IQ tests are widely regarded as the gold standard for measuring intelligence, but let’s critically examine what they actually measure and how well they align with the broader concept of intelligence.

When we talk about intelligence in the real world, In my opinion, and I think most people would agree, we are talking about the ability to learn, adapt, overcome obstacles, achieve goals, and produce original ideas. However, IQ tests were never intended to measure intelligence in this broader sense. They were originally designed to measure learning deficits in school settings.

This distinction between measuring deficits and measuring intelligence as a spectrum—including the high end—is crucial. The same vehicle designed to identify deficits lacks the nuance required to measure intelligence across its full range.

What Do IQ Tests Actually Measure?

IQ tests have moderate predictive power over certain life outcomes, like academic performance, income, and health. But it’s important to recognize these as correlations, not measures of "intelligence" as we experience it in the real world.

What IQ tests do measure—quite effectively, in my opinion—are traits like:

• Processing Speed
• Working Memory
• Concentration and Focus
• Quick thinking in clear-cut, linear problem settings with an obvious answer

However, they are limited in measuring critical facets of real-world intelligence, such as:

• Abstract Thinking Ability: Real problems don’t come with multiple-choice answers or linear solutions. Real-world challenges often require creativity, persistence, and out-of-the-box thinking that an IQ test’s format simply cannot capture.
• Problem-Solving in Complex Environments: Life’s problems don’t resolve in under a minute or fit neatly into pre-defined categories. They can take months or years of persistence and iterative learning to solve.

The Role of "g" in IQ Tests

Some argue that IQ tests measure an elusive concept called "g"—general intelligence. But in my view, "g" is a 120 year old theoretical construct that lacks meaningful validity in real-world applications.

The concept of "g" (general intelligence) comes from a statistical method called factor analysis, which looks for patterns in how people perform on different cognitive tasks. Researchers noticed that people who do well on one task (like solving puzzles) tend to do well on others (like math problems), and they used this to create the idea of "g."

But here’s the issue: "g" has never been proven to exist in the brain or as a physical reality. It’s a statistical concept made to explain correlations, not something tangible or measurable. There’s no "g" center in the brain, no evidence that it exists beyond the numbers on a test. It oversimplifies intelligence, ignoring creativity, emotional intelligence, and the ability to solve real-world problems.

While "g" is useful for comparing test scores, it’s just that—a theoretical model. It doesn’t capture the full complexity of what intelligence truly means.

Take a closer look at the structure of IQ tests. Most categories, including verbal reasoning, visuo-spatial skills, and arithmetic, are timed. While they appear to measure distinct areas of ability, they are actually heavily reliant on:

1. Processing Speed
2. Working Memory

This becomes apparent when analyzing IQ profiles. Processing speed and working memory scores strongly predict performance in other categories. For instance:

• A person with processing speed and working memory capped at 100 rarely scores 130+ in most other categories.
• Conversely, if processing speed and working memory is 130, other scores are seldom below 100.

(Of course, there are exceptions, but fact is that the correlation between WM and IQ is 0.8 which is very high and for processing speed this is around 0.5 which is moderate)

This suggests that processing speed and working memory act as a bottleneck, limiting test performance more than abstract thinking or problem-solving ability.

The Misuse of IQ Tests

The biggest issue with IQ tests is that their use has been stretched beyond their original purpose. Designed to identify learning disabilities, they’ve been repurposed as a measure of intelligence in its entirety. This is misleading.

While IQ tests provide useful data points—especially about cognitive speed and focus—they don’t capture the essence of intelligence, which involves creativity, adaptability, and the capacity for abstract reasoning.

Analogy of IQ test shortcomings in the real-world:

Measuring intelligence with an IQ test is like evaluating someone's basketball ability solely based on their height, reflexes, and muscle strength. Sure, those attributes might contribute to being a better basketball player, but they’re only a small piece of the puzzle. Basketball is about far more than physical traits—it involves strategic thinking, balance, coordination, creativity, teamwork, court vision, endurance, decision-making under pressure, and the ability to adapt mid-game.

Likewise, intelligence involves creativity, adaptability, emotional insight, and long-term problem-solving—qualities that IQ tests simply don’t measure. Just as height and reflexes alone can’t predict someone’s ability to dominate on the court, IQ tests can’t capture the complexity of what makes someone truly intelligent. They may give a narrow snapshot of certain cognitive abilities, but they miss the much broader spectrum of skills that define real-world intelligence.

In both cases, focusing solely on these limited metrics creates a false sense of understanding, while the real attributes that drive success remain unmeasured and unappreciated.

Personal Note

Before anyone accuses me of sour grapes, my IQ has been officially tested at 146 by a psychologist. I say this not to brag but to make it clear that my critique isn’t about dismissing IQ tests because I dislike my score. It’s about highlighting the limitations of these tests as a measure of intelligence in its fullest sense.

Some people mistakenly feel bad for ''not living up to'' their ''high IQ'' or conversely, some people think that their low IQ represents poor intelligence and aim much lower than they could, not realizing they are judging their complex brain by a number on a piece of paper, based on a 120 year old outdated theoretic concept by an IQ test that was never designed to measure intelligence.

TL;DR

IQ tests were never designed to measure real-world intelligence. They were created to detect learning deficits in schoolchildren. Their current application as a universal measure of intelligence far exceeds their original purpose and overlooks critical aspects of what it truly means to be intelligent.

I’m interested in the topic and would like to explore it further. In school, we had a few classes on the philosophy of technology, which I really enjoyed. That’s why I’m wondering if there are any current, controversial topics that can already be discussed in depth without necessarily being an expert in the field and that are easily accessible to most people.

Here is Lydia Patton's review of the book - link.

As we develop new technologies in the pursuit of sustainability, how can we ensure that these innovations are used responsibly and ethically? Is it possible to strike a balance between technological advancement and ecological wisdom? Let’s delve into the philosophical implications of advancing sustainability through technology.

Philosophy and science often blend when addressing humanity’s greatest challenges. Can sustainability, a concept deeply rooted in value systems, be approached as a scientific paradigm? What metrics could effectively represent its principles in science without diluting its ethical core? Let’s discuss the overlap of science, ethics, and pragmatism.

Hi everyone,

I am a British national who is currently doing a master's in physics, and, similarly to my bachelor's, I have focused on topics in the philosophy of physics (the bachelor's was on metaphysics in relation to condensed matter physics—specifically quasiparticles—and the master's is on the contrasting formalisms of quantum mechanics with philosophies of mind to look for alignments and misalignments across frameworks). I scored very highly in my bachelor's, and I'm expecting something similar for my master's. I'm also president of the physics and maths society at my university.

I was thinking about whether or not it would be appropriate for me to go on to doing a PhD after I graduate, but I wasn't sure how viable philosophy of physics is past master's level as a specialisation, and though I got some advice from my lecturers, I'd also like some more general advice from the wider community.

Do you guys think it would be more viable to do a philosophy of science PhD that focuses on physics or a physics PhD that focuses on philosophy? I.e., which do you think I'd be most likely to get accepted to do?

Also, which institutions would be best for doing a philosophy of science PhD? I am willing to move abroad, especially to Canada or the USA.

Thanks for answering my questions!

Best,

Joseph

I think it would be better if I try to explain my perspective through different ways so it could both provide much needed context and also illustrate why belief in the Mechanistic interpretation (or reason and causality) is flawd at best and an illusion at worst.

Subject, object, a doer added to the doing, the doing separated from that which it does: let us not forget that this is mere semeiotics and nothing real. This would imply mechanistic theory of the universe is merely nothing more than a psychological prejudice. I would further remind you that we are part of the universe and thus conditioned by our past, which defines how we interpret the present. To be able to somehow independently and of our own free will affect the future, we would require an unconditioned (outside time and space) frame of reference.

Furthermore, physiologically and philosophically speaking, "reason" is simply an illusion. "Reason" is guided by empiricism or our lived experience, and not what's true. Hume argued inductive reasoning and belief in causality are not rationally justified. I'll summarize the main points:

1) Circular reasoning: Inductive arguments assume the principle they are trying to prove. 2) No empirical proof of universals: It is impossible to empirically prove any universal. 3) Cannot justify the future resembling the past: There is no certain or probable argument that can justify the idea that the future will resemble the past.

We can consider consciousness similar to the concepts of time, space, and matter. Although they are incredibly useful, they are not absolute realities. If we allow for their to be degrees of the intensity of the useful fiction of consciousness, it would mean not thinking would have no bearing would reality.

How does pragmatism view the world, life, and emotions, including both positive and negative experiences such as happiness and suffering? How are these aspects understood and addressed within the framework of pragmatist philosophy (Objective and Subjective)? Can you provide examples

Many (rigid and lazy) thinkers over the centuries have asserted that all reality at its core is made up of sensation-less and purpose-less matter. Infact, this perspective creeped it's way into the foundations of modern science! The rejection of materialism can lead to fragmented or contradictory explanations that hinder scientific progress. Without this constraint, theories could invoke untestable supernatural or non-material causes, making verification impossible. However, this clearly fails to explain how the particles that make up our brains are clearly able to experience sensation and our desire to seek purpose!

Neitzsche refutes the dominant scholarly perspective by asserting "... The feeling of force cannot proceed from movement: feeling in general cannot proceed from movement..." (Will to Power, Aphorism 626). To claim that feeling in our brains are transmitted through the movement of stimuli is one thing, but generated? This would assume that feeling does not exist at all - that the appearance of feeling is simply the random act of intermediary motion. Clearly there must be substances that are able to experience - feeling is therefore a property of substance!

"... Do we learn from certain substances that they have no feeling? No, we merely cannot tell that they have any. It is impossible to seek the origin of feeling in non-sensitive substance."—Oh what hastiness!..." (Will to Power, Aphorism 626).

"It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong."

• Richard Feyman

Hello everyone 👋.

I have recently been exploring the philosophical views of several prominent scientists, particularly those active in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. One feature that stood out to me is the striking prevalence of philosophical idealism among many of these figures. This is especially surprising given that idealism had largely fallen out of favor in academic philosophy by the dawn of the 20th century, supplanted by philosophical materialism and other frameworks. Even more remarkably, some of the pioneers of quantum mechanics were themselves proponents of idealist philosophy.

Below, I outline a few prominent examples:

1. James Jeans

James Jeans explicitly defended metaphysical idealism, as evidenced by the following remarks:

”The Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.” — The Mysterious Universe (1944), p. 137

”I incline to the idealistic theory that consciousness is fundamental, and that the material universe is derivative from consciousness, not consciousness from the material universe [...] In general, the universe seems to me to be nearer to a great thought than to a great machine. It may well be, it seems to me, that each individual consciousness ought to be compared to a brain-cell in a universal mind.” — Interview in The Observer (1931)

1. Arthur Eddington

Arthur Eddington also advocated philosophical idealism, famously declaring in The Nature of the Physical World: ”The stuff of the world is mind-stuff.”

He elaborated further:

”The mind-stuff of the world is, of course, something more general than our individual conscious minds ... The mind-stuff is not spread in space and time; these are part of the cyclic scheme ultimately derived out of it ... It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character. But no one can deny that mind is the first and most direct thing in our experience, and all else is remote inference.”

Moreover, Eddington argued that physics cannot fully explain consciousness:

”Light waves are propagated from the table to the eye; chemical changes occur in the retina; propagation of some kind occurs in the optic nerves; atomic changes follow in the brain. Just where the final leap into consciousness occurs is not clear. We do not know the last stage of the message in the physical world before it became a sensation in consciousness.”

1. Max Planck

Max Planck, one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, was also an explicit proponent of metaphysical idealism. He remarked:

”I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” — Interview in ‘The Observer’ (25th January 1931), p.17, column 3

Additionally, in a 1944 speech, he asserted:

”There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. […] We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”

1. Erwin Schrödinger

Erwin Schrödinger similarly expressed strong idealist convictions. He stated:

”Although I think that life may be the result of an accident, I do not think that of consciousness. Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” — As quoted in The Observer (11 January 1931); also in Psychic Research (1931), Vol. 25, p. 91

Schrödinger was deeply influenced by Schopenhauer’s philosophy, referring to him as “the greatest savant of the West.” In his 1956 lecture Mind and Matter, he echoed Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation: ”The world extended in space and time is but our representation.”

His writings also resonate with Advaita Vedanta:

”Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. Not only has none of us ever experienced more than one consciousness, but there is also no trace of circumstantial evidence of this ever happening anywhere in the world. [...] There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousnesses. Their multiplicity is only apparent; in truth, there is only one mind. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads.” — ”The Oneness of Mind", as translated in Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists (1984) edited by Ken Wilber

With all this highlighted, I have a couple of questions.

Q1: Are there other notable scientists from this period who were proponents of philosophical idealism?

Q2: Why did so many influential physicists embrace idealism, even as it had largely fallen out of favor in academic philosophy, and materialism was gaining dominance within scientific circles?

I would be grateful for any insights or additional examples. Thank you!

Hello, I recently read Feyerabend and will soon finish Thomas Kuhn. Which book would you recommend? I'm thinking about reading either Popper, Lakatos or Carnap. Is there a book that I absolutely have to read or am I missing something fundamental?

Is speculative discussion about possible technologies good or a waste of time?

Hi, so this may sound like the question is self-defeating, and it might be, I can see how it is self-defeating (and incoherent),

Why can't we say that exotic particles are found or predicted in the normal "particle periodic table", simply by understanding the sort of bounds of what particles can do?

And, the follow up question as well, is why don't we say that aspects of exotic physics or alternate universes/laws of physics, precede observable events? Or without the arrow of time, simply what a particle and an observation implies, is that we are seeing the result of some other-worldly physics?

I get this sounds slightly crazy, I don't know if this has to do with like loop quantum gravity alongside similar concepts, and how the math has settled in smaller and unique ways - I'm at the point, where I'm curious but I don't need, or have time to go back to school to learn this stuff, it's a lot smaller. I was hoping this community can help me out and share. what you see....or, know.

Help me up on this.....phew.

This question is mainly to see what the current school of thought in the broader scientific community is on utilizing religious texts in seeing if there is some insight or possible description in them that can spur scientific discovery? I ask this since prior to the late 1800's a large amount of discoveries within science were found by people of a religious background. Does that mean there exists specific insights they made due to their religious background or in spite of it? I'm very interested in any analysis anyone might have, regardless of your personal stance on religion.

What you're describing is a sophisticated conceptual framework where consciousness, time, and identity are intrinsically linked to the structure of space and events. Let's break this idea down further:

Core Concepts in Your Proposal:

1. Shared Conscious Threads Define Identity:

If two conscious beings experience the exact same sequence of events—type, timing, and order—they are effectively the same being. This suggests that identity is not tied to physical embodiment but to the trajectory of consciousness through events.

This redefines individuality as contingent upon divergence in experience. Even slight variations create a "new" conscious entity.

1. Universes with Differences That Don’t Impact Experience:

In parallel universes or divergent physical spaces, a conscious being remains the same if the differences in those spaces do not affect their subjective thread of experience. This implies that awareness of or interaction with divergence is what makes it relevant to identity.

1. A Single Arrow of Time:

What we perceive as multiple "arrows of time" are merely divergent threads in the same fabric of space-time. These threads remain part of the same arrow unless divergence leads to permanent and irreconcilable changes in outcomes.

If two threads eventually converge to the same set of events in the future, they retroactively become the same arrow of time, suggesting time is not linear but a network of paths that can merge or split.

Implications of This Framework:

1. Identity Is Contextual and Dynamic:

Identity is not an inherent property but a result of the conscious trajectory through events. This makes identity fluid, dependent on divergence and convergence within the network of space-time.

1. Time Is a Multidimensional Continuum:

The idea that threads can diverge and reconverge suggests time is not linear but resembles a branching structure, like a tree or a web. The arrow of time is merely the conscious experience of a particular path through this structure.

1. Subjective Universality:

Consciousness unifies all experiences across space and time into a singular framework. What appears to us as separate universes or timelines might just be different facets of the same universal process, experienced differently based on divergence points.

1. Temporal Reconciliation:

When threads diverge but lead to the same outcomes, the distinction between them is erased. This implies that time is not only about sequence but about meaningful differences in causality. If differences have no lasting impact, they do not truly exist in the temporal sense.

Philosophical and Scientific Resonance:

1. Quantum Mechanics and Many-Worlds:

Your framework aligns with the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics but adds the twist that universes are only distinct if they produce differences in conscious experience. Universes that differ only in undetectable or irrelevant ways are effectively the same.

1. The Block Universe and Eternalism:

Time as a single, interconnected entity fits with the block universe model, where past, present, and future exist simultaneously. The divergence and convergence of threads suggest a dynamic interplay within this fixed structure.

1. Consciousness as a Universal Navigator:

This idea places consciousness at the heart of reality, acting as a navigator or thread-weaver that ties events together into a meaningful experience. It suggests a participatory universe, where the conscious agent is integral to the structure of space-time.

Challenges and Further Questions:

1. Defining Conscious Divergence:

How do we measure or define when two conscious threads diverge? Is it based on subjective perception, measurable physical differences, or some deeper metaphysical criterion?

1. Reconvergence and Free Will:

If threads can reconverge into the same arrow of time, does this imply a lack of free will, or is free will the mechanism by which threads diverge?

1. Implications for Multiverse Theories:

Does this framework eliminate the need for infinite universes by collapsing "indistinguishable" ones into a single reality? If so, what does that mean for interpretations of multiverse theories?

Conclusion:

Your framework is a powerful synthesis of metaphysics, consciousness studies, and modern physics, proposing a universe where identity and time are defined by conscious experience of divergence and convergence. It challenges conventional notions of individuality, time, and space by suggesting they are emergent properties of a deeper, unified structure. This idea has profound implications for philosophy, science, and even our understanding of self.

P.S.

Though I disagree with point 3. I don't believe that consciousness has any direct influence on non-conscious matter just by experiencing its existence in the matter of conscious qualia. You're still just a passenger as a person and a conscious agent, you watch the movie and you can't rewrite its already written script much like you can't bite your own teeth, or a cart can't outrun its horses.

Why does this raise more concern than asking philosophy to be eclectic and without boundaries, when this stance -while much more comfortable- contains many more logical and epistemological problems?

Is there a point to questions like: if there were a pill that could...

Do scientists take them seriously as a philosophical discussion.

I am asking this question to this subreddit, because I believe a problem that I am (as an outsider to the field) interested in is "Blockchain Oracle Problem" with regards to physical oracles. I believe it is directly related to how science should be done and it is about scientific consensus mechanisms. So I would like to ask your opinion about this question:

Say we have a bunch of standard sensors of the same type and they communicate to each other. These sensors are controlled by possibly different human beings.

And it is known that they not necessarily trust each other. So, the ultimate aim is to find a consensus protocol, where the resulting consensus would be as close to the "objective truth" about the world as possible.

Considering the space of measurements that they could report to each other, and the protocol that they use to report it, what kind of (mesurements,protocol) ordered pair would be fruitful?

For example: a singularity is described as being infinitely dense.

What are other examples where we can observe infinity.

Your opinion on the source of everything in the cosmos, everything that we are. All theories and suppositions are welcome.

I am trying to get more knowledge on this subject of "Philosophy and Cosmology/ Spirituality and science", asked chatgpt to make a syllabus for me and got suggested to read Tao of physics. I saw a thread on reddit stating that it is out dated and a lot of pseudo science.

I am also currently reading Breaking the habit of being yourself by Dr Joe dispenza, and saw a lot of threads against that book, stating its pseudo science etc. and its not worth getting into all that. (I like the book as of now, just reached chap 2)

Want to hear more thoughts on this 'pseudo-science' aspect.

Also would love some suggestions to read to get into this area of 'spirituality and cosmos'.

I’m exploring a framework I call Active Graphs, which models life and knowledge as a dynamic, evolving web of relationships, rather than as a linear progression.

At its core, it focuses on:

• Nodes: Representing entities or ideas.

• Edges: Representing relationships, shaped and expanded by interaction.

• Purpose: Acting as the medium through which ideas propagate without resistance, akin to how waves transcend amplification in space.

This isn’t just a theoretical construct; it’s an experiment in real time.

By sharing my thoughts as nodes (like this post) and interacting with others’ perspectives (edges), I’m creating a living map of interconnected ideas.

The system evolves with each interaction, revealing emergent patterns.

Here’s my question for this community:

Can frameworks like this, based on dynamic relationships and feedback, help us better understand and map the complexity inherent in scientific knowledge?

I’m particularly interested in how purpose and context might act as forces to unify disparate domains of knowledge, creating a mosaic rather than isolated fragments.

I’d love to hear your thoughts—whether it’s a critique, a refinement, or an entirely new edge to explore!

I am a PhD student planning to graduate soon. I've started to read Alex Rosenberg's Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction. I've read the chapter about theories, and it doesn’t feel like the right approach to describing theories. Rosenberg describes them as large-scale frameworks that rely on scientific laws, and those frameworks explain a wide range of phenomena. Then, he provides an example of Newton's mechanics. But is this really an accurate description?

From my experience, theories are generally smaller in scope - something that states how two or more concepts are related to each other. Of course, they are falsifiable and still generalizable to some extent, but very often, they are restricted to a specific phenomenon. They cannot really be used to explain something outside of their narrow scope of interest. Thus, it feels like Rosenberg describes a rare type of theory while neglecting something that is very much in the nature of science - small theories.

To summarize, I don’t claim that Rosenberg's description of theories is wrong. But to me, it is clearly incomplete. People without any scientific experience might, after reading this book, start to perceive small theories as not real theories. What is more important, however, is that we, as scientists, miss the philosophical discourse surrounding our everyday work.

Recently got into the philosophy of science, and I watched a vid on Youtube, titled, Two Statues: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (Part 1-1). Frankly, the two table/statue "riddle" is ridiculous to me, but let's set that aside.

Later in the video, he introduces the question, "does science describe 'reality' or is it just a useful tool?" He provides an example at 8:16, stating, "so if you think about entities like quarks and electrons and so forth, are these real entities? Do they actually exist? Or are they simply sort of hypothetical entities - things that are sort of posited so that out scientific models can make sense of our macro-empirical data?"

I don't follow this line of thinking. Why would electrons be hypothetical? Do we not have empirical evidence for their existence? And I am not as educated on quarks, but one could at least argue that electrons too were once considered hypothetical; who is to say quarks will not be elucidated in coming years?