LOL, haven't you had the terminology of a square as a rectangle? Sorry, I was literally copying the question out of a test I took a while ago. Didn't even occur to me. :deflated::surprised:

Alas, my IQ isn't high enough to figure out what squares want. Triangles are much easier -- I can't handle more than three sides. :rolleyes:

I was being facitious,:brickwall: I have not seen many i.q. tests with multiple choice except for a few of the online ones, go figure. I don't remember the questions on the wisc-iv test I took when I was eight, I just know my score and its correspondign percentile. If I went by internet i.q. tests I could go around talking about my 160 on the new tickle test, but it would be even less meaningful...but mmm make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing a 'phd certified' test 'told me is vry smart'.

I don't know, I've met people who very impressive to me with 153 i.q., 149 i.q. ect on the whechsler, when your aunt is a mensan you tend to meet these people. Riddle me this batman, what use is a tire that doesn't get put to use? Just as much use as the average active mensan that I've met. Most of them are armchair mathematicians and puzzle enthusists, and thats fine, those are much better past times than watching american gladiator in my opinion, but most certainly not the most productive/creative uses of time.

Judging by i.q.s of guys like feynman , I would say that on the upper end the tests are more than worthless, they might even be damaging. If a kid wants to skip a grade and has a lot of knowledge and 125 i.q., its no way jose, but if a kid pretty much identical in performance, interest and knowledge comes along with a 140, its an easy decision. There are outliers with 170+i.q.s that seem just so far ahead of the curve that its cruel not to move them ahead, for instance, this dude . There is the occasional kid of great potential that is unrecognized and it is quite unfortunate, but there are also quite a few kids unfairly put ahead while other kids who may be more driven stay behind due to their inadequate test scores. Feynman managed to overcome that, and probably had a 150 i.q. in spatial intelligence but a low verbal score. All manner of things can affect a score, and it seems to me irresponsible to administer a test of that type with too much wieght. Case in point: My mom scored retarded because she was deaf and not accomodated. She got a near perfect sat score(in the late 60's when it still meant somthing) which equates to nearly a 160 i.q. and graduated in the top of her class, graduated college magna cum laude with a triple major in COMPARATIVE LIT. She knew 4 languages dispite being deaf. and became a deaf/hard of hearing advocate.

Wow, your family's loaded with intelligent people. What's the genetics behind it all I wonder.

I would hate to be a prodigy. It equates to social latency. So why is it that the intelligent are so attracted to philosophy? Because we think too much, due to social innateness, actually I'm somewhat social but not considered "cool". Its impossible to define how to be "cool" for more than a week. Its stupid.

Perhaps the perfect IQ test is that of what answers one gives in philosophy, and logic.

A friend of my parents belongs to Mensa and talks about it a lot -- I think it breeds a certain kind of self-pride. They just gave our son a whole bunch of baby Einstein stuff. Cute stuff, but he's 3 1/2 months old, he doesn't really need a curriculum yet. I'm thrilled that he is now making gutteral sounds, laughing, reaching for things, sitting with support, and is a general joy to be around. He's got a good pedigree in his mom and me but most importantly we'll nurture him -- how much potential is lost because kids aren't nurtured?

As for Mensa, my only exposure are the quizzes in the American Airlines magazines. But I prefer Sudoku -- I can usually finish one of the "diabolical" ones during a commuter flight.

I think the sudokus only differ dramatically in what numbers appear in the middle. Because all the outer boxes relate back to the middle. If the middle was given completely then its not diabolical.

Sudokus are fun but I never appreciated then. My mom's hooked to them though, and my dad to monopoly, lol. The game's got nothing to it really.

I have no connections to Mensa so now I'm feeling kinda stupid.

Is not the main point of presenting ones IQ of a boastful nature, reguardless of its crediability. If one has a very high IQ and wishes comparison with others, is it not a wish to diminish others. I think the point has be lost through this dialogue. I think any scales particulary public ones to catagorize ones humanity in any way, is a bad idea.

Well, then I'm diminished through the fact that I have undoubtedly a lower IQ than you lot.

Or at least much less knowledge than you al.

Yes, I said basically the exact same thing in one of my earlier posts in this thread. Especially on a forum where we all posture and boast about our amateurish understanding of philosophy, posting IQs seems like a really, uh, unintelligent idea...

One of my history teachers liked to talk about being a member of Mensa - and this was to a classroom of fifth graders. Oh, I so very much loved correcting her.

Did you ever read that Vonnegut book, The Sirens Of Titan, I think is the name of it. Where a time traveler would pop into this subterranian world and leave messages to a character called Unc. Short for Uncle. He would rip these music emiting life forms of the walls to write stuff to this guy, Unc. One message was: It's an intelligence test!
Life is an intelligence test. And it demands a high score; and something other, tenacity for which there is no known test. I worked Iron for thirty years, and I have all my fingers and toes. -That I started with, which was and is a full set. It is not so much a question of insight, or vision, or knowledge, or conceptualization or all the above when facing real life problems. You cannot do nothing when nothing is working. Make a date for later. Try something else, something different. You haven't the right tool. You never have the right tool, so use your head instead of the tool that does not work because you haven't got it. If you can't get it they will hire some one who will get it. Never ever efin give up. Take a lesson from Hacksaw Smitty, long dead but a tough as nail bruiser if there ever was such a thing. Some one told him they weren't going to man his job. Smitty said: If you don't man it I'll put it up with pimps and whores. Life presents an impossible impediment. Get over it. Go around it, tunnel under it, or blow it to hell. If the kids can't get it they will hire some iron head like me who will. And the kids will be down the road. Don't let them send you home. Tell them your wife will only send you back. That worked for Frankie Little. It's worth a try. Stick around, It's show time! Get it done.

Haven't read that one, though Cat's Cradle is one of the most brilliant books I've ever read. But one thing I'll say for many postmodernist writers, including Vonnegut, Haruki Murakami, Kobo Abe, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and especially Thomas Pynchon -- there is true genius in thinking up wild, fantastical stories that are credible enough to keep you riveted, and somehow constitute magisterial expositions on the issues in the real, actual planet earth.

I say you can only tell the truth with fiction.

And that's exactly why in that "why study literature" thread I made the point that philosophy is just a different form of literature. And frankly a lot of novelists do a better job at showing us philosophy than philosophers do explaining it. I'd bet that Dostoyevsky was every bit as great an influence on philosophy as his contemporary Nietzsche.

Has been for me. Crime and Punishment absolutely floored me. I just picked up Karamazov today and look forward to the read.

Karamazov will blow you away.

As you're reading, you'll come across two very famous sections. One is a tale called The Grand Inquisitor, told by Ivan Karamazov. The other is a section of recollections from the life of the Elder Zosima. As you read these two different passages realize that they are a point and counterpoint argument in a way of Dostoyevsky's tortured ambivalence about God. He has perhaps the greatest conversation on the subject in history, with himself, in two unrelated parts of the book.

And also take note of the main character, Alyosha Karamazov. He is the "truly good" character that he'd tried and sort of failed to create in The Idiot.

Incidentally, read Notes from Underground. It's a lot shorter than Karamazov, and it's unforgettable. I don't even know how many times I've read it. It's one of the greatest of all existential works, and it wasn't even self-consciously so.

We posture and boast? I've ran with really "smart" crowds, went toe to toe with some of the top people in several academic disciplines, and a lot of you guys are incredibly gifted intellects. I know that in the realm of traditional philosophy, I am lacking, so I can't really judge the "posturing", but in argument structure, analytical thinking, functional comprehension, and logical presentation, both traditional western and not, you guys are top notch.

We could be better -- I wish we were all quicker to admit when we've taken our argument beyond what we can support, admit lack of knowledge, etc. But we do pretty well!

I've frequented every half-way decent philosophy forum on the net - and this is, by far, the best. Justin does a great job here.

I could be wrong, but I think I may have seen Fido moonlighting on at least one other site.

leayuak. I think the Russians and all of Asia holds some fascinating people, but something about their liturature is like having a nail driven through my nuts. If I can't get through the first page, I'd need eternity to reach the last page taking the normal route. Maybe there is something I am missing. Have you ever read the Hunt'smans Tail? I think that is what it is called. I will have to look for it. I think it had something to do with the nominal freeing of the serfs before our slaves were freed, if they ever were.