Average SMP IQ.

[Xylem]

I believe poker players have higher Iqs on average to normal peeps.
I believe a 2p2er even more so and a 2p2er that post in SMP WOW!

So whats are Iqs just out of interest.

me 126 (7years ago).

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe poker players have higher Iqs on average to normal peeps.
I believe a 2p2er even more so and a 2p2er that post in SMP WOW!

So whats are Iqs just out of interest.

me 126 (7years ago).

[/ QUOTE ]

IQ is a wholy discredited concept. Ask anyone.

If it weren't there'd be a 'hol lot a 'splainin to be done regarding race and differential performance on so many metrics.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe poker players have higher Iqs on average to normal peeps.
I believe a 2p2er even more so and a 2p2er that post in SMP WOW!

So whats are Iqs just out of interest.

me 126 (7years ago).

[/ QUOTE ]

IQ is a wholy discredited concept. Ask anyone.

If it weren't there'd be a 'hol lot a 'splaining to be done regarding race and differential performance on so many metrics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh my god.

[Suwalski]

dono my exact IQ, but in the test i've taken i score somewhere betwen 115-125.

[furyshade]

i also dont know exact IQ but i have taken online test that have given me 130-140, take that with whatever weight you think is fit.

[Arp220]

I'm not really a fan of IQ tests. They're a rather blunt little tool for characterizing so complex an entity.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

IQ is a wholy discredited concept. Ask anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a bit strong of a statement don't you think? IQ isn't discredited at all. There is a question of what exactly it is measuring, but it is associated with a lot of different kinds of problem solving ability.

Just because it doesn't directly measure "intelligence" (whatever that term means), this doesn't mean that it is a useless concept.

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe poker players have higher Iqs on average to normal peeps.
I believe a 2p2er even more so and a 2p2er that post in SMP WOW!

So whats are Iqs just out of interest.

me 126 (7years ago).

[/ QUOTE ]

IQ is a wholy discredited concept. Ask anyone.

If it weren't there'd be a 'hol lot a 'splainin to be done regarding race and differential performance on so many metrics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Level I think.

I liked it.

[hitch1978]

I scored 136 about 10 yrs ago, and 124 this year.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

IQ is a wholy discredited concept. Ask anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a bit strong of a statement don't you think? IQ isn't discredited at all. There is a question of what exactly it is measuring, but it is associated with a lot of different kinds of problem solving ability.

Just because it doesn't directly measure "intelligence" (whatever that term means), this doesn't mean that it is a useless concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was just trolling, dont mind him. He only has two things he is capable of talking about, how blacks are dumb and we are all PC robots and how atheism is the doomed to either ruin society or be bred out of existence, which one is going to happen fluctuates depending on the thread. There was just no way he could resist trolling in this thread.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe poker players have higher Iqs on average to normal peeps.
I believe a 2p2er even more so and a 2p2er that post in SMP WOW!

So whats are Iqs just out of interest.

me 126 (7years ago).

[/ QUOTE ]

IQ is a wholy discredited concept. Ask anyone.

If it weren't there'd be a 'hol lot a 'splainin to be done regarding race and differential performance on so many metrics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Level I think.

I liked it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really a level, more a troll.

[bigpooch]

Smart people tend to gravitate towards at least one of
mathematics, philosophy or physics so SMPers tend to be
either smart or curious about learning. My last "IQ test"
wasn't quite sufficient for me to join "Mega" and my first
test (that I am aware of) caused me to skip a grade. Still,
being smart doesn't really mean much in the "grand scheme".

[tame_deuces]

I've scored 142.

But its a waste because I look good (for those that don't know good looks is just as good an indicator of solid career, happy relationships and overall life quality), and yes I'm j/k. Not about the good looks though, on those I'm actually serious. I have never gotten turned down at a job interview, even if underqualified. I'm truly blessed!

[bunny]

I just did a half dozen online tests out of curiosity and they confirmed my distrust of them (though I guess a cursory internet search is unlikely to be a reliable filter as to "good" tests). I found it annoying that I consistently score higher on those sites who then want to sell me something. Similarly, it bugs me when I do badly on a "louisiana purchase is to _________ as Alaska is to russia" question (at least, I assume I did badly). I'd also be pretty confident my IQ went up markedly post maths degree which doesnt seem to mesh well with it as a measure of intelligence rather than education.

I scored between 127 at mensa and 154 from some site which suggested I join up for their secret society for geniuses.

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
I just did a half dozen online tests out of curiosity and they confirmed my distrust of them (though I guess a cursory internet search is unlikely to be a reliable filter as to "good" tests). I found it annoying that I consistently score higher on those sites who then want to sell me something. Similarly, it bugs me when I do badly on a "louisiana purchase is to _________ as Alaska is to russia" question (at least, I assume I did badly). I'd also be pretty confident my IQ went up markedly post maths degree which doesnt seem to mesh well with it as a measure of intelligence rather than education.

I scored between 127 at mensa and 154 from some site which suggested I join up for their secret society for geniuses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never seen a question in an IQ test that would lead me to think this. Perhaps you would give an example?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I have never seen a question in an IQ test that would lead me to think this. Perhaps you would give an example?

[/ QUOTE ]
Some of the "If 4 workers dig 12 holes in 4 days how long will it take 9 workers to dig 81 holes?" questions. A bit of experience at doing them teaches you the common traps and the key to solving them quickly and accurately.

Another example where mathematical training helps you think about it correctly was "A square with sides of 10cm can completely fit within a regular hexagon with sides of 10cm - true or false?" Surely one can be brilliant without knowing the definition of "regular hexagon"?

Similarly the "Count the four sided figures in this picture" types - combinatorics develops the habit of methodically counting so that you dont miss any and dont double count.

One test I did had a "Which sequence of coin tosses is more likely - HHTHT or TTTT?" question. These are trivial once you know a bit of probability, irrespective of what you would have thought prior to being taught.

[bigpooch]

Are there any "legitimate" IQ tests where knowledge or
education in mathematics is NOT going to be helpful?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there any "legitimate" IQ tests where knowledge or
education in mathematics is NOT going to be helpful?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think so - that was my point. IQ is often portrayed as a test of inherent intelligence which seems to me to be contradicted by the fact you can improve it with training.

Similarly with the "louisiana purchase is to _______ as alaska is to russia" question. This is predominantly testing knowledge of historical trivia, not some kind of inherent intelligence.

[Metric]

I suspect that Richard Feynman would drag our average down horribly, were he able to post here.

[Borodog]

Being dead and all?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I've scored 142.

But its a waste because I look good (for those that don't know good looks is just as good an indicator of solid career, happy relationships and overall life quality), and yes I'm j/k. Not about the good looks though, on those I'm actually serious. I have never gotten turned down at a job interview, even if underqualified. I'm truly blessed!



[/ QUOTE ]
The measure of how good you look is rejection by females, not job interviews.

I'm better looking than tame_deuces and I'd estimate a high 120s IQ, just based on internet tests where I score around 140, school/college/competition results, problems I can and can't solve, etc. Never been formally tested.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
Being dead and all?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, yeah, that and the fact that he tested at 124.

[agent_fish]

My IQ is about 130 based on an average of internet IQ tests. Also, I was in a class for gifted children from 4th to 12th grade. An IQ of 125 was required to get into the class, so I at least know that mine is higher than that.

I also look good, but have been turned down in quite a few job interviews. I attribute my lack of success to confidence issues caused by my "lateral" lisp.

[Lestat]

Well, I agree that IQ tests don't necessarily measure inherent logic. I do believe there are seperate tests that are designed for that though.

I believe intelligence quotient (as opposed to simple logic), is supposed to encompass acquired (and/or accumulated) knowledge as well as logic. Of course, it's not meant to be post graduate trivia, but things like the Louisiana purchase is supposed to be common knowledge to anyone reasonably educated and/or well read in the US. Ditto for for the math-type questions. They require a reasonable knowledge of math. Nothing more.

[jase]

I'm a member of Mensa, but they never gave me a score for the test I took, so I'm not sure what that translates to. I always tried to recognize that each person has their own special gifts, regardless of IQ, and unlike many Mensans I've met, I don't get any sense of superiority of being or ability to deal with life's challenges from having a reasonably high IQ.

In fact, poker for me has highlighted how much more important emotional intelligence is for my general sense of wellness/happiness (I tilt too much, my decisions suck when I do, and my bankroll goes south soon after!).

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

, it bugs me when I do badly on a "louisiana purchase is to _________ as Alaska is to russia" question


[/ QUOTE ]

France? If so, helps to be from La. Lol.

[bunny]

I havent got a clue - but this seemed to me an obvious example of an inherent problem with IQ tests. Perhaps these sort of problems disappear in better tests (or balance each other out).

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps these sort of problems disappear in better tests (or balance each other out).


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. The kind of question that beats me is the one with patterns - I always see patterns that aren't there. Interesting that visual arts don't click with me though I love lit and music.

[furyshade]

[ QUOTE ]
I havent got a clue - but this seemed to me an obvious example of an inherent problem with IQ tests. Perhaps these sort of problems disappear in better tests (or balance each other out).

[/ QUOTE ]

i think what is agreed upon as the problem with the majority of IQ tests is that the test makers aren't necessarily as smart as/smarter than the person they are testing. a result of this is a test that contains false patterns, vague questions, and questions that don't pertain to intelligence.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of the "If 4 workers dig 12 holes in 4 days how long will it take 9 workers to dig 81 holes?" questions. A bit of experience at doing them teaches you the common traps and the key to solving them quickly and accurately.

Another example where mathematical training helps you think about it correctly was "A square with sides of 10cm can completely fit within a regular hexagon with sides of 10cm - true or false?" Surely one can be brilliant without knowing the definition of "regular hexagon"?

Similarly the "Count the four sided figures in this picture" types - combinatorics develops the habit of methodically counting so that you dont miss any and dont double count.

One test I did had a "Which sequence of coin tosses is more likely - HHTHT or TTTT?" question. These are trivial once you know a bit of probability, irrespective of what you would have thought prior to being taught.

[/ QUOTE ]

Real IQ tests should not contain questions like most of these.

[ChrisV]

I'm around 130 I think, not exactly sure. I would have been higher as a kid but after doing some drugs and alcohol it would be lower now.

I'd estimate the average IQ of just the regulars in SMP at around 125 to 130. Even NotReady! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I'd estimate the average IQ of just the regulars in SMP at around 125 to 130. Even NotReady!


[/ QUOTE ]

Your estimate is much higher than the likely average of about 12 most of the regulars here would give me.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps these sort of problems disappear in better tests (or balance each other out).


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. The kind of question that beats me is the one with patterns - I always see patterns that aren't there. Interesting that visual arts don't click with me though I love lit and music.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its almost TOO easy...

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Its almost TOO easy...


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible isn't a picture book.

Why am I bothering typing this? Oh yeah, IQ of 12.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its almost TOO easy...


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible isn't a picture book.

Why am I bothering typing this? Oh yeah, IQ of 12.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should have included a smiley. But lets not pretend you are above arguments from design/incredulity, I wouldnt want to have to use the search function.

[Splendour]

Anyone who knows this gets an "A" in my book:

Nature's law is God's thought. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But lets not pretend you are above arguments from design/incredulity,


[/ QUOTE ]

You're conflating.

[ QUOTE ]

I wouldnt want to have to use the search function.


[/ QUOTE ]

Me either - not here.

[eof]

[ ] A Bunch of IQ Scores

[JammyDodga]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a member of Mensa...

[/ QUOTE ]

Just wondering, what made you deciede to join? I've always thought that whoever joined a society for people with high IQs was both insecure and unable to find anything better to do with their brain than sit around talking about how great they were with other equally insecure and uninteresting people...

[Phil153]

Two IQs I'd like to know:

Borodog: I'd put him at mid 130s.
Sklansky: Around the same.

Thoughts?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Two IQs I'd like to know:

Borodog: I'd put him at mid 130s.
Sklansky: Around the same.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]
I used to catch the 167 bus home from school.

chez

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe poker players have higher Iqs on average to normal peeps.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not too sure. I make a poker product and you wouldn't believe the volume of retarded emails I get. I'd say 80% of users don't even understand the basic idea of EV, which really anyone playing poker should instantly grasp. I believe HUDs, formulaic play and chimp trainers like Sklansky and Miller are the reason most people win.

That said, 2+2 has the largest collection of very smart people on the internet imo, and the high stakes cash games are mostly where they congregate (with a nod to SMP).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Its almost TOO easy...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Bible isn't a picture book.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you're not seeing a pattern that is there /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Welcome back BTW

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Two IQs I'd like to know:

Borodog: I'd put him at mid 130s.
Sklansky: Around the same.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Plz to order this list of 10 (presented as I would project the scores):

10. Borodog
9. madnak
8. <font color="red">David Sklanksy</font>
7. luckyme
6. Philo
5. durrr
4. Phil153
3. m_the0ry
2. Metric
1. TomCowley

[jase]

[ QUOTE ]
Just wondering, what made you deciede to join?

[/ QUOTE ]

[x] insecure (confidence issue at the time)
[ ] unable to find anything better to do with their brain than sit around talking about how great they were with other equally insecure and uninteresting people...

I've never attended any of the events. The published letters in the first copy of the Mensa magazine I received showed that there a bunch of people like the ones you talk about. Having said that, it takes about two minutes to find that this forum is not disimilar in many ways.

[SNOWBALL]

When I was 15 I returned to school after missing it for about 3 years and a school psychiatrist tested me. I got 127. I don't know what it would be now.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
When I was 15 I returned to school after missing it for about 3 years and a school psychiatrist tested me. I got 127. I don't know what it would be now.

[/ QUOTE ]
story?

[pokervintage]

I don't know my IQ - probably medium to well done - but I do know that Sklansky's is somewhere over the rainbow.

pokervintage

[Stu Pidasso]

Mine is 80

Stu

<font color="white">Thats not really my IQ. I'm just trolling for idiots</font>

[ChrisV]

NotReady - why would you make an assertion like that with no evidence whatsoever?

Others - Agree Sklansky's IQ is 125-135. Ready to compare to actual tests.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
NotReady - why would you make an assertion like that with no evidence whatsoever?

Others - Agree Sklansky's IQ is 125-135. Ready to compare to actual tests.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would expect David is smarter than that.

[furyshade]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe poker players have higher Iqs on average to normal peeps.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not too sure. I make a poker product and you wouldn't believe the volume of retarded emails I get. I'd say 80% of users don't even understand the basic idea of EV, which really anyone playing poker should instantly grasp. I believe HUDs, formulaic play and chimp trainers like Sklansky and Miller are the reason most people win.

That said, 2+2 has the largest collection of very smart people on the internet imo, and the high stakes cash games are mostly where they congregate (with a nod to SMP).

[/ QUOTE ]

id argue this, on the basis that some of the most intelligent people i've ever met are computer illiterate. i had two teachers, one a philosophy PhD from harvard and one an astrophysics PhD from caltech, both were absolutely computer illiterate. they could check email and use google but that was just about it. i think for people born in the last 20 years it is easy mistakenly judge intelligence by certain technological abilities because stupid people in our age group tend to be bad with computers etc. but a lot of people who didn't grow up with computers can be very intelligent but technologically inept

[Arp220]

Instead of sitting around quoting IQ scores at each other (which is, let's face it, a barely disguised 'size' comparison of another sort), I suggest we do something more interesting, and design an 'improved' intelligence scoring system. I confess my suggestion is motivated by me coming to the conclusion that these online multi choice tests are [censored] - I just did four chosen at random and scored 131, 138, 140 and 152. I then did another where I just went through randomly clicking... and scored 128. Hmmmm.

Some initial ideas:

1 - There should be no time limit. Take it home and work on it for a week if you like.

2 - There should be 'essay' type questions and 'calculation' type questions, but no multiple choice questions. Some questions should have open ended answers, and some should be very specific.

3 - Free access to any book in a well stocked library AND to the internet.

So, sample questions could be something like:

"What makes most of the dust that exists now?"

"Which of these numbers is higher; a 5 in a hexagon in a hexagon, or a g with a little 64 just to the right of it?"

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]

Instead of sitting around quoting IQ scores at each other (which is, let's face it, a barely disguised 'size' comparison of another sort), I suggest we do something more interesting, and design an 'improved' intelligence scoring system. I confess my suggestion is motivated by me coming to the conclusion that these online multi choice tests are [censored] - I just did four chosen at random and scored 131, 138, 140 and 152. I then did another where I just went through randomly clicking... and scored 128. Hmmmm.

Some initial ideas:

1 - There should be no time limit. Take it home and work on it for a week if you like.

2 - There should be 'essay' type questions and 'calculation' type questions, but no multiple choice questions. Some questions should have open ended answers, and some should be very specific.

3 - Free access to any book in a well stocked library AND to the internet.

So, sample questions could be something like:

"What makes most of the dust that exists now?"

"Which of these numbers is higher; a 5 in a hexagon in a hexagon, or a g with a little 64 just to the right of it?"

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[Arp220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Instead of sitting around quoting IQ scores at each other (which is, let's face it, a barely disguised 'size' comparison of another sort), I suggest we do something more interesting, and design an 'improved' intelligence scoring system. I confess my suggestion is motivated by me coming to the conclusion that these online multi choice tests are [censored] - I just did four chosen at random and scored 131, 138, 140 and 152. I then did another where I just went through randomly clicking... and scored 128. Hmmmm.

Some initial ideas:

1 - There should be no time limit. Take it home and work on it for a week if you like.

2 - There should be 'essay' type questions and 'calculation' type questions, but no multiple choice questions. Some questions should have open ended answers, and some should be very specific.

3 - Free access to any book in a well stocked library AND to the internet.

So, sample questions could be something like:

"What makes most of the dust that exists now?"

"Which of these numbers is higher; a 5 in a hexagon in a hexagon, or a g with a little 64 just to the right of it?"

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

??

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Instead of sitting around quoting IQ scores at each other (which is, let's face it, a barely disguised 'size' comparison of another sort), I suggest we do something more interesting, and design an 'improved' intelligence scoring system.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't a bad idea. I suggest that since David Sklansky is the self-anointed point of reference as it relates to logical soundness, he draws up the test. I strongly doubt he would actually do it though. But he'd probably make a good test.

[furyshade]

"What makes most of the dust that exists now?"

"Which of these numbers is higher; a 5 in a hexagon in a hexagon, or a g with a little 64 just to the right of it?"


the first one tests random knowledge, you could be the most intelligent person here and not have read this particular snapple fact

the second one, wtf are you even trying to say?

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Instead of sitting around quoting IQ scores at each other (which is, let's face it, a barely disguised 'size' comparison of another sort), I suggest we do something more interesting, and design an 'improved' intelligence scoring system. I confess my suggestion is motivated by me coming to the conclusion that these online multi choice tests are [censored] - I just did four chosen at random and scored 131, 138, 140 and 152. I then did another where I just went through randomly clicking... and scored 128. Hmmmm.

Some initial ideas:

1 - There should be no time limit. Take it home and work on it for a week if you like.

2 - There should be 'essay' type questions and 'calculation' type questions, but no multiple choice questions. Some questions should have open ended answers, and some should be very specific.

3 - Free access to any book in a well stocked library AND to the internet.

So, sample questions could be something like:

"What makes most of the dust that exists now?"

"Which of these numbers is higher; a 5 in a hexagon in a hexagon, or a g with a little 64 just to the right of it?"

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

??

[/ QUOTE ]

1) You don't think that more intelligent people solve problems faster?

2) Open ended answer questions are too subjective and therefore impossible to mark for this purpose. Who decides how points are scored?

3) Why?

Also I don't like the questions for the reason's furryshade has allready mentioned.

I like the idea of attempting it though, and would happily be involved in any work involved if a few of us decided to give it a go.

I think the discussion around it would be good in any event.

__________________

Scrap that, the only thing it would do is start a 'define intelligence' thread that would go nowhere. (Read above, or the other thread currently running on the subject.)

[Arp220]

[ QUOTE ]
"What makes most of the dust that exists now?"

"Which of these numbers is higher; a 5 in a hexagon in a hexagon, or a g with a little 64 just to the right of it?"


the first one tests random knowledge, you could be the most intelligent person here and not have read this particular snapple fact

the second one, wtf are you even trying to say?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's pretty much what I was getting at /images/graemlins/smile.gif What I really hate about IQ tests is that they're virtually all a case of "turn the handle and the answer pops out", where some have a more difficult handle than others. But in nearly all cases the handle is obvious. To me, a better test of intelligence is finding the right handle to begin with.

Both questions (which in fairness I just made up) appear random and, perhaps, even nonsensical, because they're deliberately written so as to not make the 'path' to the answer obvious, even though both questions have specific and unique 'correct' answers.

They're designed to be answered with the help of any book you like, and with complete access to the internet, so as to remove the random knowledge angle. The trick is using those tools correctly.

I wasn't however looking to get into the details of these questions, but rather the broader principles they embody - I can post the solutions if that would help...?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Two IQs I'd like to know:

Borodog: I'd put him at mid 130s.
Sklansky: Around the same.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, I have always tested at 135-140 on various internet tests (which I admit I find enjoyable). But since:

1) I have never been "officially" tested, and
2) I have always suspected that those internet tests are designed to give inflated, i.e. flattering, scores,

I can't really say, and would not be at all surprised if it were actually lower. Although, I am surprised by the consistency of the scores over maybe half a dozen such tests. Maybe they tell everyone they score 135-140. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I would like to say that while I believe "IQ" tests (at least real ones) measure something, it is not exactly clear what that is, and that I believe something like "intelligence" is a highly dimensional thing that cannot be reduced except in a completely crude way to a single number.

My SAT score was 1470 ([censored] up a math question that prevented me from scoring perfect in math, damnit), and I know for a fact that there are many, many posters on 2+2 who scored perfect on their SATs.

If I had to, I would venture to guess that my IQ is greater than maybe 2 out of 3 2+2 posters, but significantly less than that against SMP hardcores. Perhaps only 50%.

[furyshade]

some of the highest intelligence groups do this, the giga society gives you and untimed take home IQ test simply because you need to do so well on the test to get in that there is no book/person you could consult to give you the answers

[Arp220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Instead of sitting around quoting IQ scores at each other (which is, let's face it, a barely disguised 'size' comparison of another sort), I suggest we do something more interesting, and design an 'improved' intelligence scoring system. I confess my suggestion is motivated by me coming to the conclusion that these online multi choice tests are [censored] - I just did four chosen at random and scored 131, 138, 140 and 152. I then did another where I just went through randomly clicking... and scored 128. Hmmmm.

Some initial ideas:

1 - There should be no time limit. Take it home and work on it for a week if you like.

2 - There should be 'essay' type questions and 'calculation' type questions, but no multiple choice questions. Some questions should have open ended answers, and some should be very specific.

3 - Free access to any book in a well stocked library AND to the internet.

So, sample questions could be something like:

"What makes most of the dust that exists now?"

"Which of these numbers is higher; a 5 in a hexagon in a hexagon, or a g with a little 64 just to the right of it?"

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

??

[/ QUOTE ]

1) You don't think that more intelligent people solve problems faster?

2) Open ended answer questions are too subjective and therefore impossible to mark for this purpose. Who decides how points are scored?

3) Why?

Also I don't like the questions for the reason's furryshade has allready mentioned.

I like the idea of attempting it though, and would happily be involved in any work involved if a few of us decided to give it a go.

I think the discussion around it would be good in any event.

__________________

Scrap that, the only thing it would do is start a 'define intelligence' thread that would go nowhere. (Read above, or the other thread currently running on the subject.)

[/ QUOTE ]

1 - To a small extent, yes, but I dislike 'timed' tests generally as I think far too much weight is given to how fast someone can solve a purely computational problem. Certain autistic savants could pretty much destroy anyone on this forum in timed numeracy tests, but I would not rate them as particularly intelligent because of this.

2 - Open ended questions are harder to mark, certainly, but test thinking on a completely different level to 'specific goal' type questions. And they're not that much harder to mark, as they essentially test what overall 'level' of problem solving you can attain.

3 - Because I'm not convinced that random knowledge is in any way a good arbiter, and giving free access to google levels that playing field. There was one question I saw on some test that struck me as insanely stupid: "what is the national sport of Afghanistan?" Ok, I happen to remember reading somewhere that its called Buzkashi, but how does that test how clever I am?

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
1 - To a small extent, yes, but I dislike 'timed' tests generally as I think far too much weight is given to how fast someone can solve a purely computational problem. Certain autistic savants could pretty much destroy anyone on this forum in timed numeracy tests, but I would not rate them as particularly intelligent because of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I happen to think that speed of problem solving is a big intelligence indicator. The people you mention would not score highly in a current IQ test overall so I don't really see your point.

[ QUOTE ]

2 - Open ended questions are harder to mark, certainly, but test thinking on a completely different level to 'specific goal' type questions. And they're not that much harder to mark, as they essentially test what overall 'level' of problem solving you can attain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot sy anything but repeat what I said last time. I think you need to post a couple of examples, where you state the Q, A and marking criteria explicitly.

[ QUOTE ]

3 - Because I'm not convinced that random knowledge is in any way a good arbiter, and giving free access to google levels that playing field. There was one question I saw on some test that struck me as insanely stupid: "what is the national sport of Afghanistan?" Ok, I happen to remember reading somewhere that its called Buzkashi, but how does that test how clever I am?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exhibit A.

Furyshade -

[ QUOTE ]

id argue this, on the basis that some of the most intelligent people i've ever met are computer illiterate. i had two teachers, one a philosophy PhD from harvard and one an astrophysics PhD from caltech, both were absolutely computer illiterate. they could check email and use google but that was just about it. i think for people born in the last 20 years it is easy mistakenly judge intelligence by certain technological abilities because stupid people in our age group tend to be bad with computers etc. but a lot of people who didn't grow up with computers can be very intelligent but technologically inept

[/ QUOTE ]

[furyshade]

[ QUOTE ]
I happen to think that speed of problem solving is a big intelligence indicator. The people you mention would not score highly in a current IQ test overall so I don't really see your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think this is true, this is why most schools have extended time test taking now, some people just cannot manage in timed constraint but are very intelligent. sometimes this is due to OCD, dyslexia, ADD, etc. but it doesn't make them stupid.

the problem with the argument about timed test taking is that you could find someone that could answer 80 of 100 questions right in an hour, but if you give him 3 hours he'd still get 80 of 100; or you could have someone that would get 60 out of 100 right in an hour but in 3 hours would get 100 out of 100 every time.

[Arp220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1 - To a small extent, yes, but I dislike 'timed' tests generally as I think far too much weight is given to how fast someone can solve a purely computational problem. Certain autistic savants could pretty much destroy anyone on this forum in timed numeracy tests, but I would not rate them as particularly intelligent because of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I happen to think that speed of problem solving is a big intelligence indicator. The people you mention would not score highly in a current IQ test overall so I don't really see your point.

[ QUOTE ]

2 - Open ended questions are harder to mark, certainly, but test thinking on a completely different level to 'specific goal' type questions. And they're not that much harder to mark, as they essentially test what overall 'level' of problem solving you can attain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot sy anything but repeat what I said last time. I think you need to post a couple of examples, where you state the Q, A and marking criteria explicitly.

[ QUOTE ]

3 - Because I'm not convinced that random knowledge is in any way a good arbiter, and giving free access to google levels that playing field. There was one question I saw on some test that struck me as insanely stupid: "what is the national sport of Afghanistan?" Ok, I happen to remember reading somewhere that its called Buzkashi, but how does that test how clever I am?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exhibit A.

Furyshade -

[ QUOTE ]

id argue this, on the basis that some of the most intelligent people i've ever met are computer illiterate. i had two teachers, one a philosophy PhD from harvard and one an astrophysics PhD from caltech, both were absolutely computer illiterate. they could check email and use google but that was just about it. i think for people born in the last 20 years it is easy mistakenly judge intelligence by certain technological abilities because stupid people in our age group tend to be bad with computers etc. but a lot of people who didn't grow up with computers can be very intelligent but technologically inept

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

1 - Speed: ok, its a debatable one. I would argue for more weight on 'what problems can you solve' rather than 'how fast can you solve a problem, assuming that you can solve it to begin with'

2 - A good example would be the first of the questions I gave as examples. It's very open ended, but there are distinct 'levels' to it. So, for example, you could mark it out of ten, with one point given for a 'first level' thinking answer with no explanation, two points for such an answer with explanation, and so on. So you might get one point for saying 'human skin cells', two points for 'human skin cells because...', three points for 'list of specific human activities' and so on (in the way I've phrased it, there is a ten point answer, which someone with no background could get to within a few hours using a library, or google).

3 - It doesn't have to be google. A nice big library would serve just as well for the less computer literate, especially as there would be no time limit.

Just out of interest - who was the caltech astrophysics phd? I might know him/her...

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
NotReady - why would you make an assertion like that with no evidence whatsoever?

Others - Agree Sklansky's IQ is 125-135. Ready to compare to actual tests.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way DS is a 125-135. I turned out a 135 on an online IQ test a few years back and I suck at math. DS is way smarter. He's easily over 150 maybe ranging up to 170. Then again online IQ tests probably aren't all they are cracked up to be.

[furyshade]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NotReady - why would you make an assertion like that with no evidence whatsoever?

Others - Agree Sklansky's IQ is 125-135. Ready to compare to actual tests.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way DS is a 125-135. I turned out a 135 on an online IQ test a few years back and I suck at math. DS is way smarter. He's easily over 150 maybe ranging up to 170. Then again online IQ tests probably aren't all they are cracked up to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, you really cant base yourself against someone in an online IQ test, they simply aren't accurate as has been argued on this forum ad naseum

[FortunaMaximus]

I was going to avoid this thread. But intelligence and high IQ scores does not equal capability to succeed. The metrics are too narrow and don't accurately gauge an individual's potential contributions to society. You can lack in quite a few scoring criteria and be quite successful in life.

Autistic savants wouldn't score high overall in a correctly administered test that allowed for a wide range of criteria. Such a test hasn't been developed yet, I don't think, but a person's success should be the barometer in a semi-meritocracy. And there are far more successful people with average IQ and more well-rounded skillsets than there are people with freakish IQs who aren't as balanced overall.

I scored high enough to make a mockery of academics and get anything I wanted from a school administration. These days I tend towards philosophy in-between periods of creative lunacy. I contribute nothing to society or the advancement of general knowledge despite my potential.

Probably useful for SMP averages but nothing more than that.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to say that while I believe "IQ" tests (at least real ones) measure something, it is not exactly clear what that is, and that I believe something like "intelligence" is a highly dimensional thing that cannot be reduced except in a completely crude way to a single number.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. I think it's definitely a good general guide, in distinguishing the very stupid from the average, etc. But the higher you go, it's hard for the test to mean much, since the test is just created by other people anyways.

It's just impossible to accurately "test" for the many layers and nuances of intelligence. It would be like trying to test for who is the best poker player. You couldn't do it justice. Only cards, chips, and repetition could do it justice.

IQ still really interests me though, probably because I sometimes get compulsive about psycho analyzing my friends and trying to figure out how people think. And "IQ" provides some sort of label for comparison.

[furyshade]

why is it we need a metric for intelligence anyway? surely those who are of superior intelligence know they are, and people tend to be pretty good at gauging the charteristics they believe to be valuable in other people anyway so what is the point? things like GRE and SAT tests make sense because they base how well one does in an educational environment, but an IQ test seems to be nothing but a bragging right

[Splendour]

Well there's a couple of weird things about intelligence. One we'll never know how much intelligence is affected by personality type and people's natural tendencies. Does one side of the brain take over at some point? It seems like people with the best communication skills have an earlier language skill set, e.g. women speak at earlier ages than men and read better in kindergarten and men do better at math as a group then women do. Its something programmed in us, but at the same time society needs all the different skill types to flourish.

The second weird thing about intelligence is as humans evolve the skill that is currently of the greatest value might actually have less value and the currently devalued skills might gain greater value but that will be dependent on the actual culture that humanity has evolved into and the objectives/needs of that culture.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Two IQs I'd like to know:

Borodog: I'd put him at mid 130s.
Sklansky: Around the same.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, I have always tested at 135-140 on various internet tests (which I admit I find enjoyable).

[/ QUOTE ]

It's worth noting that a lot of Internet tests cap at 130-140. Scoring in this range online pretty much means 130+. Could be 130, could be 250. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
why is it we need a metric for intelligence anyway? surely those who are of superior intelligence know they are, and people tend to be pretty good at gauging the charteristics they believe to be valuable in other people anyway so what is the point? things like GRE and SAT tests make sense because they base how well one does in an educational environment, but an IQ test seems to be nothing but a bragging right

[/ QUOTE ]

Because us intelligent people need some way to quickly explain to idiots how smart we are. The other smart people can just figure it out on their own but the dummies might never realize how brilliant we are if we didnt break it down into a nice palatable number for them. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Others - Agree Sklansky's IQ is 125-135.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take the over for $$$.

[AlexM]

FWIW ~150

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I havent got a clue - but this seemed to me an obvious example of an inherent problem with IQ tests. Perhaps these sort of problems disappear in better tests (or balance each other out).

[/ QUOTE ]

i think what is agreed upon as the problem with the majority of IQ tests is that the test makers aren't necessarily as smart as/smarter than the person they are testing. a result of this is a test that contains false patterns, vague questions, and questions that don't pertain to intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

My favorites are the ones where there are multiple possible "correct" answers depending on how you look at it. A possible example:

Which animal is different from the others:

A. Horse
B. Crocodile
C. Monkey
D. Elephant

The likely "correct" answer to this question would be croc because it's a reptile, and that's the best answer, but someone might very reasonably think of monkey because it has 2 legs instead of 4 and since these tests are time based, once you hit on a correct answer, it's a bad idea to keep looking for other "more correct" answers.

[billygrippo]

131 tested at age 6 or 7

130 on 2 tests in the last 2 years

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
My favorites are the ones where there are multiple possible "correct" answers depending on how you look at it. A possible example:

Which animal is different from the others:

A. Horse
B. Crocodile
C. Monkey
D. Elephant

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya! Those are the worst.

The ones that involve an uncommon word which you may or may not know are really [censored] too.

[NasEscobar]

[ QUOTE ]
The measure of how good you look is rejection by females, not job interviews.

[/ QUOTE ]
How good you look plays a big part in many things in society, including job interviews.

[xorbie]

I think mine is around 150.

More importantly, I once scored a 20 on the Putnam test.

I rule.

[bigpooch]

FWIW:

My raw score on the only Putnam I wrote was in the 70s.

[xorbie]

pooch,

That's pretty hot. I'm decent at math, but realized once I got to college that I a) don't like it that much and b) am not as much a phenom as I thought.

[blah_blah]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW:

My raw score on the only Putnam I wrote was in the 70s.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow. what year was this? fwiw my combined raw scores from the last two years on the putnam is in the 70s.

re the topic of the thread: I haven't had my IQ tested since I was 5 or 6 and I scored in the 150s then.

also despite the fact that I disagree with a lot of things that sklansky writes I'd be kind of shocked if his IQ wasn't &gt; 150.

[joes28]

Im eight and a half inches.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Two IQs I'd like to know:

Borodog: I'd put him at mid 130s.
Sklansky: Around the same.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, I have always tested at 135-140 on various internet tests (which I admit I find enjoyable).

[/ QUOTE ]

It's worth noting that a lot of Internet tests cap at 130-140.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Had no idea. How do you know this?

Edit: This would explain a lot. When you get all of the questions correct, I had assumed that your score comes down to timing, i.e. your score goes up the less time it takes you to complete the test. I think that is probably true, but some of those tests I basically aced in what I would consider to be fairly short order, and still scored 140.

I would still like to know the source for this, as I wouldn't want you to artificially inflate my ego any more than it already is. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[bigpooch]

I wrote the Putnam in a year when the problems were easier
than usual (&gt;10 years ago) and regretted not "studying for
it" (amazingly knew hardly any abstract algebra!) and had a
sick feeling after all of it, since it was clear that I
couldn't answer some of the problems. Nowadays, Putnam
problems on average seem much harder (but that's likely
because I'm not as sharp!). If anyone scores above 30
nowadays, that should be considered a decent accomplishment.
I was completely stunned to learn that many students score
ZERO (!) on the Putnam ( recently discovered this).

There was only one other exam that made me feel this way:
an analysis midterm that had six very difficult problems, of
which we could choose three to solve. The professor stated
to us, "Just try to do ONE WELL". Needless to say, after
that midterm, our "big class" of almost twenty eventually
dropped to about ten (okay, maybe the prof didn't think
some students belonged!). In any case, to be absolutely
honest, this was the very first exam in which there was no
problem I could even think of solving! Then, I couldn't
completely solve more than one problem on that midterm
(despite making some attempts on all six), the papers were
marked (my paper received four "checkmarks") but the exam
didn't count towards our grade (it became a "take-home"
exam). Although I felt totally sick, I couldn't imagine
how most of my classmates felt! And worst of all: I
thought I had prepared extremely well before the midterm!

Also, FWIW, I scored 41/48 on Ron Hoeflin's IQ test, which
is more difficult to achieve. Again, it doesn't really mean
very much in the "grand scheme", but could explain why my
perception is often skewed [ such as a "legitimate" Ph.D.
in mathematics is a lot easier to obtain than previously
thought!].

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Im eight and a half inches.

[/ QUOTE ]

Around.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im eight and a half inches.

[/ QUOTE ]

Around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy [censored].

[Borodog]

FWIW, the test that I am most proud of was the physics Ph.D. qualifying exam. 24 hours of testing over 5 days (MWF, two 4 hour sessions each day, mornings were undergrad level, afternoons were graduate level, classical mechanics, quantum, and E&amp;M one day each). Each test was composed of 6 questions, of which you could omit one.

Other people began studying for the quals 3 months or more out. I started 3 weeks out, one week per subject. While it was not officially disclosed what your exact score was beyond pass or fail for each of the 3 sections, I was told unofficially by my advisor (after the faculty retreat where the senior faculty collectively grades the quals) that I "blew it out of the water."

That meant more to me than any other test score, and even if I had an official IQ score that was particularly high, I would still be more proud of the quals.

Since I took them the quals in my department have been significantly "dumbed down", in order to compete with other schools that had much easier quals, and because younger research faculty were frustrated that their minions were "wasting" their time preparing to take and retake the quals rather than slaving in their labs for them. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I am extremely lucky that, while it was a "core" class, there was no statistical mechanics section on the quals. By far my weakest subject of any I took in physics. Everything else came naturally to me, but stat mech was always completely alien to the way that I think. When I review it now, it makes much more sense, but at the time I absolutely hated it. This might have had something to do with my professor at the time, but I really think it was a fundamental disconnect between me and the material.

[furyshade]

i think borodog has this figured out the best, IQ tests don't test anything finite, i think it is a far greater accomplishment to do well on a test that you have prepared greatly for and worked for than for some arbitrary measurement of an unknown quality.

[gumpzilla]

Yeah, I went through two weeks or so of crazy studying before my quals, and that ended up being the year that the difficulty took a decided downturn - I honestly think I could have done well enough to pass straight out of undergrad. In one nice wrinkle, though, the department had been given some money a while before to give a prize each year in "classical physics." Lacking any sense for what they should do with this, they decided to give it each year to the highest scoring participant on the non-QM part of our quals. Ship the $1k; the keg for the party was on me.

(EDIT: Also, 24 hours? Jesus. Ours were eight over two days.)

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Two IQs I'd like to know:

Borodog: I'd put him at mid 130s.
Sklansky: Around the same.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, I have always tested at 135-140 on various internet tests (which I admit I find enjoyable).

[/ QUOTE ]

It's worth noting that a lot of Internet tests cap at 130-140.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Had no idea. How do you know this?

Edit: This would explain a lot. When you get all of the questions correct, I had assumed that your score comes down to timing, i.e. your score goes up the less time it takes you to complete the test. I think that is probably true, but some of those tests I basically aced in what I would consider to be fairly short order, and still scored 140.

I would still like to know the source for this, as I wouldn't want you to artificially inflate my ego any more than it already is. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif




[/ QUOTE ]

Simply by looking at lots of people's scores and noting that none of themn went above X number and an awful lot were at exactly that number. I even saw one that capped at like 127.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I went through two weeks or so of crazy studying before my quals, and that ended up being the year that the difficulty took a decided downturn - I honestly think I could have done well enough to pass straight out of undergrad. In one nice wrinkle, though, the department had been given some money a while before to give a prize each year in "classical physics." Lacking any sense for what they should do with this, they decided to give it each year to the highest scoring participant on the non-QM part of our quals. Ship the $1k; the keg for the party was on me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice!

[ QUOTE ]
(EDIT: Also, 24 hours? Jesus. Ours were eight over two days.)

[/ QUOTE ]

You were the [censored] my school had to dumb down to compete with! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Two IQs I'd like to know:

Borodog: I'd put him at mid 130s.
Sklansky: Around the same.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, I have always tested at 135-140 on various internet tests (which I admit I find enjoyable).

[/ QUOTE ]

It's worth noting that a lot of Internet tests cap at 130-140.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Had no idea. How do you know this?

Edit: This would explain a lot. When you get all of the questions correct, I had assumed that your score comes down to timing, i.e. your score goes up the less time it takes you to complete the test. I think that is probably true, but some of those tests I basically aced in what I would consider to be fairly short order, and still scored 140.

I would still like to know the source for this, as I wouldn't want you to artificially inflate my ego any more than it already is. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif




[/ QUOTE ]

Simply by looking at lots of people's scores and noting that none of themn went above X number and an awful lot were at exactly that number. I even saw one that capped at like 127.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. But being a bell curve, the number of people above 140 should be extremely small. That's almost 3 standard deviations away from the mean.

Ah, but I see by the wiki article that they admit that IQs much above ~130 cannot be accurately measured, because of a lack of enough very high difficulty questions. So that would explain why online tests might top out just above that.

Hence, I will assume my IQ to be the maximum. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
i think borodog has this figured out the best, IQ tests don't test anything finite, i think it is a far greater accomplishment to do well on a test that you have prepared greatly for and worked for than for some arbitrary measurement of an unknown quality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure FEELS better.

[ALawPoker]

Boro, any guess what RP's IQ range might be?

I think reducing his ideas to the format of the interviews he gets is an impressive skill in its own right. Any time I'm forced to argue about politics IRL I come away with a new found respect for how hard it actually must be.

[Borodog]

No, I have no gut feeling for what range of IQ various people have. All I can say is that he is well above average.

Also, he has been having the same arguments and making the same speech for 35 years. That has to help. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Aver-aging]

I have a big problem with timed tests. IQ tests are suppose to strive to be objective. How does an IQ test writer objectively decide what is an appropriate amount of time for a question to be answered? They don't, they just put an arbitrary number in there and say "Answer it in ____ seconds because that's the standard that other tests have used". IQ tests are riddled with tons of problems like that.

That being said, every test I've taken has me in the 125-135 range. Never take those damn internet tests though. Like somebody else in this thread already pointed out, you can randomly pick answers and get an IQ over 120.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a big problem with timed tests. IQ tests are suppose to strive to be objective. How does an IQ test writer objectively decide what is an appropriate amount of time for a question to be answered? They don't, they just put an arbitrary number in there and say "Answer it in ____ seconds because that's the standard that other tests have used".

That being said, every test I've taken has me in the 125-135 range. Never take those damn internet tests though. Like somebody else in this thread already pointed out, you can randomly pick answers and get an IQ over 120.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesnt matter how long they give you, as long as everyone has the same amount of time its an objective test. You could use your same reasoning to demonstrate that no test could ever be objective because how do they arbitrarily decide which questions to include?

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesnt matter how long they give you, as long as everyone has the same amount of time its an objective test. You could use your same reasoning to demonstrate that no test could ever be objective because how do they arbitrarily decide which questions to include?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is also another big problem with IQ tests. Generally I don't agree with them at all.

*EDIT* Even the Marshmallow Test at young ages is a bigger indicator of functional (success-oriented) intelligence.

[hitch1978]

define intelligence please.

[laurentia]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


It's worth noting that a lot of Internet tests cap at 130-140. Scoring in this range online pretty much means 130+. Could be 130, could be 250. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Once I calculated that with a population of 6 billion the top IQ should be around 193.

[bigpooch]

Pretty close.

I don't want to sound like a nit, but if IQs are normally
distributed with mean 100 and SD = 15, prob(IQ&gt;=194) ~
1/5 422 000 000. We should be skeptical of claims of any
IQs &gt; 170.

Also, aren't IQs a "mismeasure of a man"?

[entertainme]

Tested 151 or 152 in junior high. (High school antics definitely lowered this.)

Christian.

Smart enough to stay out of SMP for the most part. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[bluesbassman]

I assume the IQs people are quoting reference a 100 point mean, 15 point standard deviation, and normal distribution curve, correct?

If so, on that scale I would estimate my IQ to be not quite one standard deviation below the mean, or about 90. That's despite the fact that many would assume my IQ is greater (who don't know me personally) based solely on my educational/career background. (I have a PhD in aerospace engineering.) It just shows that diligence and determination can count for a lot.

Similarly, I'm not very musically talented, but I've nevertheless managed to play bass in good, gigging bands most of my adult life. I love music and was determined to play an instrument in a band.

Too bad that determination hasn't (yet) resulted in profits at the felt. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[sirio11]

147, test long time ago.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesnt matter how long they give you, as long as everyone has the same amount of time its an objective test. You could use your same reasoning to demonstrate that no test could ever be objective because how do they arbitrarily decide which questions to include?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is also another big problem with IQ tests. Generally I don't agree with them at all.

*EDIT* Even the Marshmallow Test at young ages is a bigger indicator of functional (success-oriented) intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Marshmallow Test?

*tosses a marshmallow in a fire*

Look Billy, a roasted marshmallow! Go get it!

[laurentia]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty close.

I don't want to sound like a nit, but if IQs are normally
distributed with mean 100 and SD = 15, prob(IQ&gt;=194) ~
1/5 422 000 000. We should be skeptical of claims of any
IQs &gt; 170.

Also, aren't IQs a "mismeasure of a man"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you prefer books on science written by political activists.

[WhiteKnight]

[ QUOTE ]
define intelligence please.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc."
Ripped straight from dictionary.com... seems fairly reasonable to me...

[Wyman]

160-something in 1st grade. I'll just go with that and never get tested again =). Other looser (web/print) metrics have placed me, as with many of you, anywhere from 130-160.

But I rarely contribute in SMP. I just lurk many of the "M" conversations.

I'd also take the over on DS's IQ at 130.

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]


The Marshmallow Test?

*tosses a marshmallow in a fire*

Look Billy, a roasted marshmallow! Go get it!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure there is an official name to the test that slipped my mind, but the test is incredibly basic. You perform it usually with a group of children under the age of seven or eight, and it consists of offering each child a simple ultimatum: You can have one marshmallow now or you can wait ten minutes and have two - but you have to sit here and wait patiently while other people around you eat their marshmallows if they went for the first choice. According to Daniel Goleman, the follow-up studies indicated that the children who waited for the two marshmallows grew up were generally more successful (higher income, better jobs, complete family life, etc.). The test was actually a much stronger indicator of success-oriented attributes than aptitude tests.

Although I do like your idea. Natural selection needs a kick every now and then.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Two IQs I'd like to know:

Borodog: I'd put him at mid 130s.
Sklansky: Around the same.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky has to be at least 150. Probably closer to 160 at his prime. I would guess Borodog is in the 140ish range. His certainly could be higher, just wouldn't know for sure.

I won't say mine, but I will mention its a bit lower than my fiance's who tested at a 164.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pretty close.

I don't want to sound like a nit, but if IQs are normally
distributed with mean 100 and SD = 15, prob(IQ&gt;=194) ~
1/5 422 000 000. We should be skeptical of claims of any
IQs &gt; 170.

Also, aren't IQs a "mismeasure of a man"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you prefer books on science written by political activists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stephen Jay Gould is a political activist?

[jase]

[ QUOTE ]
Christian.

Smart enough to stay out of SMP for the most part. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You and me both...

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Christian.

Smart enough to stay out of SMP for the most part. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You and me both...

[/ QUOTE ]

If I had to pick a character trait that is responsible for posts like these two, I doubt "intelligence" would be high on my list.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Christian.

Smart enough to stay out of SMP for the most part. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You and me both...

[/ QUOTE ]

If I had to pick a character trait that is responsible for posts like these two, I doubt "intelligence" would be high on my list.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Stephen Jay Gould is a political activist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, he wasn't up to Trofim Lysenko if that's the sense you're wondering about but some of his writing makes more sense if you allow for his sociopolitical views... and more interesting naturally. Even his "Structure of Evolutionary Theory" ( I figured I owed him the read after all the pleasure he gave me with his popular books).

luckyme

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Christian.

Smart enough to stay out of SMP for the most part. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You and me both...

[/ QUOTE ]Yes me too. I really hate when some one has an opposing view point and I can't counter their reasoning. It just makes me so emotional.

[borisp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe poker players have higher Iqs on average to normal peeps.
I believe a 2p2er even more so and a 2p2er that post in SMP WOW!

So whats are Iqs just out of interest.

me 126 (7years ago).

[/ QUOTE ]

IQ is a wholy discredited concept. Ask anyone.

If it weren't there'd be a 'hol lot a 'splainin to be done regarding race and differential performance on so many metrics.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, so I hadn't opened this thread, for obvious reasons. But now I'm up late, and I thought I'd be adventurous. That being said, this was the second post. My reaction:

hahahhhahhahahahahahahahahahhahah

*ahem*

hahahhahahhahhahahhahhzahahhahahah

Forgive me if I am being leveled, I haven't read anything else. That is all.

[borisp]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW:

My raw score on the only Putnam I wrote was in the 70s.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is shocking. You are capable of scoring in the 70's on the Putnam, and you only took it once?!?!?! They give away money for this sort of thing, you know.

And to respond to the original post, my score is 156, certifiable, verifiable, etc. (I went through some serious testing for ADD, etc. Turns out I was just fine!) And FWIW, my three scores on the Putnam were 30, 20, and 41. These were t200, t500, and t100, respectively.

And lol at the people who are all like 'timed tests and IQ tests and they don't measure my intelligence and blah blah.' Yea, it sucks that you're stupid.

[borisp]

[ QUOTE ]
Tested 151 or 152 in junior high. (High school antics definitely lowered this.)

Christian.

Smart enough to stay out of SMP for the most part. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry...again...

ahhahahahhahahhahahahahhaa

*ahem*

hahahhahahahhahhhhahahahha

Which one was it? 151 or 152? That seems like a pretty narrow range to still be unsure. But I'm sure your antics played a role.

Alas, you are able to abstain from SMP. This is a feat I have yet to accomplish, especially at 4:30 in the morning.

[borisp]

[ QUOTE ]
my fiance's who tested at a 164.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol onlineaments

[borisp]

Ok, this is my last post in this thread. Sorry for making like fifty posts in a row. And sorry for not making a separate thread to explain this.

[SNOWBALL]

I have a question for you guys who say that IQ is so important:

why don't employers ask for it?

[entertainme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tested 151 or 152 in junior high. (High school antics definitely lowered this.)

Christian.

Smart enough to stay out of SMP for the most part. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry...again...

ahhahahahhahahhahahahahhaa

*ahem*

hahahhahahahhahhhhahahahha

Which one was it? 151 or 152? That seems like a pretty narrow range to still be unsure. But I'm sure your antics played a role.

[/ QUOTE ]

Junior high was a very long time ago. /images/graemlins/smile.gif I wouldn't have known actually if my band teacher hadn't said something about it in a moment of frustration with me. I then asked the counselor for my score, was met with some resistance, but convinced them that I did deserve to know information from my own school record.

[ QUOTE ]
Alas, you are able to abstain from SMP. This is a feat I have yet to accomplish, especially at 4:30 in the morning.

[/ QUOTE ]

There have been times I've fallen in the the 4:30 AM trap myself.

The personal attacks are boring and a waste of time.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, this is my last post in this thread. Sorry for making like fifty posts in a row. And sorry for not making a separate thread to explain this.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, /images/graemlins/heart.gif. Sundry posts need abuse, but I must abstain since I haven't taken an IQ test and would not score anywhere near 156 if I did.

Nonetheless, I know something is amiss with these score reports, as I would be absolutely gobsmacked to discover I'm dumber than entertainme, for example.

[Malifous]

I scored like 135~~ 1 year ago on MENSA test, gotta find the paper.

[entertainme]

[ QUOTE ]

Nonetheless, I know something is amiss with these score reports, as I would be absolutely gobsmacked to discover I'm dumber than entertainme, for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

By all means, feel free to continue to consider your intellect superior to mine. Take heart in the fact that I.Q. is generally considered to determine potential and I may never have reached mine. Go ahead and presume you've discerned all there is to know of me from 1800 odd posts on a poker message board that I frequent for amusement.

I don't mind in the least.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question for you guys who say that IQ is so important:

why don't employers ask for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

They have low IQs? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Nah, they just dont want to double count it.

[Justin A]

For those of you estimating your IQ somewhere in the 120's, do you really think you're not smarter than 95% of the population?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
For those of you estimating your IQ somewhere in the 120's, do you really think you're not smarter than 95% of the population?

[/ QUOTE ]

Think back to grade 9. The smartest kid out of 3 classes or so would be in the top 1%, at least ( because of prior drop-outs and institutionalized).

Smartest kid in the class would on average be in the top 3% or so.

I don't know what the correlation is considered to be but surely a lot SMP'ers would be in the top 1% at a minimum.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For those of you estimating your IQ somewhere in the 120's, do you really think you're not smarter than 95% of the population?

[/ QUOTE ]

Think back to grade 9. The smartest kid out of 3 classes or so would be in the top 1%, at least ( because of prior drop-outs and institutionalized).

Smartest kid in the class would on average be in the top 3% or so.

I don't know what the correlation is considered to be but surely a lot SMP'ers would be in the top 1% at a minimum.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I went to big elementary and big high schools, but I was never the smartest kid in my class until I got to college. There was always at least one and sometimes two kids who were definitely smarter than I was.