Does IQ equate to worth?

[bubbleguppy]

Among multiple parties, a person's IQ is considered equivalent to how much a person should be considered any sort of asset to society. Do you agree or disagree with this notion?

To add my own two cents, I personally find this unreasonable and it reminds me very much of eugenics. This isn't even mentioning the fact that IQ score can be altered by quality of education which seems... well, concerning for something that is supposed to measure "natural" intelligence to say the least. I have a few other qualms, but for now I will leave the floor open to others.

 

[Father Heathen]

I think ones character and conduct are a better gauge. A lot of sociopaths have a high intelligence.

 

[Estro Felino]

Absolutely not. I find someone like Forrest Gump more valuable than intelligent self-centered guys.

 

[idav]

IQ is just mental age and presumably same worth as someone of that physical age. You have to be a genius just to be roughly 10 years smarter than your physical age (30 mental age for a 20 year old = 150 IQ), which hardly anyone is even close to, so also it isn't anything that can't be overcome with hard work, or lost through laziness. Also being IQ has to do with speed of figuring stuff out which can/will also be overcome with work and/or time. So its like asking if someone is more valuable for figuring out a puzzle an hour quicker than the next person. In some aspects maybe but eventually the puzzle gets done regardless.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

Among the sciences, yes


The more brain the more $$$$$$

 

[Estro Felino]

So its like asking if someone is more valuable for figuring out a puzzle an hour quicker than the next person. In some aspects maybe but eventually the puzzle gets done regardless.

In certain jobs speed is useless, if it's memory what is needed. I know math geniuses who are not even able to learn one foreign language.
Thanks to my memory, I can speak five languages, and you don't need a high IQ to store a huge pile of information.

 

[Sunstone]

I am familiar with the notion that a person's worth can be assessed wholly or predominantly by their IQ. It strikes me as foolish and inhumane, something Ayn Rand would foolishly find appealing (albeit even she might not adopt it), and Paul Ryan would foolishly find brilliant (and he, on the other hand, might adopt it).

Now, I am in a position to tell you it's a foolish idea -- although you're free to disbelieve me -- because I myself was foolish enough to have adopted the idea for a period during my youth. The idea can have many undesirable consequences, both great and small. If you too are foolish enough to adopt the idea, pray you don't end up whining about the likely cost of it to you. I may have been foolish enough to have once adopted the idea, but I've never suffered myself to whine about the many unforeseen and undesired consequences acting on the idea had for me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Don't hear that too often, but seems kinda crazy.
Just as way of confirmation, you're not equating meritocracy with valueing iq as a measure of worth, are you?

 

[Mindmaster]

Among multiple parties, a person's IQ is considered equivalent to how much a person should be considered any sort of asset to society. Do you agree or disagree with this notion?

Just because you have potential doesn't mean that you utilize it, you can be a genius and lazy at the same time. Likewise, you can be the dullest knife in the draw but be very industrious and productive. Such a dull person would outproduce the 'lazy genius' and provide a much larger value to society by most metrics. The flip side tough is even our lazy genius, being lazy, will typically have larger sweeping effect when they do something good. They're more likely to produce something that improves multiple lives rather than one project. In essence, I feel you need both types of people - one to get things done, and one to make it easier to get them done.

I'd only worry about it with making babies, personally. Science knows that if you have two smart parents your chance of intelligent children (baring defects) is very-very-high. If this goes on for a few generations the effect of this will be extremely exaggerated. This applies to all other desired anatomical traits as well, however, and isn't simply limited to intelligence.

 

[Jumi]

IQ does not equate worth. It does not even equate to mental ability.

 

[Shia Islam]

Among multiple parties, a person's IQ is considered equivalent to how much a person should be considered any sort of asset to society. Do you agree or disagree with this notion?

To add my own two cents, I personally find this unreasonable and it reminds me very much of eugenics. This isn't even mentioning the fact that IQ score can be altered by quality of education which seems... well, concerning for something that is supposed to measure "natural" intelligence to say the least. I have a few other qualms, but for now I will leave the floor open to others.

Firstly I doubt the fact that IQ is a reliable measure of a person's "natural" intelligence.

Then, the value of a person is not measured by how "intelligent" is he, but how human is he..

There are some people who may considered even below average when it comes to "intelligence" however, they are at the top when it comes to how humane, ethical, compassionate, honest (..etc.) they are.

All of the above is based on the assumption that there is an agreed definition of what "intelligence" really means..

 

[Onyx]

I think I.Q. tests lack value beyond a doctor of psychology helping a client understand themselves better. I disagree with using these tests in any other capacity.

 

[bubbleguppy]

Don't hear that too often, but seems kinda crazy.
Just as way of confirmation, you're not equating meritocracy with valueing iq as a measure of worth, are you?

No no I'm not equating the two at all. I sincerely hope no one believes IQ is the same as merit.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Like most, I voted for least important, and having a high intelligence often just separates one from others - in either expecting too much of them or in placing one into some minority place. It does often enable one to make judgments concerning others more readily I think - not as in being the judgmental sort, but in how to sum another up quite quickly - their personality, abilities, etc.

Edit: And a sense of humour usually goes a lot further in life to oil the works.

 

[Sunstone]

Were I forced at gunpoint to name just one trait or quality by which to judge an entire person worth of traits and qualities, I would judge that one trait to be a pronounced and persistent failure to load one's weapons simple kindness.

But generally, I don't think it's entirely rational nor well informed to believe that a person's value to society -- let alone their worth as a human independent of any worth they might have to society -- can be wisely reduced to a single trait. Societies are complex things that benefit from a very wide range of traits.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No no I'm not equating the two at all. I sincerely hope no one believes IQ is the same as merit.

Cool. I certainly don't.

 

[Windwalker]

If it is a matter of myself determining another's worth, it isn't based upon specific traits or features, such as how tall they are, how fast they can run, how sharp their mind is, how articulate their words are, how well dressed they are, etc. These are all superficial qualities, specific features and traits of the individual, and the person that determines another's worth based on these sorts of criteria are themselves not too terribly bright, or aware.

Everyone and everything which exists has an inherent worth that is theirs by inheritance from Life itself. To devalue that, shows a profound weakness of the mind and spirit.

 

[bobhikes]

Were I forced at gunpoint to name just one trait or quality by which to judge an entire person worth of traits and qualities, I would judge that one trait to be a pronounced and persistent failure to load one's weapons simple kindness.

But generally, I don't think it's entirely rational nor well informed to believe that a person's value to society -- let alone their worth as a human independent of any worth they might have to society -- can be wisely reduced to a single trait. Societies are complex things that benefit from a very wide range of traits.

I would vote for openness. The ability to listen to other's and respect others without judgement.

 

[Mock Turtle]

If it is a matter of myself determining another's worth, it isn't based upon specific traits or features, such as how tall they are, how fast they can run, how sharp their mind is, how articulate their words are, how well dressed they are, etc. These are all superficial qualities, specific features and traits of the individual, and the person that determines another's worth based on these sorts of criteria are themselves not too terribly bright, or aware.

Everyone and everything which exists has an inherent worth that is theirs by inheritance from Life itself. To devalue that, shows a profound weakness of the mind and spirit.

Too true. Time to mention Hitler.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't care about IQ.
But intelligence is important, particularly when combined with mindfulness.
Integrity a minimum criterion.