Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:41PM   Printer-friendly

Science just took us a small step closer to HAL 9000. A new artificial intelligence (AI) program designed by Chinese researchers has beat humans on a verbal IQ test. Scoring well on the verbal section of the intelligence test has traditionally been a tall order for computers, since words have multiple meanings and complex relationships to one another.

But in a new study, the program did better than its human counterparts who took the test. The findings suggest machines could be one small step closer to approaching the level of human intelligence, the researchers wrote in the study, which was posted earlier this month on the online database arXiv, but has not yet been published in a scientific journal. Don't get too excited just yet: IQ isn't the end-all, be-all measure of intelligence, human or otherwise.

For one thing, the test only measures one kind of intelligence (typically, critics point out, at the expense of others, such as creativity or emotional intelligence. Plus, because some test questions can be hacked using some basic tricks, some AI researchers argue that IQ isn't the best way to measure machine intelligence.

[Paper - PDF]: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.07909v2.pdf


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:54PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:54PM (#203466)

    The IQ-loving dumbasses got pwned by Chinese computer hacks.

    What should MENSA morons do now? :)

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:13PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:13PM (#203476) Journal

      Same thing they've always done. Have conversations about how smart they are.

      It's not like reality has really been a big factor in braggadocio anyways.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:34PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:34PM (#203488)

        Same thing they've always done. Have conversations about how smart they are.

        Dude, I'm so smart, I'm almost as smart as a computer!

        This is a joke today, but in less than 10 years it is likely to be a legitimate bragging point, and all the "AI will never be real folks" eating crow (or maybe pigeon, as unemployed ex-computer scientists foraging for food in the alleys and back streets of our cities, optimized more and more for digital life and less and less for the "likes of them")

        • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 30 2015, @09:03PM

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 30 2015, @09:03PM (#203511)

          AC has a valid point but I suspect people will just give up and compete about something else.

          I'm old enough that I have good mental math and estimation skills and can often do simple math faster than people can use a computer or calculator IF its simple enough. I kid you not, you get a bill for 5 people for $60.50 and someone starts to pull out their calculator and I instantly tell them that'll be $12.10 and they look at me like I'm F-ing Spock estimating warp speeds and then their mouth drops open when siri finally tells them it's $12.10 like a minute later after much fumbling around. How did you do that? Or I can calculate circuit components in my head and it actually works, and they don't get it that when you buy the bargain basement 10% tolerance resistors or whatever I only need to get to about 10% accuracy in my head, which usually isn't very hard.

          In the future if computers get a higher IQ than people, then people will respond just like using hand shovels or basic arithmetic today, they just won't give a shit about it anymore, plus or minus looking at people with natural talent as insane and relying on computers for even the easiest problems.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @10:15PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @10:15PM (#203535)

        And AA meetings are talking about alcohol related problems. Is it so surprising or offensive that a group made around a specific subject talks about that specific subject? As has been said before MENSA is a support group for highly intelligent people. Go to a meeting some time and see the truth of it for yourself.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday June 30 2015, @10:24PM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday June 30 2015, @10:24PM (#203541)

          As has been said before MENSA is a support group for highly intelligent people.

          It's a support group for people who think they are highly intelligent. There is a difference. Maybe some of them are indeed highly intelligent, but mere IQ scores don't show that.

          • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday June 30 2015, @10:54PM

            by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 30 2015, @10:54PM (#203548) Journal

            The relationships between g(general intelligence) and IQ are complex and insufficiently defined scientifically.

            But most people in the field believe there's a strong relationship there and that IQ is describing something important to g. More specifically, it's describing crystallized intelligence in pattern recognition.

            Among other reasons, increasing g-loadings of IQ tests only has a small effect on individual results.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2015, @06:32AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2015, @06:32AM (#203644)

            This is becoming a religious belief in some people that scoring high on a test that measures pattern recognition and puzzle solving makes one very unlikely to have any brainpower. It smacks of bitterness and "doth protest too much."

            • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday July 01 2015, @07:52AM

              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday July 01 2015, @07:52AM (#203659)

              This is becoming a religious belief in some people that scoring high on a test that measures pattern recognition and puzzle solving makes one very unlikely to have any brainpower. It smacks of bitterness and "doth protest too much."

              What? If you're saying I said that, it's just a straw man; I'd say that there isn't proof that IQ tests measure intelligence, so someone's IQ doesn't mean anything to me. And that last sentence is just an irrelevancy, as well as a non sequitur. Criticizing something doesn't mean you're somehow 'bitter', and even if you were, that would not invalidate your arguments.

              What truly seems to be a religious--and sadly, popular--belief is the notion that IQ tests measure intelligence. As soon as we can actually define "intelligence" in any truly objective way, and then come up with an objective way to measure it based on said definition, then I would accept that, but IQ is not it. To use similar logic to your own, it smacks of people wanting to feel better than they are without actually doing anything of note.

    • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:32PM

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:32PM (#203487)
      Lol. "Someone/something is smarter than people that are smarter than me! Take that!!"
      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:42PM (#203496)

        Tork, what are your IQ scores? Are you a Mensa member?

        • (Score: 4, Funny) by Tork on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:44PM

          by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:44PM (#203497)
          I should be in Mensa I took an IQ test on the web and scored 96%!!!
          --
          🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
          • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:47PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:47PM (#203500)

            Yep. You should be in Mensa. Good luck.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @10:18PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @10:18PM (#203537)

            Even if it was properly proctored 96th percentile wouldn't be enough.

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by Tork on Tuesday June 30 2015, @11:21PM

              by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 30 2015, @11:21PM (#203562)
              Woosh.
              --
              🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2015, @09:51AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2015, @09:51AM (#203695)

                You misspelled "Whoosh". [merriam-webster.com]

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2015, @05:00PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2015, @05:00PM (#203829)
                  You shoulda read the definition.
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by maxwell demon on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:35PM

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:35PM (#203490) Journal

      Is there any provision that Mensa members have to be human?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 4, Funny) by TheRaven on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:54PM

        by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:54PM (#203505) Journal
        Judging by the ones I've met, I'm fairly sure there isn't.
        --
        sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday July 01 2015, @03:13AM

        by mhajicek (51) on Wednesday July 01 2015, @03:13AM (#203615)

        If they had to pass the Turing test they'd lose half their membership.

        --
        The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @09:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @09:01PM (#203510)

      Standardized cognitive assessments are useful tools. IQ tests are predictive of future academic success, which is for what IQ tests were originally developed.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @10:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @10:22PM (#203540)

        But many people have mistaken them for something that measures actual intelligence. I see that misconception constantly.

        Schools need to drastically raise their standards. The best universities seem to be able to eliminate the trash fairly quickly, whereas everywhere else they are let through and often graduate. Too many colleges have inadequate standards, so you end up with rote memorization 'geniuses' who pass easily.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @09:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @09:50PM (#203520)
      The 'dumbasses' are smarter than you. Nice taunt.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @10:05PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @10:05PM (#203527)

        > The 'dumbasses' are smarter than you. Nice taunt.

        Said the AC from Mensa!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @11:26PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @11:26PM (#203564)
          Admittedly I have never been accused of that before.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:35PM (#203489)

    The type of problems given in the verbal part of standardized tests such as the SAT strike me as very computer-like, an exercise in thinking like a parser and semantic analyzer, backed of course with a wide but shallow store of knowledge. That's hardly a Turing test.

    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:59PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:59PM (#203508) Journal

      Should it be a turing test, though?

      I mean, the point isn't always to make a human, but often to solve tasks that as-of-yet only humans have been able to solve. The money is in making uncomputable problems into computable ones. And linguistic interpretation is part of that.

      You can imagine this kinda technique can be used to make translation better, for example, by comparing deep knowledge about word relationships across language barriers. That's something human translators have to do all the time.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Tuesday June 30 2015, @10:12PM

        by Freeman (732) on Tuesday June 30 2015, @10:12PM (#203533) Journal

        So, where's my Universal Language Translator? Seriously, I could use my own personal translator that could translate for me on the fly.

        --
        Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @10:41PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @10:41PM (#203544)

          Not until it can handle idiom translations.

          "bigger than a bread box" -->
          "drop a dime" -->
          "hang up" -->
          "in for a penny, in for a pound" -->
          "road apple" -->

          • (Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday June 30 2015, @11:27PM

            by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Tuesday June 30 2015, @11:27PM (#203565) Journal

            Easy as pie!

          • (Score: 2) by TK on Wednesday July 01 2015, @06:44PM

            by TK (2760) on Wednesday July 01 2015, @06:44PM (#203887)

            I don't understand why this hasn't been done yet. (Please enlighten me, oh AI programming overlords.)

            If you parse phrases instead of individual words, it shouldn't be impossible to make a database of idioms.

            I suppose the next hardest part would be understanding the idiom within the given context. Dropping a dime could be literal or figurative. I don't even want to start thinking about how many ways hang up/hang ups/hung up on could be misunderstood if you don't know if it's meant literally.

            Ok, I answered my own question. Nothing to see here.

            --
            The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
        • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday June 30 2015, @10:51PM

          by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 30 2015, @10:51PM (#203547) Journal

          They just demoed the basic principle. Converting the underlying tech to a specific application takes a bit of time.

    • (Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday June 30 2015, @10:19PM

      by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Tuesday June 30 2015, @10:19PM (#203538) Journal

      Wasn't the Turing test technically completed by a souped-up Eliza chatbot claiming to be a 13 year old Hungarian with poor English or something? Whoops, looks like it claimed to be Ukranian according to a vice.com article, and from what I remember from Turing's paper it would need to actually demonstrate some reasoning in areas such as literature or philosophy, not just lolspeak.

      At any rate, here comes the Lovelace test [rpi.edu]! Then we can claim singularity.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by tmh on Wednesday July 01 2015, @11:30AM

        by tmh (1215) on Wednesday July 01 2015, @11:30AM (#203710)

        No it wasn't. Wired exposed the bot in 2 questions: Q1: Where are you from? A1: Odessa, Ukraine. Q2: Cool i am from Ukraine, have you ever been there? A2: No, never, [some deflection]
        The turing test requires to fool an "examiner", not some random idiots from the street

    • (Score: 2) by VortexCortex on Wednesday July 01 2015, @12:12AM

      by VortexCortex (4067) on Wednesday July 01 2015, @12:12AM (#203577)

      Artificial is to Intelligence as Biological is to ___________.
      a. Life form
      b. Spiritual
      c. Book smarts
      d. Nun of the above

      Being a sentient system yourself, please answer as humanly as possible.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2015, @12:11PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2015, @12:11PM (#203723)

        Artificial is to Intelligence as Biological is to Nun of the life form spiritual book smarts?

      • (Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Monday July 27 2015, @07:26AM

        by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 27 2015, @07:26AM (#214160) Journal

        I'll take d. Nun :D

        Intelligence is never artificial unless it's faked in which case it isn't intelligence X3

        --
        Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:50PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:50PM (#203502)

    The results are somewhat misleading. I read the journalist output and skimmed the paper.

    First they didn't really do an IQ test they just dived into some weird game-able vocabulary tests. Its like saying human mathematicians are doomed because the graphics card I threw out today can do more raw FLOPs that any planet of humans working with pen and paper. Sure, thats true, but .... So there exist parts of a conventional IQ test regarding vocabulary that can basically be gamed by linear algebra. Whatever. And the other 99% of the test?

    Second they used turkers and thought that they represent humanity. How dumb. What about my friends to do turk drinking games and other people I know who just don't give a F and just want some money while they laze on the couch. Being Chinese they most likely think westerners treat turking just like Asian uni entrance exams aka very seriously. Um, no. I suspect detailed analysis would show most of their turkers were drunk, high, or watching Judge Judy on the TV while randomly making patterns and stuff.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tftp on Tuesday June 30 2015, @09:00PM

    by tftp (806) on Tuesday June 30 2015, @09:00PM (#203509) Homepage

    According to the paper, the authors created a bunch of formulas and inputted training data. The computer memorized - roughly saying - everything that was ever written. Then when a pre-parsed question was presented, the software calculated the optimal answer using statistics. Here is one of their examples:

    Which word is most opposite to MUSICAL? (i) discordant, (ii) loud, (iii) lyrical, (iv) verbal, (v) euphonious.

    The software picks "discordant" because it is rarely seen within training data. Not because it can tell what "discordant" means or can play an example of discordant audio. This method is equivalent to a grammar checker that generates suggestions based on the entire body of the world literature. It would demonstrate high IQ if trained in Quenya and given questions in the same language, without understanding a single word of it. This is equivalent to the Chinese Room problem [wikipedia.org]. It was explored in Peter Watts' Blindsight [wikipedia.org].

    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 30 2015, @09:10PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 30 2015, @09:10PM (#203513)

      The Chinese Room problem is just a bunch of woo and vitalism and life-force crystal power stuff. My head contains a Chinese Room although it was fed English. No woo required.

      A better analogy would be feeding a bunch of finite element analysis into a computer and pretending it can "Design bridges".

      • (Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Wednesday July 01 2015, @03:43AM

        by Non Sequor (1005) on Wednesday July 01 2015, @03:43AM (#203619) Journal

        I know that for me consciousness seems inherently non-material in that I have no clue whatsoever where in the material world my representations of nerve stimuli come from. The Chinese Room problem is just a lengthy statement of this frustration.

        Even if I know that the brain is assembled out of cognitive parlor tricks that give the illusion of reasoning, I don't get how the trick of convincing myself that all of this coagulates into a coherent whole can possibly work, and yet it does. Surely there must be some woo hiding somewhere!

        --
        Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
        • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday July 01 2015, @12:16PM

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 01 2015, @12:16PM (#203728)

          I know that for me consciousness seems inherently non-material

          Contemplate mood and perception altering drugs, legal and otherwise. Also mental changes related to brain surgery or physical brain damage.

          • (Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Wednesday July 01 2015, @12:54PM

            by Non Sequor (1005) on Wednesday July 01 2015, @12:54PM (#203739) Journal

            I get that. I know about case studies where functions are disconnected by brain damage from other parts of the brain and function autonomously or with limited coordination with other functions.

            I still don't get where it comes together. I don't get where you go from untyped sense data to typed sense data. I know that sense data can be mistyped (synaesthesia and hallucinogens), but I don't get what makes the type seem apparently real.

            --
            Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Non Sequor on Wednesday July 01 2015, @02:35AM

      by Non Sequor (1005) on Wednesday July 01 2015, @02:35AM (#203609) Journal

      It's a word association game played on connotations, and yes, connotations are quite literally observations of statistical associations of words with contexts. I remember calling these context clues in elementary school. Associations with ����other words give you maybe 80% of the information you need to guess the actual meanings of words (assuming you already know some of the language), but it doesn't quite get there. Making guesses purely based on the associations is what causes people to try to use words that they don't really understand. The word is related to what they mean and it almost sounds appropriate, but it doesn't actually fit right.

      This comes up a bit short of a real Chinese Room demonstration. This is just one piece of conversational intelligence and it's still missing a big chunk of the elements needed to be conversant in a language. You have to weave these associations into some body of knowledge plus have some functioning short term memory that interfaces to it.

      --
      Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
  • (Score: 2) by mr_mischief on Tuesday June 30 2015, @09:05PM

    by mr_mischief (4884) on Tuesday June 30 2015, @09:05PM (#203512)

    IQ tests aren't the best way to measure human intelligence, either. They produce a handy, easily packaged single score that's one somewhat useful single data point in situations that require a numerical score. That's it. That's all they do. Give me a pile of IQ scores and I won't know which to hire or which to turn to when I want to strike up a conversation. Give me for person an IQ score, a personality matrix, a resumé, a list of pastimes, a list of favorite movies, a list of favorite games, a list of favorite songs, and a portfolio of their work and we're starting to get somewhere. Of these, the raw IQ score is probably the least important but it would be a handy tie breaker all other things being more or less equal.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Tuesday June 30 2015, @09:32PM

      by frojack (1554) on Tuesday June 30 2015, @09:32PM (#203516) Journal

      Give me a pile of IQ scores and I won't know which to hire or which to turn to when I want to strike up a conversation.

      But you will probably know which NOT to turn to for any of those tasks.

      There probably would eventually prove some vague correlation between your best hires, and some specific score patterns.

      There will still be the odd idiot savant that can capture license plates passing a certain point in the road all day long, and then go home and write them down in order**. Then mom might have to spoon feed him dinner. But you will rarely find reason for conversation with such.

      **(I knew of such an individual, who was employed by a railroad to record serial numbers of rolling stock crossing a bridge into Canada. An hour sitting on a bench, followed by two hours of writing it down. They even trained him how to type them into a computer. Then he died, and they had to go digital.)

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 2) by GoonDu on Wednesday July 01 2015, @01:08AM

    by GoonDu (2623) on Wednesday July 01 2015, @01:08AM (#203596)

    Have not read the article or the paper but I have to ask, is it the case of the AI truly understanding the test demands as a whole or just being better at taking quizzes? Wasn't there a case where people found out that kids' IQ score is increasing in a country but found out that they are actually getting better at acing the tests instead?

    • (Score: 2) by BK on Wednesday July 01 2015, @01:14AM

      by BK (4868) on Wednesday July 01 2015, @01:14AM (#203597)

      or just being better at taking quizzes?

      Seriously, what does this even mean?

      --
      ...but you HAVE heard of me.
      • (Score: 2) by GoonDu on Wednesday July 01 2015, @02:15AM

        by GoonDu (2623) on Wednesday July 01 2015, @02:15AM (#203606)

        Well, according to the paper (skimming through it), they first classify the question into 5 different categories before applying the appropriate solver (all of which refer to a common 'database' or sort). It is essentially like other agents, exploiting the structure of a problem to gain leverage. Adding more categories will mean re-training the model to classify it and a solver method to solve said category. That is what I meant.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by purpleland on Wednesday July 01 2015, @02:03AM

    by purpleland (5193) on Wednesday July 01 2015, @02:03AM (#203603)

    I skimmed over the article - basically authors built a system that is able to understand five different types of verbal questions (two analogies, classification, synonym, antonym). While building such a system is an interesting achievement from a computer science standpoint, I find that in the overall scheme of judging intelligence it is rather superficial. Not surprising considering how small a part IQ tests play in our lives.

    • (Score: 2) by GoonDu on Wednesday July 01 2015, @02:22AM

      by GoonDu (2623) on Wednesday July 01 2015, @02:22AM (#203607)

      It's like other AI agents, exploit structures within a problem to solve them (arguably like other computer algorithm). The article should be titled, "Amazon Mechanical Turk can now be Automated".

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2015, @04:31AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2015, @04:31AM (#203623)

    Someone correct me if I am remembering this wrong. But was not the IQ test designed not to find 'very smart people' but the reverse? To help find and weed out people who are basically retarded?

    There are better qualities to measure than 'IQ'. Scoring good on an IQ test just means you are not stupid. As anything above 100 means you do not need special help.

    • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday July 01 2015, @06:44PM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday July 01 2015, @06:44PM (#203888)

      Scoring good on an IQ test just means you are not stupid.

      Since IQ likely does not actually measure intelligence, I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. Maybe someone is good at the tasks the IQ tests ask you to perform, but when it comes to real-life issues, they are complete idiots. There is also the possibility that someone who did poorly gets extremely nervous when they take tests and therefore failed. I don't think these tests show much of anything for the individual.