|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 29 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-28-05 | | aw1988: IQ tests have tended to be difficult for me. I've been ranged from 105 to 235... although I swear some were faulty/too easy/too hard/I was tired/<insert reason here>. A truly reliable one is hard to come by. |
|
| Jan-28-05 | | aw1988: I would estimate my IQ to be at around 155 or 165. |
|
| Jan-28-05 | | WMD: That low? |
|
| Jan-28-05 | | Backward Development: I think my IQ is about 110...<coughs> thousand <coughs> :) I don't know what mine is. I've never taken a 'real' IQ test, only silly online ones. Guess that goes to show, 'eh? |
|
| Jan-30-05 | | OJC: < ChessVagrant > Wolfgang or wolf-avatar? ;) |
|
| Feb-08-05 | | Hann Mutata: "...Revulsion against all forces and all militarism needed no justification; to him this was as natural as the air he breathed or the pleasure he took in thinking. This trait extended to a rejection of anything competitive - not only to weapons and lethal intent, but similarly to sports and even to such a seemingly peaceful activity as chess. He neither played nor liked chess, because he had always felt repelled by the power struggle and competitive spirit even in this intelligent game." Foreward to Johan Hannak, Emanuel Lasker (Princeton, 1952), p. X. |
|
| Feb-08-05 | | JustAFish: I've taken several I.Q. tests, and have been moderately pleased with the results, but I don't put too much stock in this. More than anything else, I think I.Q. tests most accurately measure one's skill at solving the sort of puzzles common to I.Q. tests. It's clear that even in the most broadly conceived test that this is a limited metric. One can be exceptionally good at working within a realm that can be codified in a test, but horrible at dealing with the messiness of, say, the real world. Note Bobby Fischer, for instance, a certifiable genius of the chessboard (and, perhaps, good at puzzles as well) but, when it comes to dealing accurately and perceptively with the vagaries of reality he's, well... just certifiable. I find his claim that he's "not a chess genius, but a genius who happens to play chess" a big stretch. Moreover, the results of I.Q. tests can easily be skewed. One can train themselves to perform well on I.Q. tests by spending a little time practicing on the sorts of visual, mathematical, and verbal analogies common to such tests. I doubt that the small amount of practice necessary to increase one's I.Q. score sigificantly is enough to significantly affect one's "general intelligence" (if there is such a thing). Finally, those with well documented high I.Q's do not necessarily strike me as being broadly intelligent. Having attended a couple of Mensa conventions as a guest (not a member) I have found many of the people therein witty, good at puzzles, well read and worldly, but also shockingly childish, delusional, and liable as the rest of the population to latch on to demonstrably false logic and beliefs. I've read a number of the articles by Marilyn Vos Savant, the putative holder of the "Highest I.Q. in the world", and she strikes me as merely "above average" in terms of interest or insight. In other words, her "genius" doesn't seem to have translated over into her ability to write compelling prose. She is, however, great at puzzles -which is all I think we can say with certainty that her high I.Q. score demonstrates. |
|
| Feb-08-05 | | maoam: <JustAFish>
<I've read a number of the articles by Marilyn Vos Savant, the putative holder of the "Highest I.Q. in the world" ... her "genius" doesn't seem to have translated over into her ability to write compelling prose.> She also wrote a staggeringly inept criticism of Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem demonstrating her ignorance of mathematics. |
|
| Feb-08-05 | | poktirity: It seems that those estimated IQs could have been made up with a dice or something like that. I have heard that Einsteins IQ was remarkably "low", somewhere around 160. However I have also heard that his brain was in someway different from the rest of us, with an extra bending of the outer layer or such, giving him greater ability of spatial thinking. However I don't know the accuracy of the source :/ |
|
| Feb-08-05 | | poktirity: Speaking of Einstein, he is quoted to have said "I hope they don't make practical use of my research" after realizing that his discoveries could lead to the atomic bomb. A friend of mine quoted that in an physics assignment after "discovering" that a friend of his would be crushed by a force equal to the weight of 4.7 million packages of milk if his parachute didn't release :D |
|
| Feb-09-05 | | OJC: There is nothing remarkably low about an IQ of 160. It is in the genius range. I'm not sure there's much of a meaningful difference between the numbers above 150-160. Unless he actually performed an IQ test, which seems unlikely for such a busy/important guy, the 160 must somehow be estimated (i.e. pulled out of thin air) from Einstein's contributions to science and other writings. Maybe the person who decided the IQ was 160 and not 200 was part of the Bohr camp of the quantum mechanics debate and penalized Einstein's "estimated" IQ for not believing in spooky action at a distance and dicerolling. |
|
| Feb-09-05 | | zer0: <OJC: Maybe the person who decided the IQ was 160 and not 200 was part of the Bohr camp of the quantum mechanics debate and penalized Einstein's "estimated" IQ for not believing in spooky action at a distance and dicerolling.>
And of course, the very action of measuring Einstein's IQ would change the result ;-) |
|
| Feb-09-05 | | OJC: Very true < zer0 > :) |
|
| Feb-09-05 | | fgh: <JustAFish>: If you practice frequently IQ tests, you will not be "prepared" for them, but your IQ will increase. Some people say the highest possible increase of the IQ is 10 - 20 points. |
|
| Feb-09-05 | | like a GM: <OJC: I'm not sure there's much of a meaningful difference between the numbers above 150-160.> I might shock you with this but having an IQ of 220 means that you are a lot smarter than einstein. You and me might see Gauss and Einstein as geniuses of the highest level but the truth is that if those two had a conversation, Albert might feel a little stupid. |
|
| Feb-09-05 | | OJC: < like a GM > I don't deny that geniuses come in different levels. I just don't think IQ tests are a reliable indicator of who fits into which categories. I would rather see geniuses ranked (if at all) on their performance in their life's work. |
|
| Feb-09-05 | | maoam: <like a GM>
Anyone except the greatest geniuses Riemann, Poincare, von Neumann etc. would look dumb compared to Gauss. |
|
| Feb-09-05 | | OneBadDog: My guess is that IQ tests measure very accurately the ability to take IQ tests. |
|
| Feb-09-05 | | Saruman: My brother for instance took some IQ-tests, probably 3 or 4 and got an average of IQ 135, on online tests. But he is only 15 years old; most likely he would raise that IQ before he is grown up. But my brother is not overly intelligent- far from genius, so in my opinion there must be some kind of gap which states the "real" intelligence between lets say his and Einstein's IQ. |
|
| Feb-09-05 | | euripides: <gandal's rival But my brother is not overly intelligent> go thou and do psychology 1 ! |
|
Feb-09-05
 | | Gypsy: < But my brother is not overly intelligent- far from genius ... > Leave it to one's brother to promote ya ... Lol |
|
| Feb-09-05 | | OJC: A couple of relevant points from good old wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq
< Saruman >
<Online IQ tests
Although such tests have become wildly popular with the explosion of the Internet in recent years, there is great reason to believe that these IQ tests are highly inaccurate in their estimation of one's IQ. For example, by inputting random answers on one particular IQ test, an IQ of roughly 80 is obtained. Comparing results among a large set of people shows a common factor—most scores are above 110. Most of these websites attempt to sell certificates showing test results. > Regarding geniuses
<< Some writers say that scores outside the range 55 to 145 must be cautiously interpreted because there have not been enough people tested in those ranges to make statistically sound statements. Moreover, at such extreme values, the normal distribution is a less accurate estimate of the IQ distribution. >> I agree especially with the second point: the tail ends of the Bell curve at very high and low IQs may not accurately measure the IQ distribution properly. Even with a larger sample size we still wouldn't know if a gaussian function is an adequate mathematical model for this purpose. |
|
Feb-09-05
| | Gypsy: I'd like to go realy pedestrian here by asking what we mean by 'intelligence' and what we mean by its quotient. |
|
| Feb-09-05 | | admiralnemo: <saruman> actually, i think that the scores are likely to test higher the younger you are. isn't the quotient mental age divided by chronological age or something? |
|
| Feb-09-05 | | OJC: < Gypsy > I think onebaddog's previous post answers it best. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 29 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
