Hi sweet
@Gaga786
I'm sorry you're going through all this pain, no one deserves that ❤
I understand that you feel lonely, incompetent, I also imagine that you feel doomed, different, uneducated and without a future...
When it comes to self-confidence, our whole future depends on it and inevitably, when our perception of ourselves is negative, it's hard to consider that it's possible to put our head above water
To come back to the subject: intelligence
To make a brief historical reminder, the scales evaluating IQ were built by Binet and Simon in 1905 and then they were progressively adapted and updated by Weschler until today. One of the phrases I love most about Binet and Simon is that they said of their tool "It is intelligence that measures my tool".
What can we understand from this?
It is that intelligence is in reality a given, an absurd, abstract concept. It is not really possible to quantify intelligence as one would like. This sentence implies that a person's intelligence allows us to say whether the test is valid, which is why Binet and Simon do not take the risk of saying that their scale evaluates IQ. So, it is the patients who prove, by their performance, that the test is sufficiently well designed to manifest and quantify intelligence.
From one person to another, performance is different (depending on culture, emotional state at the time of the assessment, clarity of the instruction, cognitive abilities of the person at the time of the assessment, relevance of the tests)
In intelligence, a distinction is made between what is described as "crystallised" intelligence (verbal knowledge, culture, knowledge) and "fluid" intelligence (intelligence of the reasoning and performance type).
The problem with the classical IQ scales is that they are totally biased, I will try to explain why
1) IQ scales omit other variables: notably emotional intelligence (empathy, the ability to read emotions, to understand people) and social intelligence (the ability to communicate, to persuade and to maintain social relationships)
2) The IQ dimensions (in today's scales) are too exclusive and the tests do not represent all general intelligence abilities. There are 4 dimensions in adults (Processing Speed - PSI, Working Memory - WMI, Perceptual Reasoning - PRI, Verbal Comprehension - VCI). Of the 4, only two sub-indices are truly representative of "IQ" (VCI, PRI). So, id the person who evaluated you takes into account more PSI or WMI (where you could have had a lower score) for your whole IQ to be distorted
3) Within the sub-indices themselves, there are few tests that are loaded with G-factor. The G-factor corresponds to a load of intelligence, the higher it is, the more the test really measures intellectual capacity. Today, no test is 100% G-factor loaded, most often it is around 90-95%, even if this remains high, 10-5% margin of error is important in statistics.
And to come back to the tests, among the 10 commonly used, only a few of them are really loaded with G factor
4) IQ is never really homogeneous. Homogeneity in statistics means that the numerical disparity of the data being evaluated follows a normal distribution (Gaussian curve) where criteria must be fulfilled to attest that the data obtained are truly valid. To be sure that a statistical data is 100% valid (which is almost impossible) it would be necessary that all the data I collected are 100% homogeneous and do not deviate too much from the norm. In general, IQ is heterogeneous or partially homogeneous, which means that, because IQ = the 4 dimensions I listed before, then if the 4 dimensions are not perfectly homogeneous then your total IQ will be even less so. You have to think that IQ is a vague numerical approximation of what someone is capable of doing on this and that test and nothing more.
So as I was saying that PSI and WMI are the least representative of ITQ (=total IQ), then if they are heterogeneous and included in the calculation, your final ITQ score is absolutely not interpretable
5) Performance on IQ tests is highly impacted by other factors (emotional state, fatigue, biological cycles, calm-noisy/dark-luminous environment, self-esteem, culture, clarity of instruction...)
6) What is true for one type of test is not necessarily true for the rest. Just because you failed some reasoning tests in the test does not mean you will fail all reasoning tests on earth. If the IQ scales could include more items for each sub-index (PSI WMI VCI PRI), then perhaps your score could indeed be lower, but also higher. But it would be more accurate
7) Crystallized and fluid intelligence compensate each other, even if one is weaker than the other (and the IQ is heterogeneous), we can still work on them and balance our performance
8) IQ should not be essentialized as a fatality. This is typically what I hate about our elitist societies these days, that we worship IQ in a stupid way, thinking that this number is a sign of absolute truth and therefore of glory or shame. And then it makes people like you unhappy
IQ is nothing more than a vague and imprecise value of what the human brain is capable of. The IQ is full of biases and as Binet and Simon (1905) said, it is the intelligence that evaluates their scale and therefore, if the scale is badly screwed up, necessarily, the intelligence will appear bad or excellent depending on whether the tests are too simple or too hard.
If I wanted to measure your true IQ, I would have to test you each time with new tests so that you don't know the answers in advance, that they are all heavily loaded with G-factor, that I test all the time at the same time, that you have done the same things every morning, that you ate the same meals, that you slept the same number of hours each time and that I told you the instructions in the same way in the same lighted and soundproofed environment and that you had the same self confidence each day.
Do you understand the deception?
This data is not to be dismissed, but it does not represent much.
It just indicates that at the time you did it, your IQ might indicate a low normal trend. But if you did it again tomorrow, you might get 100.
The norm for IQ is 100 more or less 15 (85 - 115). From 70 to 85 is called a lower standard/ From 115 to 130 is called a higher standard. Below 70 is intellectual retardation and above 130 is high potential. So you are in the norm and that is the only thing that counts ❤
On the other hand, the IQ is interesting to raise the presence of troubles, because yes, the IQ allows to raise difficulties that we can have difficulties to understand, and to understand that a person has less than 70 of IQ that remains fundamental too.
Finally, when you talk about mathematics, most often what explains the failure is what we call "fear of maths". Since it's an elitist discipline (like IQ), there is indeed a social fear of maths, a fear of judgement, a fear that hinders the understanding of maths. But, if you take away your fear, maybe you'd do just fine with it all
❤
Anyway, I apologize, my paragraph may sound harsh to you but it's not, what annoys me is seeing the serious consequences due to ridiculous IQ considerations. When you give someone an IQ score, you lock them up, you put a label on them. And this label systematically gives people the illusion that they are condemned when their IQ when for them, it seems too low.
You speak English very well, you are clear and your language does not seem to me to be poor in lexicon, in grammar. Don't forget, this number does not define you as an individual
❤
I hope I helped you, have confidence in yourself, we are proud of you, you don't deserve to suffer like this ❤
Thank you for confiding in us what was in your heart ❤
Keep us posted, things will get better ❤
Love ❤
