Measuring intelligence (aka smartest people in the world)

[DcifrThs]

imagine there is a large incentive (money or whatever) to gathering the 5 smartest people in the world.

you have unlimited resources and all the greatest minds are available to you from every conceivable (and some inconceivable) fields.

you have as much time as you need and can ask them anything or administer any test.

how would you determine (and rank) the 5 smartest people in the world?

(aka, is a simple IQ test biased against some types of intelligence?)

Barron

[Shadowrun]

this is really intresting.
do we measure abstract intellegince or do we want more practical knowledge hmm...
first i think i would use an IQ test and elimnate anyone under 120.
After that i gather everyone in their respective fields and they vote. (3 people per group)
Everyone in a group presents an idea for the future or something they did in the past, and i alone decide what has been most worthwhile and i pick the top 5 as the smartest.

P.S. This is as arbtirary as it gets i cant wait to see some more creative answers.

[Lestat]

It would depend on what you're using these 5 people for. I believe there are different types of intelligence. A good aptitude for math is probably the strongest indicator for all around intelligence. I'm not necessarily a fan of the IQ tests. I tend to score fairly high on these and I'm terrible at math and retaining information. Go figure.

I'm also not sure if creative intelligence is indigenious to math. So if you're looking for 5 people to figure out a plan for world peace, I don't think I'd pick mathemeticians.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
It would depend on what you're using these 5 people for. I believe there are different types of intelligence. A good aptitude for math is probably the strongest indicator for all around intelligence. I'm not necessarily a fan of the IQ tests. I tend to score fairly high on these and I'm terrible at math and retaining information. Go figure.

I'm also not sure if creative intelligence is indigenious to math. So if you're looking for 5 people to figure out a plan for world peace, I don't think I'd pick mathemeticians.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maths is very creative at the "generate proofs" stage, as opposed to apply algorithms or solve equations bit that most people see.

I'd use maths ability (but I'm biased) - particularly people's ability to produce fresh insights in relatively new fields.

[Speedlimits]

Unlimited Funds? First you would give a basic IQ test to weed out any one that has an overall IQ of 127 or less.

The top 2.2% (>128IQ) would then be administered a Neuropsychological Report.

This report includes:

A History and Background of the person, their interests and any pertinent information regarding intelligences (awards etc.)

Behavioral Observations: The test administrator would observe the person's behavior, mood and speech.

A variety of tests would then be given.

The first would be the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (the most current edition to date is III)

This test determines the participants verbal IQ. As well as their Peformance in performing tasks.

Cognitive Strength would include vocabulary, mental arithmetic problem solving, brief auditory span, general fund of information and visual motor paired associated learning, puzzle constructions and timed sequential nonverbal reasoning.

The next test administered would be the Weschsler Individual Achievement test. This test would include spelling, word reading, numerical operations and math reasoning, pseudoword decoding and written expression. All categories would be judged in percentiles.

Other tests that would be administered include: Gray Oral Reading Test, Wecshler Memory Scale, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test.

To determine the top 5 smartest people we would compute their overall score, most likely all would be in the 99 percentile but not necessarily.

Now some people not in the top 5 would most certainly score higher in some areas. If the task required a utilization of certain skills that one of the top 5 was not superior in then he would be replaced by someone with a higher aptitude in the chosen field.

This seems like the most logical way in distinguishing the greatest minds, although their would be a standard deviation. Standard deviation introduces the problem of accuracy. Poor performance could possibly rank the #1 mind at #6, leaving him off list.

The verdict is that it would be impossible to empirically determine the greatest minds without any deviation. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the top 5 chosen would be superior but not necessarily the best.

[FortunaMaximus]

What a shock. You realize you can't correctly administer these tests to individuals with IQ's over 160 who at least have an inkling it's going on? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Anyway, money wouldn't be much of an inducement. Access to Gates Foundation, think tanks, 2bil+ to play with, maybe it gets interesting.

[madnak]

There are no "5 smartest people." There may be 5 "top" people according to a very specific standard, but even then the ranking may change from day to day, and developing a sufficiently narrow standard may be impossible anyhow.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
imagine there is a large incentive (money or whatever) to gathering the 5 smartest people in the world.

...

how would you determine (and rank) the 5 smartest people in the world?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who determines if you succeeded? How are they determining success?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
imagine there is a large incentive (money or whatever) to gathering the 5 smartest people in the world.

...

how would you determine (and rank) the 5 smartest people in the world?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who determines if you succeeded? How are they determining success?

[/ QUOTE ]

Less intelligent people, presumably, which is where this process falls apart.

[Magic_Man]

Um, it completely depends on what your definition of "smart" is. Are you looking to send a manned mission to Mars, or are you trying to decrease the world poverty level? Maybe you'd like them to write the next great american novel?

If you ask me, I'd say the closest thing you can get to "the 5 smartest people" is "the 5 people who are best at learning." In that case, I would focus on tests of information retention, as well as tests on applying new concepts.

~MagicMan

[hmkpoker]

First you have to determine what "smart" means.

[Lestat]

I can see how math can be very creative. I've even heard that kids who take up music early on perform better at math. But I still say that people who are brilliant at math tend to be duds in fields that require social interaction. You can't convince me otherwise. I know too many mathematically minded people who are socially inept. I'm sure this isn't because they can't think on their feet or be witty. But they lack something. So I wasn't sure what type of "smarts" OP was looking for.

[bigpooch]

This is how I think you could do it, if it were even
possible (I would be pessimistic about it being possible!).

First of all, I think you would need some intelligent people
to determine what the important criteria are for determining
intelligence, so it would be best to consult those people
in psychology that are familiar with not just psychometric
testing, but the different aspects of intelligence just to
agree on what aspects are important. I believe that many
tests, even those that supposedly measure genius, are not
very accurate for testing people that are about 4 or more
standard deviations above the norm. Of course, this may
result in subjective intelligence criteria, but that's the
best we can do because there is no unanimous agreement on
what it is to be an above average genius (and not merely a
genius).

Second, you need several geniuses to design a plethora of
"IQ-test" problems, some of which may take a few seconds to
answer and others that might take a week. Then you would
have to provide some extreme financial or intellectual
incentive for the smartest people around the planet to
answer questions from such a test. Unfortunately, I
suspect the smartest people on the planet couldn't care less
about these questions since they might be involved in more
esoteric or intense research, so monetary incentive, an
"ego massage" or even intellectual rewards aren't all that
important.

In any case, once you have sufficient incentives to sate
the appetite of the smartest geniuses, and have a series of
tests with difficult enough questions to differentiate
between the smartest geniuses, you need to administer the
tests and evaluate the responses, so you may need a panel
of genius judges since many of the problems or questions
would require an essay-like response or a proof or other
nonverbal and nonwritten responses.

Next, you want to reject many candidates since you don't
want too big of an alpha error (you don't want to pick
someone who is unlikely to be one of the smartest five and
take too many candidates). Since, you are trying to pick
a small number of individuals from about six billion
earthlings, you would want to reject a candidate that was
not more than about 4.5 standard deviations above average
intelligence which corresponds to an IQ of about 170
(assuming that even this method of testing may not be
accurate in assessing intelligence for the smartest geniuses).

Then, you should end up with around 10^2 to around 10^4
candidates, depending on how effective your "marketing" was.

Then, you want to keep testing and rejecting candidates to
limit that number to at most a few hundred or so. Once you
are able to do that, you simply have this elite group decide
amongst themselves who the smartest are. Of course, even
though it may take a great genius to decide who is genuinely
a great genius, there is also a great danger that you would
have a bunch of megalomaniacs or prima donnas that render
this task virtually impossible. If that's the case, you
probably have no choice but to "repeat and rinse"! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
imagine there is a large incentive (money or whatever) to gathering the 5 smartest people in the world.

you have unlimited resources and all the greatest minds are available to you from every conceivable (and some inconceivable) fields.

you have as much time as you need and can ask them anything or administer any test.

how would you determine (and rank) the 5 smartest people in the world?

(aka, is a simple IQ test biased against some types of intelligence?)

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

Simple! If they're so smart, let them figure it out themselves! /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[madnak]

I have a suspicion the five smartest people in the world would want nothing to do with such a process. Even if your "marketing" were to offer bunches of money to the candidates, I wouldn't be surprised if at least one just didn't respond.

And then there have been exceptional geniuses well below IQ 170. And somewhere between 160 and 170 the IQ scale seems to fall apart in terms of predicting anything meaningful. And very smart people are notoriously arrogant, they have high rates of mental illness, and they're super opinionated. So it would be hard to have an unbiased ranking, it would be hard to have an objective ranking, and by God it would be hard to get the super friends to agree on what the standards are in the first place.

I could go on.

And that's just at the practical level. Then you have the theoretical to deal with - what we call "intelligence" is just an amalgam of thousands upon thousands of variables. Variables which are highly correlated, of course, but less and less so at the outliers. Then you have the idea that if someone were really way above average according to a certain scale, nobody else would have any platform from which to judge him. And how would error rates factor in? And would someone like Einstein, slow but powerful, processing ideas for years before outputting a brilliant insight, be considered smarter than someone like Von Neumann, quick and sharp, able to formulate a new theorem with an hour's thought, but largely incapable of resolving the deep and profound problems? How do we compare Ramanujan and Euler? How do we compared Da Vinci and Newton?

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
How do we compare Ramanujan and Euler? How do we compared Da Vinci and Newton?

[/ QUOTE ]

These matters can only be settled in The Octagon.

[valenzuela]

I would do a " world series of IQ" shootout tournament
In each table we have 20 ppl, everyone gets to asks 10 questions( no knowledge allowed only logic)to each other. Then afterward each contestant gets to explain why he is smarter than the other contestant( this donk said this here, and that there). I pick the 4 participant who convince me the most. We do that until only 4 participants are left, the other person is me.
In the later rounds I would get help from other smart participants who are left behind.

edit: I would do an IQ test first to eliminate everyone under 130.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
imagine there is a large incentive (money or whatever) to gathering the 5 smartest people in the world.

...

how would you determine (and rank) the 5 smartest people in the world?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who determines if you succeeded? How are they determining success?

[/ QUOTE ]

God. Unknown to you. you must do the best you can.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

edit: I would do an IQ test first to eliminate everyone under 130.

[/ QUOTE ]

Half the world is illiterate, and not because their dumber than us, don't make the mistake of sectioning off a big chunk of the population because of our biasis.

Ifi had unlimited time and money i would just start a breeding program and then funnel those kids through exceptional schools and pick the best that came out.

[DcifrThs]

thanks for the replies guys...except those of you who are the same people who ask questions about movies that are way sci-fi like "how did hero jump 6 feet in the air?...thats clearly not possible"

i know it is a futile question but it is definately a useful exercise imo

what is "smart"ness? how do we rank it? what would we look for?

personally, i think any reading/writing section to eliminate anybody would not be a good start. we want to maximize the probability fo getting the 5 smartest people in our ranking. so at first, we dont want to eliminate (or completely reduce the possiblity of eliminating) any of those people.

i think a verbal spacial/verbal reasoning test is probably best at first. then maybe an obstacle course to get the blood flowing /images/graemlins/wink.gif

followed by a personal survival ish test like putting each contestant in a room w/ only 1 way out. gotta figure out the way. those who do it slowest are eliminated.

then ask them brain teasers and have them verbally talk out their responses.

from there i dont know.

Barron

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

followed by a personal survival ish test like putting each contestant in a room w/ only 1 way out. gotta figure out the way. those who do it slowest are eliminated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't want any test that included speed as a primary determinant, itw ould eliminate long deep thinkers (i think einstien was this type).
One way i would apprach it would be to present problems outside of the field of study/expertise and have experts in the field analyze their approach and results.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

followed by a personal survival ish test like putting each contestant in a room w/ only 1 way out. gotta figure out the way. those who do it slowest are eliminated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't want any test that included speed as a primary determinant, itw ould eliminate long deep thinkers (i think einstien was this type).
One way i would apprach it would be to present problems outside of the field of study/expertise and have experts in the field analyze their approach and results.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed. switch it to they have X hrs to figure it out thoguh...need some way to eliminate folks.

Barron

OR: ala the brain teaser. ask the group of N smart people you colelct how they would determine the smartest person

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
thanks for the replies guys...except those of you who are the same people who ask questions about movies that are way sci-fi like "how did hero jump 6 feet in the air?...thats clearly not possible"

i know it is a futile question but it is definately a useful exercise imo

what is "smart"ness? how do we rank it? what would we look for?

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point. The threads you wrote off as nits were the only ones that actually answered those questions.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
thanks for the replies guys...except those of you who are the same people who ask questions about movies that are way sci-fi like "how did hero jump 6 feet in the air?...thats clearly not possible"

i know it is a futile question but it is definately a useful exercise imo

what is "smart"ness? how do we rank it? what would we look for?

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point. The threads you wrote off as nits were the only ones that actually answered those questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

the order of my sentences and my irony meter should be reversed and increased.

Barron

[FortunaMaximus]

The ability for spontaneous rhetoric is probably what you're getting at here. Some can, some can't. That doesn't make the person less intelligent.

[madnak]

Damn right! Lots of clueless people are smart!

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Damn right! Lots of clueless people are smart!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's not to say it's a defining criteria for extremely high IQ's.

Still...

[r3vbr]

This person would rank top 5 i think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis

[FortunaMaximus]

Of all-time, perhaps. He's quite dead right now.

[NLSoldier]

too ez. we already know sklansky's dad is the smartest. and since hes the smartest then we would be best served by asking him to tell us who the 4 other smartest are.

[tame_deuces]

Common ways of measuring intelligence (and its various definitions) are usually adjusted for swings in different cultures, you would be hard pressed to find a proper common 'denominator' to look for in an intelligence test that should find the five smartest people in the world.

So you would have to start off by having a fairly narrow definition of 'smart' to begin with.

[Leaky Eye]

I would kill everyone but five people.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
I would kill everyone but five supermodels.

[/ QUOTE ]