|
|
|
|
#1
11-23-2007, 03:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Average SMP IQ.
[ 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. 
|
|
#2
11-23-2007, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Average SMP IQ.
"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?
|
|
#3
11-23-2007, 04:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Average SMP IQ.
[ 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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] 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...?
|
|
#4
11-23-2007, 04:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Average SMP IQ.
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
|
|
#6
11-23-2007, 09:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Average SMP IQ.
131 tested at age 6 or 7
130 on 2 tests in the last 2 years
|
|
#10
11-24-2007, 03:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Average SMP IQ.
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&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. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] 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.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
