My big question is still "who really cares what your IQ is?"

Other than something to strut around, knowing the actual number seems
pretty useless, from a function-in-the-real-world-from-day-to-day sense.

I've never actually seen this as a question on a job application . . .

Cure for cancer ::detective:

Its a lifestyle illness. A holistic approach is the only way.
Just change your habits, especially your eating habits.
Eat Ital food.
Smoke marijuana to curb the loss of appetite, and destress.
Avoid oxidants like are in suger and alcohol.
Don't be anal. A study I followed found that the only common denominator in cancer patients were that they were all fastidious and meticulous about everything.
Get exercise, etc...

IQ of this forum::Glasses:
About 10x higher than the rest I've been to.

But the forum with the highest EQ:
Rastafari forum - Home

Someone with an IQ of 214 should have a better understanding of what an IQ actually is, how it's generated, and how a number like 214 has essentially no statistical or predictive value when compared to numbers within 2 or 3 standard deviations of the population mean.

The sample size gets SO small as you go out to 4, 5, 6 standard deviations that a tremendous amount of error is incurred in the process, and subtle differences in performance will be greatly exaggerated in the final score.

I wrote more about this in Icon's other thread on the subject. Honestly, nothing could be more telling about people who perseverate on high IQ numbers than their lack of curiosity and lack of understanding of the mechanics, score generation, limitations, and implications of intelligence testing.

So, Icon, I'd commend you to really learn about this subject and go see how much people in MENSA really understand about it. If the badge of honor for MENSA is an intelligence test, then it's ironic how poorly intelligence testing is understood by them.

I know very little about the subject, which is why I posted here. I was looking for knowledge and this seemed like a good place to start. I am a little too busy right now to study this topic extensively which is why I was hoping someone might give me a quick reference which I could hit on when I had some spare time. I am only sleeping about 2-2 1/2 hours a night as it is and can't squeeze any more subjects which would distract me from my current studies.

Between writing my book, quantum theory, human social structures, work, three new computer languages, several other related subjects, self experimentation involving personality disorders, IQ enhancement, memory enhancement, objective-ism and the attempt to woo a certain woman who is the object of my affection, I can't really dedicate anymore time without proper direction or resource. I was not attempting to start a subject matter discussion per se. I was simply looking for an answer as to why IQ matters and what an average was from the perspective of this forum. I would be happy to put it on my list of things to read but I am already up to a book a day.

Before anything is said about this, let me simply state that there are 24 hours in a day and I use each one to the best of my ability.

As do we all.

And you're probably not going to do them very effectively on 2 hours of sleep a night, considering what's known about attention, memory, and learning among people who average less than 8. I know, I've been there, and there's a reason why trainees in my profession now have strictly regulated work hours.

As for why IQ matters, it is a way that schools can assess educational needs. Plain and simple. That's the only practical application of it that has any kind of validation. For academic purposes, it is useful in its attempt to standardize intelligence testing so as to understand how intelligence is distributed in the general population.

I mentioned that IQ is basically normally distributed, but there is a caveat to that. IQ is actually bimodal. There is a main peak around a population mean of 100, and it's overall normally distributed around it. But there is a second (much) smaller peak in the 30s and 40s. This represents the subpopulation of people with profound medical illness (i.e. severe mental retardation from various medical causes).

IQ is known to be affected by first language, literacy, education level sociocultural background. These are all independently associated with performance on the test, which means that it is NOT a pure test of intelligence. If it were a pure test of intelligence, then one's level of education should not matter. But education can indeed compensate for lack of intelligence on the IQ test. Furthermore, speed is a major component to IQ score. This means that two people with equal intelligence can score quite differently if one is faster (or luckier) than the other.

Intelligence is a purely boolean concept, as most computer programmers have realized. One either chooses to think using reason, or one is a slave to one's bodily impulses, like a wild animal hemmed in by the fence and the fear of human 'law'.

One is therefore either infinitely intelligent, (as logic, honesty, reason and mathematics offer one the opportunity to partake in Godly intelligence), or one disregards these virtues, using desire, deceit, violence, (both passive and active forms), and especially ego-centred short-sitedness to attain material ends and material status in a way which becomes not only increasingly unsustainable in the long term, but which leaves one's children in debt slavery, misery, war, and childless death.

One either chooses the path of pure reason, carefully and with calculation, or one ignores it in the face of ignorance and base passion.

from:

Free Background Images - fractals by www.software-multimedia.com

But can one be truly intelligent on pure reason? I don't think so. Reason is one thing but imagination is another thing completely. Without both, you are nothing more than a program or dead.

Yes. I agree, imagination is quite different to intelligence.

IQ measures intelligence: Logic.
It is seemingly impossible to measure imagination; at least with a quick test that gives a quantitative score.

Role play games are a good way of measuring imagination, but they do not measure it in terms of quantities.

The real problem of IQ tests is that it is possible to study for them by working through other IQ tests. The more standard the tests become the less useful they are.

The ability to analyse and solve new problems is probably best explored with computer programming: Creating games or new software is a good one. This is not the same as simply slapping new graphics onto an old over-used engine, and is also different to remaking a new version of an old engine.

Its about coming up with new types of computer games. With whole new strategies for playing them.

Hahaha. Oddly enough, I am a designer/developer of web and mainframe applications for the US government.

Aah,
but have you made a computer game that requires your logical and creative mind to keep pace with each other?

Business apps test the IQ, but not the imagination. Its easy to follow logic. Much harder to control your imagination from running away from your logical mind.

I always thought I had an IQ of around 100, the gentle middle. I don't remember if I ever had a test. I did pass the university though, and I have a pretty challenging job, so...

My point: my statements above contained SIX times the word "I" , about the main of most of the postings above. Could one be a bit more egocentric here please? Perhaps one could start a thread about our weight or about the size of our pants? (I have XXL, some have more? Or less? Interesting...).

It must be because I'm a dumb-head, but I think that those who are proud of their IQ probably have few other things to be proud of, especially not in the complicated field of humanity. It is a way of shifting attention from what's essential to what is non-essential, declaring themselves intelligent while trying to hide that they are in so many ways dumb. I work at a university, and I met many intelligent people who -from all important points of view- were just complete idiots. Asocial, unproductive, lazy, conceited, unwise... thinking everything unimportant except their own intelligence, their petty little Ego. I once had an assistant who refused EVERY task I gave her because she considered herself too clever for that, my task being to leave her my office asap and do her job myself. After all, she was intelligent and I was just dumb, she had seen that right-away while I still had some difficulty with that. Yes, thanks to intelligence we have at least some certainties...

In fact the forum rules forbid me to say in all sincerity what I think about those proud of their IQ, or even pre-occupied with it. Let me give a shade of a shade of it: focussing on the IQ, especially your own, is just not very philosophical. It is not asking the right questions and it is certainly not giving the right answers. It is just a spill of bandwidth, a senseless egotrip, considering the urgency of so many other questions, of so many other needs. It not only opens a door towards discrimination, towards elitism, it even shows us clearly how nostalgic some people are for these. Geniusses obviously always want to conquer the world. N????????rf!

No need for a high IQ if your next task is to hold the hand of your dying mother. My wife was a nurse for 30 years, she helped many people die, and she still helps me live. I consider her a great philosopher. Thanks for your attention, and please don't mind me (I know many of you won't).

Why are you on this forum if your iq is that high?Mines only130.

Some dark suspicion is rising in me. Idol wants to make some joke, not only about his own IQ but about the complete topic. When you think about it, it's so improbable any intelligent mind could be serious about the whole matter. Sure, it was some kind of Milgram-experiment, see how much we were blinded by pride and conceit. Ok, you got me, but you got many others too. Thanks for the lesson, Idol

Can anyone recommend a good IQ test? I haven't taken one in quite some time...

Can I recommend life? That one is really hard.

A good IQ test :

Will an astronaut jumping on the moon take 1/6th the time to return to the surface, or 2/5ths that he would one Earth?


....
Think about it, use careful math,
get your answer, and then

after that, visit this link :
Do things on the moon move at 1/6th or half that of earth?

I have a few questions:
Is this score static or ratio-based? And what was the content of the test; was it in equal sections by subject or were the subjects disproportionate (either by scoring or content)? An IQ so high would make sense on the old Binet curve, but with the Gaussian curve it would be highly improbable in a human population (even of 6.7 Billion) to reach an IQ of 214. Note that vos Savant's IQ (228) was obtained the Binet way.

---------- Post added 11-10-2009 at 03:03 PM ----------

But as a theist, I'm proud to say it's average or less. "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes." -Marx

Leonard,

The problem is not the probability of reaching an IQ of 214. That's entirely possible. But that puts you at like 7 or 8 standard deviations above the population mean. That would be waaaaaay less than 1% of the population (95% are within 2 standard deviations and 99% within 3), so this is like a 1 in a million IQ (assuming the curve is 'normal' at the high end -- it is NOT entirely 'normal' at the low end).

The problem becomes telling a 214 from a 180 from a 150. There is a finite number of test questions. If you have 500 questions, then what is the IQ difference between 496 vs 497 vs 498 correct answers? It would be a MUCH MUCH bigger difference than that between 200 and 201 and 202 correct answers.

The test simply does not have the resolution to quantitatively separate such outliers, partly because such a test has not been offered to enough extreme outliers to create a standard curve.

You need to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell author of Blink and the Tipping Point.
Particularly the chapters "The trouble with genius part one and part two.
"Smart enough" Past a certain IQ somewhere around 130 additional IQ points do not predict success. A man with an IQ of 140 is as likely to make a major discovery or win a nobel prize as a man with a higher; even much higher IQ. Once you are "smart enough" factors other than additional IQ points determine your success in life such as character, initiative, imagination and opportunity. Comparing IQ's really does not tell you very much at all. In a room full of smart people IQ is the least important feature for success. So the real question is "are you smart enough?"

That's exactly right. Would Mozart have been a great musician if he were born in 1656 instead of 1756? Would Einstein have been a great physicist if he were alive at the time of Newton? Would Newton have been a great physicist if he were alive at the time of Einstein?

Success takes a lot of creativity and hard work -- intelligence and aptitude are only part of the formula.