so awful at laboratory experiments that people claimed he could ruin one just by walking through the room. IIRC, it was Millikin. Which is ironic, since he was great at _designing_ experiments-- He was just lousy at implementing them. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/average-iq/653545/36 "2013-03-22T18:56:13Z")
I checked and it was [Wolfgang Pauli](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_effect). > [@](#): > > Since the 20th century, the work of physics research has been divided between theorists and experimentalists (see scientific method). Only a few physicists, such as Enrico Fermi, have been successful in both roles. Lacking an aptitude or interest in experimental work, many theorists have earned a reputation for accidentally breaking experimental equipment. Pauli was exceptional in this regard: it was said that he was such a good theorist that any experiments would self-destruct simply because he was in the vicinity. For fear of the Pauli effect, the experimental physicist Otto Stern banned Pauli from his laboratory in Hamburg despite their friendship.[1] > > An incident occurred in the physics laboratory at the University of Göttingen. An expensive measuring device, for no apparent reason, suddenly stopped working, although Pauli was in fact absent. James Franck, the director of the institute reported the incident to his colleague Pauli in Zürich with the humorous remark that at least this time Pauli was innocent. However, it turned out that Pauli on a railway journey to Copenhagen switched trains in Göttingen rail station about the time of failure. The incident is reported in George Gamow’s book, Thirty Years That Shook Physics,[2] where it is also claimed the more talented the theoretical physicist, the stronger the effect. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/average-iq/653545.md?page=1)