This thread is about Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as in whether it can determine the true potential of a person and the reliability of such test or other similar psychometric tests.
Also, I'd like to discuss whether the "born" genius is better than the hard worker.
I've never been tested myself for IQ but I've met people who have and they don't quite match what you'd expect from them. One of my friends got about 150 but he's a person who cannot do anything by himself.
So, have you been tested? How reliable do you think it is?
We don't really have a good test for actual intelligence, as we really don't know what intelligence is. What IQ tests measure is the ability of the test taker on various tasks, not all of them really solely based on intelligence. Most tasks are based on the idea that being able to do a given task measures intelligence in all areas.
For example, most tests have a numbers test in which you choose the next number in a given sequence. The problem is that there's a way to "hack" the test -- if you happen to have seen that sequence before, you'll know what comes next. The same with most other question types -- if you see enough of the same types of questions, you'll get good at IQ tests. You won't get smarter, just look smarter. (<a href=http://www.jimmyr.com/blog/IQ_tests_100_2006.php>Article on IQ Tests </a>
Until we can define intelligence in a way that includes all types of intelligence, we can't measure it.
And my IQ is around 115 or so.
> whether the "born" genius is better than the hard worker.
Perhaps genius may not be natural, but takes hard work itself to obtain.
> One of my friends got about 150 but he's a person who cannot do anything by himself.
His capability in [whatever] or desire/motivation to do it isn't measured by an IQ test, his ability to do the IQ test is measured by the IQ test.
>his ability to do the IQ test is measured by the IQ test.
lol no.
If you applied the same stupid mentality to every test, you would find yourself being tested about taking the math test. Bull shit. Sit down and do your work. If you don't you will be pumping gas, or making php websites for shitty companies or something else similary sad.
> you would find yourself being tested about taking the math test.
Well, yes. Obviously. Simply cheating would give one a higher score, whether they knew the subject matter or not.
I won't bother responding to the rest of your fool's rhetoric.
There are tests more comprehensive than the usual IQ, such as WAIS-R.
I believe that remarkable people (not just 'intelligent') are defined both by inherent potential, and the work to capitalise on it. It's the whole 'nature-versus-nurture' non-debate.
I've been reading on this, the original test consisted in just mathematical and spatial reasoning but now they have included verbal, memory and reasoning into it. This makes me wonder how can they standardise those skills, I mean, how can they know that certain level of verbal skills is equivalent to some level of mathematical skills.
Does anybody know about the grading system involved on it?
Also, I read about some definitions of intelligence, none of them seems convincing enough for me but there is one that includes a number of different intelligences. I suppose a good test would test them all.
Would you say intelligence is inheritable? Those of you who got a high score, are your parents the same?
It does make sense, they have to have the will I suppose. I'll look for that WAIS-R.
I realise this isn't politically correct, but of course the potential is inheritable. Given that your personality traits are also heavily influenced by genes, so is the drive. It's just not as obvious as height, skin colour, or the length of your wang.
I'll point to the Minnesota twins study: identical twins separated at birth are closer to each other in intelligence and personality traits than are fraternal twins separated at birth.
I ought to note that the children of the exceptional tend to be less so, just as the children of the particularly dumb tend to be brighter than their parents.
> personality traits are also heavily influenced by genes,
More like temperament. Personality is the sum of a person life experiences on top of that.
>Personality is the sum of a person life experiences on top of that.
Life experiences unlock genes, so all in all genetic makeup is more influential.
> Life experiences unlock genes
...? Genetics is not an Xbox.
There are several different things : IQ (and yet, different IQ tests...), culture, maturity, skills in a certain domain... Some intelligent people have social, relationship, or personal organizational problems, or lack maturity. What's called "growing up", whatever means it, is "maturing up".
Intelligence may dispense better comprehension and learning abilities, but you still got to learn. Of course.
I still think there is an irreductible thing, that is intelligence... Some people just seem clever than others. And I don't like to think this, but it seems that biology (not only the genes, but the body) plays an important part in this.
Sensibility also seems to come with intelligence. Some great philosophers are known to have had a bad health... Are physic and mental sensiblity the same thing ? Or having a body subjected to illnesses makes me you more aware of suffering, therefore making you more sensible to it, forcing you to search behind things ?... (or something)
...So there are determinations, but there is also experience. If you're not used to think, you won't think. I tend to say that you "stay" (mentally speaking) where you are if you think you can. If you just expect something good to come to you, if you think you can expect that, then you will. What we call "geniuses" are people who just built what they wanted, or the conditions for it.
I'm not saying it's easy, though, and that you consciously expect or think the things you think. You're not generally aware of your own positions.
...Just some thoughts.
Sidenote, I've read somewhere that "genius" begins at 160 IQ.
>>11
Read up on your biology. Life experiences activate certain genes.
>>13
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Spiderman isn't real.
Lol those intelligence-test sucks!
Because they are always the same, so that you can get used to it!
If the tests on the net are the same as the "official" tests like those of the MENSA.
I would have high chances of becoming a member, so what then?
I AM LOSER, i know about myself more than any tests.
I have low-intelligence, no skills, no social-competence at all, no talents just nothing.
I am a failure of human. Bad degrees, no future......
Animes/mangas are the only wolrd for me left.
Yeah besides i am an Otaku i am also a Hikikomori..... :(
>>17
oh god do you need to rant in every single thread you lay eyes upon? gb2/personal/, how bad you suck has nothing to do with /science/
Oh sorry your Highness, please forgive me my stupidity :(.
But i want to show how almost "nothing-saying" those IQ-tests are, with me as an example!
Having only free-time, i surfed through the net and did several of such tests.
With the time you can get used to it ;). I can score over 130 points easily.
So how much value does such a test contain and how much significance does it represent your (real) intelligence?
So these questions are matters of facts which needs to be evaluated with this topic.
Thus they belongs to this thread and has something to do with science.
Sounds logical, ain't it^^?xD
> Having only free-time
this much is obvious
Oh. Snap.
>>21, learn to sage.
@all:
forget IQ
it's bad for you
>>23
drugs are bad for you too.
I have been told by anyone who have ever thought me that I am really sharp. I remember when I was in middle school, even thought I was around 40ish in a class of 60 students, I was sent to some examination for entry for gifted students. I bombed the test. and that was probably the last chance I got for just being smart.
Right now I am a first student who is failing his first semester in Engineering. Actually, I barely got in.
Over all, I would say, its good to have a high IQ, and you do need a certain amount of intelligence to be able to move forward in some fields, but it is a really small factor in how much you can learn and create. Other more important abilities are: your willpower, creativity and your ability to communicate with others.
Also, I like to point our:
Its true that you are born with certain abilities that is hard coded in your genes. You can develop your brain and train it. The more math you do, the more smarter you become in it. Humans are built to be adaptive to their environment, there is no way that if someone worked their brains year after year, they would stay just as dumb as they were.
> there is no way that if someone worked their brains year after year, they would stay just as dumb as they were.
It does get much harder to learn new ideas and skills as one gets older.
>>26
I'm not sure I buy that.
>>27
That's because you're old.
>>28
Then he would know, wouldn't he.
>>29
The wide spectrum of dementia disorders say otherwise.
Would the effects of a drug to high off of be more pleasurable to a person with a high IQ as oppose to a person with an average IQ?
That's the third stupidest question I've ever heard, >>31.
I'd like to know the answer too, although I would have worded the question in a fashion that makes it take less than three minutes to parse.
>>31,33
I'm confident in saying the answer is a clear "No".
Not only because IQ is just a score you get from taking a test, but because I doubt intelligence is in any way related to the number of dopamine neurotransmitters and transporters in your brain.
And yet, the workings of the brain are still largely a mystery.
But perhaps we can run a scientific study of our own.
I'll volunteer for high IQ ('cause I'm an intellectual prick)
>>33 can volunteer for average IQ and
>>31 can volunteer for borderline-retarded IQ
Now let's go smoke dope.
>>35
I might buy that in the case of hallucinogens, but not much other drugs that I can think of would be valid.
IQ tests are not an accurate representation of how smart or intelligent someone actually is. If you take a test and it asks something like " A conductor is to an orchestra is like a tenor is to a?" someone in a high class life style, or someone thought to be "intelligent" may get it. Now if the question asks "If someone throws a pair of bones, and the devils advocate and old lady wilks is on top, what is showing on the bottom." While you may not be able to get it, someone who has grown up playing dice games may be able to. IQ tests are all subjectable and don't necessarily show the true intelligence or true brain ability of a person.
BTW ^^^ Some grammar mistakes =P. I don't claim great ability with the English language.
>>37, what if it's a test of perceiving a pattern in a series of symbols or diagrams?
What if it's a test of arranging multicolored blocks to create a pattern, against time?
What if it's a test of perceiving a pattern in a series of numbers? That is what made up most of the IQ tests I took, though it has been many years since I was last tested.
What if it's a test of reflex speed? In the mid 1980s a large American university did experiments and demonstrated that a simple measurement of reflex speed correlates very well with the results of IQ tests, so well that the result of one measurement can predict the result of the other almost perfectly in most instances.
The old "culturally biased" ploy. I noticed >>37's examples all revolve around questions so highly subjective, nobody would think to ask them on an IQ test in this century. I'd like to see an example from a real, venerable IQ test, that applies to actual members of the cultures that would be taking it.
I'm sure if you look far enough, you can find people who don't know what a chair is, or have never seen right angles before, and thus invalidate all the symbolic tests based on them. Cultural assumptions are inherent to all human interaction.
> I'm sure if you look far enough, you can find people who don't know what a chair is, or have never seen right angles before
It's easy enough if we consider language barriers.
What the hell is صندلی or काटकोन anyway?
>>41
Then don't ask that. I'm not aware of any society that doesn't know what plants, water, the sun, hot and cold and so forth are. If you use abstract tests you won't draw on the concrete either.
That's not to say that designing such tests aren't fraught with such hazards.
>>39
Interesting. I'd like to hear more of this, particularly since human reaction time is so much slower than other species' because of processing overhead.
>>43
It was written up at great length in, if my somewhat unreliable memory servers, an American science magazine called "Discover" in or around 1986. The study was done at an Ivy League school, I think Harvard.
Volunteers were asked to hold down a button which had nine buttons surrounding it, and release that button and press whichever button lit up. Each volunteer did a hundred or so attempts, so as to establish good averages.
The results would seem to vindicate the Jensen theorem--basically that intelligence is the raw information-processing power of a given brain.
> in or around 1986. The study was done at an Ivy League school, I think Harvard.
Thanks for the info. I'll see if I can dig it up when I have some spare time.
> Jensen theorem
Never heard of it. I'd be interested in learning more.
> basically that intelligence is the raw information-processing power of a given brain.
You may have heard the joke (paraphrased, alas, since I can't dig up the original with google): "If you could speed up a dog's brain a thousand times, it'd just decide to piss on the fire hydrant in 1/1000th the time".
Raw processing power neglects memory. Long-term helps for obvious reasons, but short-term is necessary as a working space. Some people have more room than the typical 7+-2 items.
Some cultures don't have words for colors beyond 'dark' and 'light', any number above two, or even a written language.
Also, consider disabilities that would affect vision, reading comprehension, concentration, motivation, etc.
I'm not going to argue that every population on earth has equal strength, intelligence or hardiness... but things like culture, language, nutrition, health do have a significant impact on how they score on a test.
As such, I don't believe giving someone a sheet of paper and a pencil is an entirely useful method for pinpointing individuals or mapping races.
It might be more useful to measure brain activity, if one could figure out how exactly the brain works in entirety.
> Raw processing power neglects memory. Long-term helps for obvious reasons, but short-term is necessary as a working space. Some people have more room than the typical 7+-2 items.
You sound like a computer engineer.
Close.
That whole idea comes from cognitive psychology.
>>46
Not to be a wiseguy, but if a culture fails to create (for example) a written language, does this not imply that the population comprising that culture is badly deficient in capacity for abstract thought?
I'm just sayin'.
Not necessarily. Some environments aren't conducive to immobile agrarian settlements. I rather suspect that hunter-gatherers won't have much use for a written language.
Recently I feel I've gotten smarter.
Maybe it's just because I've surrounded myself with high school drop outs.
Still, it feels pretty good.
>>50
If high school dropouts have surrounded you, perhaps you are not as smart as you believe.
>>51
Hence the confusion.
But I'd say a college graduate must have something over high school drop outs.
Although some of them can definitely be wiser or wittier than many of the drifters in college.
Hi,
When i was young i had trouble reading and writing, but i was strong at maths. As a result my mother took me to a phycologist to have me analyzed. I did three sets of testing over three days. It turns out i have severe dyslexia and long term momory disorder but an IQ of 161. This was an advanced test and was very in depth, not like the ones schools give.
The way i see it is, higher intelligence is the ability to make links where others cant. An IQ test is a way of standardisng the results to form comparisons.
There are also several diffrent kinds of genius just because i can barely read at the age of 22 doesnt imply that i am stupid. Recently i just got a first class degree,and am currently working on a neural/bionical interface for people who have lost limbs.
Still cant figure out what goes on in a girls mind tho :(
You're more or less how I am when I'm absorbed in a certain topic. I lose sight and interest in even spelling or reading properly. A lot of details not pertinent to the subject at hand become unimportant in themselves. I have MANY interests that I know how to balance, and that I quite excel at, so it's obvious my IQ is quite high - relative to the representation of historic geniuses by IQ, that is.
ITT, stroking themselves.