IQ of the members of the forum?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » IQ of the members of the forum?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 02:31 pm
AGE: 16

IQ: 146

There are some pretty smart people here I am expecting a lot of high scores but be honest please
 
TheRedMenace
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 03:32 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
I haven't taken a IQ test in a while. Id love to find out what it is now. Where do you know I could take a decent one?
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 04:36 pm
@TheRedMenace,
Psychologists cannot even agree on a definition for "intelligence" - how can we give an accurate measure of something we cannot define?
 
OntheWindowStand
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 04:44 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
LOL dude this is off topic forum IQ test are pretty accurate I am just wondering on the scores of members here
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 05:05 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
What do you mean when you say "IQ test are pretty accurate"?

Accurate about what? Intelligence? Again, psychologists cannot even agree on the definition of the word, much less a way to measure something they cannot define.

I don't have a problem with the topic - this is the Lounge.
 
OntheWindowStand
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 05:07 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
well when i mean accurate I mean accurate, most IQ test tell you what they are measuring there may be a debate on what intelligence is but most IQ test have a good idea and evaluate well(the Approved test that is)
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 05:17 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
The interesting thing about I.Q. tests is that they were not meant to measure Supra-intelligence, but to gauge how much (or really how little) of a learning disability you have. Does this mean that a person who scores the highest on an I.Q. test is relatively normal juxtaposed to an artificially high standard of intelligence? I dunno.

But say you took two geniuses, Einstein and Mozart. Undoubtedly, both are geniuses in their own right. Now if you sat both of those guys down at a "standard" I.Q. test, do you think they would both score in relatively the same area? No. Both are geniuses, but their expertise is completely different. I don't think an I.Q. test is a valid quantifier of intelligence. Far from it. All a score does is instigate a ludicrous framework for people to superficially compare their intelligence based off of numbers to one another.

However, I understand that 140 or above is considered "genius." Also, I hear that Shakira has an I.Q. of 140. This means that the notorious bottom-shaker-with-dazzlers Shakira is a genius. Goldie Hawn is also a member of MENSA. That would make her a genius (well, near genius) though she hides it well. Madonna has a 140 as well, and we all know she's brilliant. So Madonna is a genius.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 05:19 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
Lol, I have to agree with didymos on this one, trust me, IQ tests are biased upon analytical thinking. People here may have extremely good insight here but lack actual intelligence as you seem to define it. Some stick to the logic forum, others the ethics because they both require different kinds of 'intelligence'.:cool:

I haven't taken an IQ test, teachers recommend it so I take that as something good, I don't feel the need for it. I mean what is it honestly going to do? Nice for your portfolio I suppose but every society like Mensa or triple nine have their own tests. Besides, be latent, lol.

There are so many aspects to intelligence, like spatial, visual, logical, emotional(the name varies), etc. Everyone is different, everyone has their own abilities. When you got your IQ of 146 did they specify what your attributes were specifically?

Isn't the average made to be 100 or something? 146... lol, impressive, way higher than mine probably would be on the test:eeek:.... yet what does it matter on the forums when who has the better posts?:deep-thought: Do you see your IQ reflecting your writing abilities?:OK:
 
OntheWindowStand
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 05:22 pm
@Holiday20310401,
I scored very high in vocabulary and logic
 
Aedes
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 06:03 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand wrote:
LOL dude this is off topic forum IQ test are pretty accurate I am just wondering on the scores of members here
Hmm, not according to the developmental pediatricians that I trained with during my pediatrics residency. It's a highly flawed and overused test, there are biases that are culturally entrenched, and the score is based more on speed than on intelligence.

While you're at it would you like everyone to give their SAT scores, meyers-briggs personality type, Folstein mini-mental state score, and body mass index? Very Happy
 
OntheWindowStand
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 06:06 pm
@Aedes,
sure why not I haven't taken the SAT yet though I scored in the top 95 percent in the PSAT though it some dumbed down version for sophmores
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 06:10 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
I think I caught a hint of sarcasm in Aede's quote:ya-think:.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 06:12 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
Might I add that the mean score on the IQ test is 100 and the standard deviation is 15. That means that 67% of all test takers will score between 85 - 115 and 95% will score between 70 and 130.

Well, 70 and below is the bottom 2.5% of test takers, and this is generally the cutoff of mental retardation (it's a different cutoff in different scoring systems). Though many of these bottom 2.5% are otherwise medically complicated children, some of whom are profoundly retarded.

At the other end, only 2.5% will be at 130 and above. And what this means is that above this score it's essentially impossible to make meaningful distinctions between scores because 1) the pool is very small and therefore one cannot make solid statistical statements, 2) above ~ 140 you are talking about statistical outliers and it's not clear whether there is any practical distinction between different scores.

In other words, a test has a finite number of subjects and a finite number of parameters (i.e. questions) from among which you can discriminate them. The IQ test is BEST at discriminating subjects within 1 standard deviation of the mean. It's lousy at discriminating subjects who are farther away.

You sound like a bright guy. Use your intelligence to look into this subject more!
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 06:19 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand wrote:
AGE: 16

IQ: 146

There are some pretty smart people here I am expecting a lot of high scores but be honest please


OntheWindowStand,

Ah!, you probably had your thumb on the scale!!
 
OntheWindowStand
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 06:22 pm
@boagie,
what do you mean thumb on the scale?
 
OntheWindowStand
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 06:25 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Might I add that the mean score on the IQ test is 100 and the standard deviation is 15. That means that 67% of all test takers will score between 85 - 115 and 95% will score between 70 and 130.

Well, 70 and below is the bottom 2.5% of test takers, and this is generally the cutoff of mental retardation (it's a different cutoff in different scoring systems). Though many of these bottom 2.5% are otherwise medically complicated children, some of whom are profoundly retarded.

At the other end, only 2.5% will be at 130 and above. And what this means is that above this score it's essentially impossible to make meaningful distinctions between scores because 1) the pool is very small and therefore one cannot make solid statistical statements, 2) above ~ 140 you are talking about statistical outliers and it's not clear whether there is any practical distinction between different scores.

In other words, a test has a finite number of subjects and a finite number of parameters (i.e. questions) from among which you can discriminate them. The IQ test is BEST at discriminating subjects within 1 standard deviation of the mean. It's lousy at discriminating subjects who are farther away.

You sound like a bright guy. Use your intelligence to look into this subject more!


I understand that the test isn't perfect due constant changes in culture, education as well social changes but when i say accurate I mean a better test hasn't come up that I know of.. and that means it holds some merit right?
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 06:35 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand wrote:
what do you mean thumb on the scale?


Smile
You fail on the humor scale!:rolleyes: Seriously there is some basic understandings that one might draw from such a test, for one you are probably deemed good empolyee material.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 06:39 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
Laughing... simply hysterical. My thumbs are way up for this thread.:a-ok:

I'm only speculating what I think here, but ... perhaps.... 5 stars?

Maybe as I write this lame post a contradiction appears blatantly rhetorical.

[CENTER]:rolleyes:
[/CENTER]
 
mashiaj
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 06:45 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand wrote:
AGE: 16

IQ: 146

There are some pretty smart people here I am expecting a lot of high scores but be honest please


no offense but

it sounds like trying to compete or presumpt , you wanna compare your iq score with others Laughing i have 146 look at me im very smart 100 is the common and i have 16 :Glasses:
 
Arjen
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 07:02 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Hmm, not according to the developmental pediatricians that I trained with during my pediatrics residency. It's a highly flawed and overused test, there are biases that are culturally entrenched, and the score is based more on speed than on intelligence.

While you're at it would you like everyone to give their SAT scores, meyers-briggs personality type, Folstein mini-mental state score, and body mass index? Very Happy


I agree, I score 164 on average, but I know nothing for sure...The test must be bogus. Smile
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » IQ of the members of the forum?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/22/2024 at 11:10:11