what would you guys rate the iq of a chicken

[Bryce Thomas]

i think they are pretty smart but at other times they are dumb as a sheep (i own sheep so dont say sheep are smart)

 

[cavemanrich]

I would rate a chickens IQ at same number as her age. MY oldest living chicken pulled 13 years, so her IQ was 13 at that point.

I have read that dogs, can get the understanding equivalent to a 2 year old human. That is for the smarter ones. There are plenty of less smart ones (but loving dogsout there)'

WISHING YOU BEST,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[BDutch]

Wow, this is an interesting question. I think my chickens are more clever than humans when it involves food (especially the goodies) . They are also quit clever in seeking protection against predators during the day.

But some of my chickens are really dumb in orientation. If there is a fence (like hwc between coop and run) they seek a spot to go through it and it takes ages to understand that they can walk around it.

I had a chicken who certainly had the brains of a 1 year old. She new I was charmed of her if she jumped on a swing and there was a chance I would give her a mealworm if she did.

Chickens are great in communicating with each other too. They have limited ‘speech’ but they do talk to each other to warn each other, to tell they found a tasty worm and to call ‘where are you
?’ after laying an egg.

They even express their feelings/ experiences after a strange affair. I witnessed that with one off my chickens , who was lost for 2 days after fleeing away from a dog. I brought her back to the coop and she started to ‘talk’ . The other chickens grouped around her and listened. They all responded ‘tut-tut-tut’ simultaneously in the same way. This ‘talking’ went back and forth a few times.

Of course a lot of their behaviour is instincts. But I’m sure there is a learning curve involved too. That’s why chicks with a mother don’t do some of the stupid things that incubator chicks can do (eating lots of sand or shavings).

 

[Shadrach]

IQ. It stands for Intelligence quotient. It's not an absolute measurement. It's relative to data gathered on achievement at a particular age.
So, the first problem is there isn't an adequate definition of intelligence.
Next, any definition of intelligence should take into account the skill set and environment in which those skills are used.
We, humans, think we are intelligent and by the criteria we use, which is relevant to our skill sets, tend to make judgements on other species using the criteria that is applicable to our skill set.
If you could ask a chicken if humans are intelligent they may well consider us thick as bricks.
In the more recent past there has been a greater effort to try to measure intelligence in other species. Such investigations have provided some surprising results.
There are a few easily accessible studies on the internet now.
Below is a summary of a number of studies that makes interesting reading, especially if you follow the links and the bibliography.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-016-1064-4

 

[Chookchicken]

My chickens have 1000 IQ, when it’s comes to worms and corn. And one of my hens Johnny has about 2000 IQ when it comes to breaking into her nest whilst she’s broody when we kick her out.

In all seriousness, I have absolutely no idea

 

[PippinTheChicken]

Kiwi is clever enough to understand clicker training at just 8-12 weeks old.
Then she does something very funny and stupid.

 

[CarpCharacin]

IQ. It stands for Intelligence quotient. It's not an absolute measurement. It's relative to data gathered on achievement at a particular age.
So, the first problem is there isn't an adequate definition of intelligence.
Next, any definition of intelligence should take into account the skill set and environment in which those skills are used.
We, humans, think we are intelligent and by the criteria we use, which is relevant to our skill sets, tend to make judgements on other species using the criteria that is applicable to our skill set.
If you could ask a chicken if humans are intelligent they may well consider us thick as bricks.
In the more recent past there has been a greater effort to try to measure intelligence in other species. Such investigations have provided some surprising results.
There are a few easily accessible studies on the internet now.
Below is a summary of a number of studies that makes interesting reading, especially if you follow the links and the bibliography.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-016-1064-4

IQ / ability and achievement tests are two different things. Ability tests are designed to estimate general ability (or g, the existence of which is statistically inferred from the positive correlations repeatedly observed between different tests of cognitive ability, even very disparate ones), and that is what is commonly viewed as "intelligence". There are obviously disputes about what "intelligence" is, some people think it includes non-cognitive abilities and while non-cognitive abilities are obviously important, I think they are are best assessed separately.

Regarding environment-specific skills, certain tasks on IQ tests are typically specific to the culture of the testee, take general knowledge and vocabulary for example. They are intended to be non-esoteric, the idea is that the vast majority of people will be exposed to the answers throughout their lives but only those with a certain level of ability will remember them. Other tasks are more "fluid" and novel, they don't require past knowledge and are brand new to most testees.

I disagree very much with the notion that the batteries of tests which are used to derive a full-scale IQ only measure a narrow construct. The range of tasks is quite broad, yet very wide discrepancies are uncommon. There are also significant differences in test content between some batteries, yet the composite scores that they yield correlate very very strongly. I recall reading of one study that reported a Pearson correlation above 0.9 between the g factor extracted from a battery of cognitive tests and the one extracted from a battery of video games. Unidimensional tests (like only vocab, or only nonverbal fluid reasoning) are less predictive than composites but still tend to be fairly predictive, so I think the g factor is real.

Now, to answer the original question about the IQs of chickens, I doubt that chickens would score above the floor of a test designed for humans (typically four standard deviations below the mean, or a standard score of 40), but it's unlikely that they would understand the instructions for any of the tasks, some of which also require motor skills. So yeah, estimating the cognitive abilities of chickens with reasonable accuracy would require a test built for that purpose.

 

[Shadrach]

IQ / ability and achievement tests are two different things. Ability tests are designed to estimate general ability (or g, the existence of which is statistically inferred from the positive correlations repeatedly observed between different tests of cognitive ability, even very disparate ones), and that is what is commonly viewed as "intelligence". There are obviously disputes about what "intelligence" is, some people think it includes non-cognitive abilities and while non-cognitive abilities are obviously important, I think they are are best assessed separately.

Regarding environment-specific skills, certain tasks on IQ tests are typically specific to the culture of the testee, take general knowledge and vocabulary for example. They are intended to be non-esoteric, the idea is that the vast majority of people will be exposed to the answers throughout their lives but only those with a certain level of ability will remember them. Other tasks are more "fluid" and novel, they don't require past knowledge and are brand new to most testees.

I disagree very much with the notion that the batteries of tests which are used to derive a full-scale IQ only measure a narrow construct. The range of tasks is quite broad, yet very wide discrepancies are uncommon. There are also significant differences in test content between some batteries, yet the composite scores that they yield correlate very very strongly. I recall reading of one study that reported a Pearson correlation above 0.9 between the g factor extracted from a battery of cognitive tests and the one extracted from a battery of video games. Unidimensional tests (like only vocab, or only nonverbal fluid reasoning) are less predictive than composites but still tend to be fairly predictive, so I think the g factor is real.

Now, to answer the original question about the IQs of chickens, I doubt that chickens would score above the floor of a test designed for humans (typically four standard deviations below the mean, or a standard score of 40), but it's unlikely that they would understand the instructions for any of the tasks, some of which also require motor skills. So yeah, estimating the cognitive abilities of chickens with reasonable accuracy would require a test built for that purpose.

It's all in the name; IQ. It's a quotient and if one understands what a quotient is and then investigates in the case of IQ what the limits of the test are then it's a trivial task to understand why such a test is not relevant to chickens and imo and the opinion of many others who study intelligence; not really relevant to humans either.

 

[CarpCharacin]

It's all in the name; IQ. It's a quotient and if one understands what a quotient is and then investigates in the case of IQ what the limits of the test are then it's a trivial task to understand why such a test is not relevant to chickens and imo and the opinion of many others who study intelligence; not really relevant to humans either.

It isn't really a quotient, it's a standard score that expresses how far one deviates from the mean, like a percentile rank or z-score.
The name is left over from when ability was estimated by calculating an age equivalent, dividing that age equivalent by the testee's biological age, and then multiplying by 100. That fell out of favor decades ago because means and standard deviations varied between age ranges. It's disingenuous to claim that a statistically good but imperfect measure of how far individuals deviate from the mean in cognitive ability is irrelevant to the study of intelligence, at least if one's definition of "intelligence" includes cognitive ability.

 

[Shadrach]

It isn't really a quotient, it's a standard score that expresses how far one deviates from the mean, like a percentile rank or z-score.
The name is left over from when ability was estimated by calculating an age equivalent, dividing that age equivalent by the testee's biological age, and then multiplying by 100. That fell out of favor decades ago because means and standard deviations varied between age ranges. It's disingenuous to claim that a statistically good but imperfect measure of how far individuals deviate from the mean in cognitive ability is irrelevant to the study of intelligence, at least if one's definition of "intelligence" includes cognitive ability.

It really is a quotient in the IQ test.
You are correct in pointing out that the IQ test has fallen out of favour when attempting to measure intelligence and that's because of the limitations of the test.
Allow me to refresh your memory;

what would you guys rate the iq of a chicken​

I suggest it would be fair when trying to establish the IQ of a chicken that the test would then become species specific. Perhaps I should have answered it depends on how smart the chicken being tested is.
Nope, I'm not being disingenuous; I think it's fairly obvious I'm stating an opinion.