Some of you *must* be geniuses...

[Betchass1]

I am tired of people rating people on how smart they are, how well they percieve...things like that. That is one of the main reasons there is so much animosity in the world....I hate it....just like that thing that a lot of young women I am acquainted with...the Which Gender Is More Sophisticated and things to that effect. I am annoyed....

That's just it. If someone is *rating* people according to how smart they are, that person is the one with the problem. It doesn't mean the people being rated aren't legitimately performing well at certain tasks. Are all people exactly alike in every way? Surely you know people you would say are smarter or dumber than some others? Well call them crazy, but there are people who think it might be useful to understand why.
All I'm saying is that an IQ test measures something real. Any judgement of superiority or inferiority you see attached to that something comes from society or whatever. Is anyone really jealous of Stephen Hawking? Or Isaac Newton- a miserable guy.
Well-designed tests tend to give fairly close results for any one person. If anyone really wants to know about IQ, there's plenty of reading available on the subject, and lots of existing work to become acquainted with. It's not just a bunch of people taking shots in the dark and deciding who's smart.

 

[Betchass1]

I figure if you're smart enough to wipe your ass with toilet paper instead of your hand after taking a dump, then you're at least of basic intelligence.

Instead of wiping your hand with toilet paper? :weird:

 

[Betchass1]

Well I only took one IQ test in my life a long while ago, and I got 144 apparently, so you all now know *for sure* that it's a load of crap 😛

You just know someone is waiting for everyone else to post their I.Q.s so that they can jump and say 'well you know, my I.Q. is 210, but y'know, those tests don't mean anything... 🙄 '

Heh.

:happy:

I'm surprised that hasn't happened. I would think there would be a mess of computer programmers on a fetish forum, and that they would test high, and that they would be anxious to throw in their results. Maybe they're lurking.

http://www.sidis.net/index.html
W.J. Sidis was said to have an "IQ" between 250 and 300, probably the highest ever noted. He could learn a language in one day. He was teaching at Harvard at 16 years old. I can't help but be amazed by him. His writings on freedom and rights are actually pretty down-to-earth.
Of course, it's also been said he never mastered personal hygiene, he couldn't hold a steady job, and he found sex repulsive, making and keeping a vow of celibacy from a young age.


Then there's Bobby Fisher, who was measured at 186. A chess game he won at 13 years old was known as "the game of the century". He has been said to be paranoid schizophrenic, and has had lots of issues and made lots of enemies over the years. I once read of him walking by a friend's table at a tournament on the way to the bathroom, saying "hm" as he walked by, then years later coming to the person's office to talk about something, and asking him what he did in that game, after setting up a chessboard as it was when he had walked by. He denied the Holocaust happened and applauded the Sept 11 attacks.

 

[TKLVR181]

but when your next to me, our combined score rises to 242 😀

Ohh, cool! 😀 Now I feel better!!

And Noob, you can go to www.emode.com (otherwise known as tickle.com for unfetish related reasons----how funny is that?? :laughing: ) That's the IQ test I took, it's like, 100 or so questions long, I think. Don't take it on an empty stomach or at the end of a long day, you'll get a headache 😛

 

[nessonite1]

I think we can all agree that IQ tests (usually the ones thrown together just for fun) based on knowledge and trivia and a load of crap. Real IQ tests consist of visual puzzles, logical deduction, etc.
It is possible to have a high IQ but a brain that is so unused to performing analytical tasks that you score poorly. With proper exercize you can allow yourself to reach your full potential and score as well as you're going to on these tests, but you can't go beyond your natural abilities. Basically your max score is your max score and that determines how "smart" you are. Of course IQ only measures one faecet of intelligence (that being your analytical processes, logic, pattern recognition, etc) and doesn't make one person any beter than another.
It can indicate how quickly someone can pick up new things they need to learn or how efficiently they solve problems though. And at very high levels it does mean an enirely different way of thinking and processing information.
As Betchass said, people with super-high IQs (those that far surpass the "genius" level of around 145) are quite often plagued by socially and personally crippling problems that prevent them from ever living a normal life. Ever seen the movie "Beautiful Mind"? While not everyone at that level experiences the hallucinations and paranoia that he did it is virtually impossible for someone that is SO very different from the general population to ever really feel normal and be able to fit in.
Someone with an IQ of 150 is as far from "average" (being 90 - 120) as someone with an IQ of 70 or 80. And while it's easier for a smart person to communicate that it would be for an impaired person it's still extremely hard to relate. A mentally retarded person may be well-liked, sociable, and accepted, but despite our acceptance you have to admit that nobody thinks of them or rlates to them exactly the same as people on their own level.
well...that's my $0.02

 

[TheChameleon]

I make myself smarter everyday... Like, I read things at a speed which causes me to struggle, and try to type so fast that I can't keep up with my brain, hoping to achieve faster results.

of course, its starting to get hard when your fingers won't work with your brain, but I guess thats part of the hand-eye coordination aspect i've been working on.

There are two types of intelligence, and its important to know both... or, at least, try to. Play up your skills and abilities! But, also make sure that what your weak on, you work on as well.

Fluid intelligence is tied to biology. It is defined as our "on-the-spot reasoning ability, a skill not basically dependant on our experience." (Belsky, 1990, p. 125) Belsky (1990) indicates this type of intelligence is active when the central nervous system (CNS) is at its physiological peak.

vs.

Crystallized intelligence can be defined as "the extent to which a person has absorbed the content of culture."(Belsky, 1990, p. 125) It is the store of knowledge or information that a given society has accumulated over time.


Oh, also, if you notice in most cases, those who have a very high level of what we'd consider intelligence (most famous scientists, and generally those we consider "really really really really smart" ) all suffer from some form of dysfunction or another.

For example, the typical nerd kid, wears glasses, tends to be built smaller, tends to dress funny, and not exactly fit into the stereotype that most would consider cool.

Why is this? An evolutionary prank?

I consider it as a loss-and-gain game. For example, if you notice, when you have the small, agile, but not too smart kid, he's usually known as "A scrapper" because he'd fight to the death, and usually wins alot of fights. Back in the day, this was probably a big asset, A strong, fast, and powerful frame, with the option to run if it came down to it.

Then you have the massive strong, and usually slow guy. This guy has almost no chance of running away, but he's strong enough to make up for that (hopefully)

Then you have the smart guy... he usually gets other people to fight for him, or, at least, gets beat up in the locker room at highschool. He was the one who invented the club, to give himself an advantage over stronger and faster creatures.

If you notice, all have some sort of advantage, but, most of the time, they also have a weakness.

These are really basic and just thrown out there concepts, cuz I have work in like, 2 minutes, but I'm sure you see my point. Can't have 'em all, and if you did, well, thats a story for Kalamos.

Seeyah!

 

[BigNorm]

Ohh, cool! 😀 Now I feel better!!

that's my job! :awe:

 

[Dude'sonfire]

Doesn't stephen hawking have an I.Q. of 280?

As for the argument, Intelligence is an INCREDIBLY hard thing to quantify. As Nessy said, I.Q. tests are quite limited in their scope. I think of myself as being good at the following things: Writing creatively, writing academically, composing music, playing the instuments I play, and martial arts. Plus I like to think I'm 'wise to the ways of the world' in general lol. Would an I.Q. test acknoledge my skill in any of those areas? I am actually asking lol, so if anyone out there has an in-depth knowledge of how the tests logically operate, let me know.

And Chameleon, yeah, I think that (speaking out of a high school context and more in the adult world) you can only attibute your time so much: I try to dedicate an equal amount of time to physical and intellectual pursuits, but this does mean that I won't be as good at either as people who dedicate themselves to one entirely. Though there are those that argue that you can only be truly brilliant at one if you engage in the other as well, i.e. your mind can't work perfectly unless your body is as well, and vice versa. I myself am not sure...

P.s. ...GO KOREA!!! 😀

 

[Canadian Ninja1]

IQ tests, as have already been said, measure the recognition of proper patterns. No more, no less. However, that isn't intelligence. You can know everything about something and know just that. On the other hand, you can not know something and still apply it.

Here's an example. A few years ago, a psychologist took a bunch of middle-aged women and gave them a Comparative Mathematics test. Most, if not all of them failed miserably. He then took them to the grocery store and asked them to find the best buy of certain items. Every single one of them got the proper items. Both of these are comparative mathematics; which is better, the one you can do on paper or the one you can apply to your life? I don't think I need to assert my point on this.

Quite frankly, IQ tests are not intelligence tests so much as recognizing patterns so you can possibly gain bragging rights over someone else who doesn't realize that. (Example: Today, someone tried to disprove my argument by saying they had an IQ of 150, so they couldn't be wrong.) The true measure of intelligence is not in recognizing patterns, it is of learning and applying so it is of actual use off the paper.

 

[nessonite1]

That's exactly it. IQ measures your natral talents when it comes to analytical thinking and abstract thinking, visualizing, etc. A high IQ doesn't mean you necessarily posess the ability to make it work to your advantage.
I do argue though that IQ does indeed measure intelligence. But also that it measures one kind of intelligence only. Having a high IQ does not mean you are brilliant...but being brilliant gives you a much better chance of scoring highly on an IQ test. =^_^=

 

[Betchass1]

IQ tests, as have already been said, measure the recognition of proper patterns. No more, no less. However, that isn't intelligence. You can know everything about something and know just that. On the other hand, you can not know something and still apply it.

Here's an example. A few years ago, a psychologist took a bunch of middle-aged women and gave them a Comparative Mathematics test. Most, if not all of them failed miserably. He then took them to the grocery store and asked them to find the best buy of certain items. Every single one of them got the proper items. Both of these are comparative mathematics; which is better, the one you can do on paper or the one you can apply to your life? I don't think I need to assert my point on this.

Quite frankly, IQ tests are not intelligence tests so much as recognizing patterns so you can possibly gain bragging rights over someone else who doesn't realize that. (Example: Today, someone tried to disprove my argument by saying they had an IQ of 150, so they couldn't be wrong.) The true measure of intelligence is not in recognizing patterns, it is of learning and applying so it is of actual use off the paper.

This guy
http://www.lygeros.org/0151-eureka.html
has some really hard tests, mostly non-culture based. I have read where theorists have said that is a reasonable assumption that, if someone has enough intelligence, chances are they will have sought out certain knowledge, and so would have learned Latin and read Homer, etc. Which is bull.
But one thing I read from Nik Lygeros fits what you're saying. He said that intelligence cannot be learned, but thought can. So you can learn to solve problems, to think in a rational way- to be scientific- but you can't learn to perceive more immediately.
It's been said Albert Einstein's IQ may have been as low as 160- still pretty high, but not the highest- since he was known to take long walks and mull over problems at length. Even he said this. He was slow, but deep.

I disagree that IQ tests are for bragging rights. I think they do measure some aspects of intelligence, but as no one here has made a serious study of psychometrics, none of us are in a place to say. Like I said, it's not just a bunch of people taking shots in the dark, it's a very involved study. No one accuses physicists or molecular biologists or astronomers of just feeding their own egos without knowing anything about those subjects. As intelligence is part of what makes us human, and a very important part, I maintain that the people studying it are doing a service for humanity. The test isn't just for the person who takes it, it's for the people observing that person.

 

[Betchass1]

Doesn't stephen hawking have an I.Q. of 280?

As for the argument, Intelligence is an INCREDIBLY hard thing to quantify. As Nessy said, I.Q. tests are quite limited in their scope. I think of myself as being good at the following things: Writing creatively, writing academically, composing music, playing the instuments I play, and martial arts. Plus I like to think I'm 'wise to the ways of the world' in general lol. Would an I.Q. test acknoledge my skill in any of those areas? I am actually asking lol, so if anyone out there has an in-depth knowledge of how the tests logically operate, let me know.

I very much doubt Hawking measures at 280. 'The Simpsons' said that, but then 'The Simpsons' is known for joking. He himself said he didn't know. I read somewhere that as of now there is no one alive known to score higher than 200.

An IQ test would not likely acknowledge skill at all, just talent. What an IQ test measures is most likely only linked to those abilities in that it might affect how many questions you ask, how deeply you inquire into the reasons for some conventions. Like music cognition and acoustics (why do they use the intervals they use, why does this one sound minor and this one major), or why it's better to brace your legs one way instead of another for a certain move. The people throughout history who introduce changes in the way things are done most likely would score high on an IQ test. Then again, wanting something badly enough can make anyone an expert, regardless of IQ.

 

[Betchass1]

That's exactly it. IQ measures your natral talents when it comes to analytical thinking and abstract thinking, visualizing, etc. A high IQ doesn't mean you necessarily posess the ability to make it work to your advantage.
I do argue though that IQ does indeed measure intelligence. But also that it measures one kind of intelligence only. Having a high IQ does not mean you are brilliant...but being brilliant gives you a much better chance of scoring highly on an IQ test. =^_^=

They have other tests for creativity, too. Pretty amazing, some of them. The most "intelligent" people around can fail miserably to see certain possibilities.

One teacher told us of a high school where some folks tested all the students for classical intelligence and for creativity, then divided the results at the 50% mark for both. They found the students who did well at IQ questions but poorly at creativity questions did best in high school. The students who did poorly at IQ AND poorly at creativity also did well, just under the first group! They loved high school, said it changed their lives. Always challenged, always learning. Next down were the students who did well on both IQ and creativity questions, they hated high school and questioned their teachers and saw no point to the tasks they were made to do. Last were those who scored lower for IQ but high for creativity. They had the worst time of all, often dropping out. They also saw no point to the tasks, but were often not confident or articulate enough to challenge their teachers, so they withdrew and kept to themselves. I wish I knew the name of the study.
Of course, if a high school is paid for with tax dollars, it ought to cater to the majority.

As far as IQ relating to real-world success, just think how many people with new ideas have been censured or ostracized by society and the church over the centuries. Galileo comes to mind, and Socrates, and Darwin, and Freud. Also Edgar Allan Poe, Marcel Duchamp, Igor Stravinsky. They often can't understand keeping your mouth shut about the truth in order to maintain a sense of decorum or to let people cling to their mysteries.

 

[Betchass1]

This might be a little too easy

Here's an illustration of intelligence. Not a test, mind you, but to think about the kinds of faculties we have for making sense out of the stuff around us, and perhaps how being more adept at doing so can be useful.

 

[Journia]

You are really into this aren't you Bitchass?

 

[Journia]

Sorry, I mean Betchass. I type wierd so don't take it to offense.

 

[Canadian Ninja1]

Perhaps I should clarify. When I said IQ tests didn't measure intelligence, I meant that it was sorely lacking in measuring the whole picture, something Ness quickly picked up on. There's seven different fields of intelligence but only one is actively being tested.

Secondly, Betchass, I did not say that the people making the IQ tests were doing it for bragging rights, as you seemed to imply from the physicist, astronomer and whatnot example. Rather, the people taking the tests are the ones that are looking for bragging rights. It's the new penis size; 'Oh yeah? Well I got an IQ of 130.' 'Big deal, mine's 145.' The sheer number of conversations I hear like this on campus is both appalling and mind-numbing.

 

[Betchass1]

You are really into this aren't you Bitchass?

Ummmmmmmm, did I say something to offend you or something? Because I thought I was just discussing a subject. Is it possible someone with over a thousand posts doesn't know she can edit a typo from a post instead of posting a separate apology? I do believe children are not allowed on this site.
Whatever.

 

[nessonite1]

Next down were the students who did well on both IQ and creativity questions, they hated high school and questioned their teachers and saw no point to the tasks they were made to do

That would be me. Though I would have had the creativity to question the authority I would have not had the courage. I chose to simply drop out of school at a younger than average age only to pick it up again (and do well) in college. My dropping out had more to do with social reasons which hampered my ability to learn in school at all. Thus, I was not one of those people who were ahead of everyone and extremely bored...all of my energy was focused not on learning but on avoiding being abused. >=[

You may well be right, CN, about the bragging rights. I think the only reason I have taken IQ tests and have sought a high schore is to prove to myself that I have an excuse to feel different from most people. And maybe to prove that even though most others seem to be happier and more successful and more fulfilled than myself, I have a secret that I can sit in the background with and feel like I'm somehow better. It also is a nice excuse to use when explaining why I have no friends and I make no effort to meet people.
God...that's pretty lame, isn't it?
Nothing like a bit of introspection to make you realize how pathetic you are.

EDIT: Journia please reduce your sig size. pics shouldn't be larger than 35-50k and yours stretches the creen. Thanks.

 

[BigNorm]

i too hated high school. i didn't learn the way they taught me.

i could read a text book like a novel, take a test and pass a grade. that's how i prefered it. i didn't do class or home work since it was a waste since i knew the materials. i aced every test, but the damn teachers made the class work most of the grade, and so because of their crappy way of teaching, i failed alotta classes because of this. and so i just stopped trying. and after the 2nd time i failed 9th grade because of this flawed way they ran the classroom, i dropped out. only a year ago i decided to go back after a few years of chilling, and simply aced the GED. i got a score of 3240 out of a max score of 3340, and never needed to study. in preleminary tested, i tested way over high school lever, aswell.

people, because of that history, believe i'm a lazy drop out. when it's not true. it's just teachers wouldn't cope with the way i learned stuff.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I have a different perspective.

For example, this thread was created to give credit to people who stand out on this website, namely me and Kalamos. We were given credit for what we do and say and he implied we were wise and intelligent people.

Yet, none of the credit I've been given here has anything to do with my I.Q (a subject thats actually off-topic here).

It's my personality and approach to situations rather than straight out intelligence that has determined largely what I am capable of and is the reason for this thread thats giving the likes of me kudos. Applied learning and knowledge is important, but I feel to represent it's worth by a stat or number is the wrong idea. A number is just a number. It's how you express that knowledge thats more important, I think, and is what truely makes you intelligent.

You could be the smartest person in the world, but be a bumbling idiot whose socially inept, or be degenerative in some other capacity. True intelligence comes forth from experience and it's fueled by your own personality and ability to adapt to life.

Does my I.Q have anything to do with how smart I am? I honestly don't think so. All an I.Q does is measure your threshold of understanding. It does not grade your intelligence.

The reason people become nerds (for example) is because they can only appriciate the knowledge they have from an analytically bland perspective. Their personality is lacking and underdeveloped, and they are not benefitting in full from their own intelligence because it has not been refined, only gathered. It holds them back and keeps them from evolving (which is one of the reasons they get picked on). Someone with a good personality will be able to use the knowledge in all facets of their life and thereby excell and liberate themselves.

The nerd may be smarter and have a higher store of accumlated knowledge, but his intelligence is all but worthless in most situations. Nerds succeed through narrow observation, which is also their handicap. They understand only what they allow themselves to be exposed to. Everything else is foreign and they find themselves in uncharted waters.

If you ask me, the SMART people are the ones who can make use of what they've learned without it hampering their other faculties or weakening their personalities.

An I.Q is just a number to me, and theres little point to my waving it around. To do so would imply some sort of insecurity on my part. To go so far as to even brag about it would only serve to demostrate what I've just said.

 

[nessonite1]

I don't beliveve that IQ measures your understanding. It measures your ability to work through problems and to see solutions by analyzing the information you're given. It doesn't matter what you already know, what matters is how your brain adapts and recognizes what needs to be done.

Normie, schools in general really don't work for people like you. Many many people have had the same problems. Unfortunately most don't even bother to take the GED and are saddled with the "drop-out" stigma forever. A more accepting few sit through high school and allow it to zap any enthusiasm for learning that they may have had left. it's really sad.
Had I stayed long enough and not had other things in my way I may have gone that route myself. I really wish I had stayed and finished college. It was the only form of school I ever enjoyed. >=[

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Tomato tomatoe. Understanding is an important part of the process, and is what would limit your ability to solve problems, solve puzzles, and react properly to information in the first place.

I just don't feel an I.Q has any practical use in the real world.

 

[BigNorm]

I don't beliveve that IQ measures your understanding. It measures your ability to work through problems and to see solutions by analyzing the information you're given. It doesn't matter what you already know, what matters is how your brain adapts and recognizes what needs to be done.

Normie, schools in general really don't work for people like you. Many many people have had the same problems. Unfortunately most don't even bother to take the GED and are saddled with the "drop-out" stigma forever. A more accepting few sit through high school and allow it to zap any enthusiasm for learning that they may have had left. it's really sad.
Had I stayed long enough and not had other things in my way I may have gone that route myself. I really wish I had stayed and finished college. It was the only form of school I ever enjoyed. >=[

i agree. IQ is like the level of your processing power. it's how and what you do with it that counts.

i'm planning on going to a locla college this fall semester, and actually look forward to it, i enjoy lectures.

but the basis of this thread is what Vlad said, but geniouses are different from intellegence as Ness puts it. take the most famous genious, Albert Einstein.

he had a 200+ IQ, and he could be called a nerd. i mean he had little, if any common sense. he required help doing the most little tasks, tying his shoes, little stuff like that shich comes natural to most people. he wasn't very well off socially wise. he spent his time doing his famous work in physics. he could be considered a nerd, but he wasn't un-intelligent because he of personality or social means. everyone wants to be a genious, but it sucks. sure you can be famous and solve lotsa problems, but:

1. you can't play games, they aren't entertaining since you can solve them in a n instant.

2. you have no common sense and can't do the most basic of tasks.

3. you have no social life, will never marry or have friends, and will most likely die a virgin.

 

[F.L. Atlanta 10]

well said Norm.