IQ of the members of the forum?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

OntheWindowStand
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 07:09 pm
@Arjen,
Dude good for you if you score that high
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 07:11 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand wrote:
Dude good for you if you score that high


Smile
Humor scale again and you failed! Strike three and your out!! Lighten up sport!!Laughing
 
OntheWindowStand
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 07:14 pm
@boagie,
Really he seemed serious on that post hard to tell over the net
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 07:22 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand wrote:
Really he seemed serious on that post hard to tell over the net


OntheWindowStand,Smile

This medium is not really the best for interpreting the attitudes of others, it is easy to misinterpret, the it is always best to give the other fellow the benifit of the doubt, or directly ask the person if their intent is to offend. Some times that is exactly what the other party intends but much of the time it is not, even most of time.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 07:25 pm
@boagie,
I'm glad we can have humor here. It requiresa lot of intelligence to make puns and that sort of thing. It just always feel like a precaution when making a joke from fear of getting banned or something. I mean, that mennistopheles guy got banned. And raven couldn't take a joke so he/she just quit.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 07:38 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Quote:
I'm glad we can have humor here. It requiresa lot of intelligence to make puns and that sort of thing. It just always feel like a precaution when making a joke from fear of getting banned or something. I mean, that mennistopheles guy got banned. And raven couldn't take a joke so he/she just quit.


No one is going to get banned for making a joke, even if the joke isn't delivered in the most proficient manner. Unless your joke is meant to hurt, you'll be fine. Smile

Mephistopholes was not banned for jokes. I mean, I make jokes all of the time - and almost if not all of them are horrible. But my jokes are never meant to hurt anyone, so even if they are not funny, they are tolerated.

Don't worry about getting banned, Holiday. You seem like a good kid, not the sort of person who goes out of his way to hurt people. Smile
 
Aedes
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 07:50 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand wrote:
I mean a better test hasn't come up that I know of.. and that means it holds some merit right?
There are other tests that are better in some areas and worse in others. But many development specialists are in favor of completely scrapping the IQ.

Sure, it's predictive to some degree of various aspects of intelligence. But its merit is a lot more limited than its applications.

And might I add that in this context, a philosophy forum in which a bunch of (mostly) amateurs who think of themselves as intellectual debate and posture and argue, having IQ test scores posted might actually be very counterintuitive.

Though he was never tested, it's thought by some that Einstein was not of particularly superlative intelligence overall. But he was extremely visual and creative, AND he lived at a time when his skills were most likely to impact the state of the art in his field.

A different sort of example are the musical prodigies, like Mozart and Mendelssohn. Their musical intelligence (which is a real kind of intelligence) was peerless -- but what does that mean for the things tested on an IQ test?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 07:55 pm
@Arjen,
Arjen wrote:
I agree, I score 164 on average, but I know nothing for sure...The test must be bogus. Smile
As far as I know the Weschler IQ test, which is the most common one used in the US and Europe, will not typically give a score above 140 or somewhere around there. Like I said, because only ~2.5% of the population is above 130, you'd need a whole separate test to meaningfully discriminate among people above that point. On the IQ tests themselves there is no validated difference between scores at either extreme.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 07:57 pm
@Aedes,
Quote:
Though he was never tested, it's thought by some that Einstein was not of particularly superlative intelligence overall. But he was extremely visual and creative, AND he lived at a time when his skills were most likely to impact the state of the art in his field.

A different sort of example are the musical prodigies, like Mozart and Mendelssohn. Their musical intelligence (which is a real kind of intelligence) was peerless -- but what does that mean for the things tested on an IQ test?


That's the thing about it - forget intelligence. Creativity is central. Whether we're talking about art or science, or we're talking about the great spiritual leaders, it's creativity that makes the difference. Who cares if Muhammad was "intelligent", whatever that may mean; he was a creative genius for writing the Koran. Just like Jesus was a creative genius for his parables.

The renown geniuses of the world may not have scored well on an IQ test. What makes them the renown geniuses is that they had the creativity to express themselves in a manner that resonated with their time and place.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 08:08 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
What makes them the renown geniuses is that they had the creativity to express themselves in a manner that resonated with their time and place.
That's exactly right. Do we know that Sir Isaac Newton would have been at all relevant if he'd been born in 1879? Do we know that Einstein would have been relevent had he been born in 1643? There's no way to know, but consider how rare it is to get the phenomenon of an Einstein, a Newton, a Shakespeare, a Mozart. One must surmise that there has to be a combination of the right person, raised and educated in the right way, who has the right opportunities, in the right context. I'm sure thousands of people have been born through history who innately have the musical aptitude of Mozart or the mathematical aptitude of Newton. But if they aren't nurtured the right way, or if their skills aren't relevant to their time, then they will never actualize on that innate superlative potential.
 
Arjen
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 08:47 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand wrote:
Really he seemed serious on that post hard to tell over the net

I was serious, but I also know that I know nothing... The two don't combine easily..

Smile
 
TheRedMenace
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 10:59 pm
@Arjen,
IQ: -3

That can't be right. Very Happy
 
Arjen
 
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 09:20 am
@TheRedMenace,
TheRedMenace wrote:
IQ: -3

That can't be right. Very Happy

Ignorance is bliss.
Smile
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 02:04 pm
@Arjen,
172... s.d.172:D
You can't just say 164 or 146, that could be a ratio i.q., it could be s.d. 24, 15, 16 it isn't enough information to even determine your percentile. Mine is 99.5%ile. See how much clearer that is? You know what the percentage range is, its nice and compact, and it has less of that silly shock and awe value that seems to come along, mein gott! ich habe eine i.q. sehr gut! Ist 2102934857 i.q., aber ist 56%ile.

You know what that means though? It means that I can answer
tesla:edisson:Confused:salieri

A)Mozart
B)beethoven
c)hitch****
d)salami
e)dice
and I KNOW the minimum number of colors a cube can have with one color on each side such that same colored sides are never touching! Bam! ITS 3!:disappointed::brickwall:
edit:lol, it blotted out part alfred hitchco*ks last name, you gotta improve that censoring program.
 
No0ne
 
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 02:33 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
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.



Intelleigence test's are flawed.

They only test for what concept's or thing's a person should know by the school or life they have lived(Hence Memory Quiz), yet all people do not live the same life, therefore it's very incorrect to test them by the same standerd's...

Also for another person to be able to understand or gauge another person's intelligence, you must not have it be a multi-choice test, due to the fact you must gauge a person ability to reason, to plan, to problem solving, to think abstractly , to comprehending idea's(intelectualy, to use language, and to learn.

And even the most complex trait's of Intelligence such as the creativity, personality, character, knowledge, and wisdom of a person cannot be correctly gauged by a multi-chocie format test, due to the fact that the answer's lack the personal trait's of that person, mainly due to the other fact that the choice's that they are presented with are not the choice's of that person's, but the choice's of some psychologists...or other..

Also the reason why they are multi-choice is due to the fact that they compair people by the same standerd... and by doing so... they test people's memory's and not there "True" intelligence...

Also an Intelect Quiz is also very diffrent... Which also cannot be tested within a multi-choice format.

Yet in my opinion the field of psychologists are bound by the probability of them being correct... yet since there are so meany unknown variable's that are not covered in there test's(since they are multi-choice) make's there result's FLAWED...(there must be a choice where you make your own answer, then tell why and why not in which way's your answer is more correct than the one's given, also there are meany other form's of test's that give more correct gauge of a person's intelligence other than a multi-choice quiz)

I'm sure Albert, and many other intelectual mind's would point this out...
(The number's are derived from a per thought standerd, so one score of 30, is not higher than another score of 30..., also another factor that make's most of all I.Q's flawed.. It's best to call them all M.Q, aka memory quiz score...since that's what it will test by a multi-choice quiz based on knowlage that you should know from the school or life you have lived, yet they have made them from the school's and life of a model person that they have came up with to make one standerd of scoring...FLAWED system!, to correclt gauge an intelligence of a person)

It's allso one of many reason's why I find psychologist's work and way's very distastefull...

(I pulled some of the trait's that I stated above from an encyclopedia...)

Yet I insure you that my answer would have been around the same without the useage of out side knowlage...
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 04:27 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

I am some where in there; about two points short of wiley Coyotte. It has been a lot of years since I tested, and I may have cheated, and it has been a long time since I was impressed by such stuff. If I am intelligent, it shows in the fact that I can do many things, mechanics, plumbing, electrical, Iron working; that sort of stuff. And yet the best I can say is that I might be an idiot savant because I am so damned stupid at the essential thing in life which is maintaining relationships. Intelligence is good, but emotional intelligence allows one to tap into the minds and lives of others, to understand them, learn from them, be useful to them, and get the best out of them. Leadership is not what genius people do.

And when history throws up a genius like Napoleon, his great intelligence leads him only to greater folly. And, he trusted more to luck, asking those he promoted if they were lucky. And good leadership does not leave anything to chance. Yet chance leads so many to leadership, and a few smart moves later they are convinced they have a lucky star. Reality teaches them that no one man is better than any average two.

I guess all in all, I have done okay with ma super intelligint brane. I am uneducated, or more correctly, under educated. But then I never had to whore my brain to profit another. I never succeeded to my level of incompetence which means I never succeeded. So what I got is mine free and clear, uninstitutionalized, and not homogenized. I hope the rest of you may be so fortunate.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 04:30 pm
@No0ne,
You obviously haven't done a very good IQ test. I've done one a while ago, and it wasn't multiple choice. It was more short answer questions. I'm sure it was bad and I never got my results back b/c you had to pay to get them back, lol, but memory wasn't the test. Thats the way they make the questions, through as little need for memory as possible.

Its like the question "Whats the largest radius a circle can have inside an 8 by 20 cm. square".

The test is more about how long it takes so if it is a multiple choice it doesn't matter so much. It could take a person a second to figure out that the answer is 4, but another, 5 minutes, b/c they lack proper cogence intuitively for that sort of mental intellect.

The real problem with IQ tests (even though I've never done a 'real' one) is that they are biased not by memory but by the type of thought required. It seems to be all about time and providing an answer intuitively rather than having to critically think for the answer. As much as I believe being able to answer a problem with the ease that is intuitive is what can help to determine intelligence, we should not eliminate the critical thinking.

Even though critical thinking is reliant upon memory, and should therefore have age restrictions, its the "connecting the dots" which is important for define somebody's intellectual abilities.

So multiple choice or not, doesn't really matter when a time limit applies; but yes it defeats the purpose of analysis, which long answer questions should come into play.
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 08:15 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
You obviously haven't done a very good IQ test. I've done one a while ago, and it wasn't multiple choice. It was more short answer questions. I'm sure it was bad and I never got my results back b/c you had to pay to get them back, lol, but memory wasn't the test. Thats the way they make the questions, through as little need for memory as possible.

Its like the question "Whats the largest radius a circle can have inside an 8 by 20 cm. square".

The test is more about how long it takes so if it is a multiple choice it doesn't matter so much. It could take a person a second to figure out that the answer is 4, but another, 5 minutes, b/c they lack proper cogence intuitively for that sort of mental intellect.

The real problem with IQ tests (even though I've never done a 'real' one) is that they are biased not by memory but by the type of thought required. It seems to be all about time and providing an answer intuitively rather than having to critically think for the answer. As much as I believe being able to answer a problem with the ease that is intuitive is what can help to determine intelligence, we should not eliminate the critical thinking.

Even though critical thinking is reliant upon memory, and should therefore have age restrictions, its the "connecting the dots" which is important for define somebody's intellectual abilities.

So multiple choice or not, doesn't really matter when a time limit applies; but yes it defeats the purpose of analysis, which long answer questions should come into play.

There is such a thing as an 8 by 20 cm. square? The centimeter elves must have unusual powers.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 08:45 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
Its like the question "Whats the largest radius a circle can have inside an 8 by 20 cm. square".
How can a square be 8 x 20 cm? :poke-eye:
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 08:52 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
How can a square be 8 x 20 cm? :poke-eye:

Maybe all squares are rectangles. Maybe it is just a square that doesn't want to be perfect, dammit!
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 04:33:49