Average SMP IQ.

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

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%.

[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.

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]




[/ 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.

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ 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>=194) ~
1/5 422 000 000. We should be skeptical of claims of any
IQs > 170.

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