I felt a need to also respond to the thread as it has been taken, so this and my previous post are meant to stand alone.
If it's that high, why are you wandering around on this forum? Shouldn't you be out curing cancer or herding quarks with your mind or something?
...and like comments RE: 214.
My understanding of "IQ" tests is that they judge potential and they judge one's ability to adapt, not one's knowledge base. As such, 214, if it is indeed that high, only tells us that he has the potential to learn what needs to be learned to cure cancer and the like...not necessarily that he currently has that knowledge or that he has that inclination. Heck, I recall an episode of Futurama in which a monkey chose to simply have average intelligence because to have anything higher had been as much of a burden as not enough.
...now whether or not one with that sort of intelligence has a moral duty to put it to use is an entirely different question...(oh how I love ethics questions!)
I can't find the source, but I remember reading an article about philosophy education in children dramatically increasing IQ
I wouldn't doubt it! If philosophical education were applied correctly, and if I understand IQ tests even a little bit, then an increase in IQ would almost have to be inherent (given that philosophy, perhaps above all else, teaches us to think in new ways and to consider the unconsiderable).
Clear the mind of what?
The self. Allow the mind to work without interference of the self. You can come to conclusions so much faster when you don't try to hash things out like a toddler playing with a Rubik's cube.
I understand what he's talking about here...though I do it by taking the opposite approach: I just start talking to myself (Probably sounds crazy, but I thankfully don't fit the DSM-IV classifications for anything serious... <.< >.> o.O ).
As I talk, I ask myself questions and reason through answers verbally - it allows me to keep straight what's important and what's just distraction. It allows me to really concentrate on the issues at hand and really be in the "world" it's in (all right, so talking to self probably no longer sounds like the crazy part...).
Someone noted idiot savants, but it's something most of us can do and have done, though we seem to do it less in adulthood. Writers, artists, athletes, voice actors...whatever the passion, they do it when they get into the "zone." It's the mental place we go when we manage to center our subconscious on our external issues...if that makes sense.
I've been exposed to the notion that IQ has increased over the last 100 years. When it comes to IQ, the average is always 100. What qualifies as 100 has become more demanding as the average has increased. Einstein's 140-something would be lower if he were to take the test today.
This is what I've been taught as well, though I don't think I agree with the second part. I see it this way: As a group, the we of now are probably significantly more creative and imaginative than the we of Einstein's era because we have been exposed to a bloody lot of rapidly changing technology which has forced us to think about the world in different ways.
Despite IQ tests only "testing" reason and logic, I think we sometimes forget how integral creative thinking is in being able to reason - we seem to like to pretend they are entirely seperate
Circling back, this is why I don't think our modern testing scale would proclaim the particularly high IQs of yesteryears as proportionately lower. The average IQ of today implies a certain level of understanding of the tools in the intelligence tool box (reason, logic) that the average person of today "gets" that those of Einstein's time didn't.
Your average high shool student has been taught what an analogy is (even if they don't retain the name for it, they retain the basic concept), something Einstein's contemporaries might not have been taught (I use this as an example only...I don't know whether analogies were commonly taught or not then).
As such, the Einstiens of the world who through either education or self-reasoning, knew how to use the same tools in the toolbox that the high-scorers of now use...And those of now would score probably comparably to their modern score on older tests...again, the tools are being used - it's not about knowledge so directly.
The shift, I suspect, has mostly been in the "average" person...so that what I think we'd see if we examined the data is a smaller gap between the high-scorers and the average joe than there once was.
But that's all conjecture and reasoning. I could be entirely off base.
Hmmmm. In that case, there is truly no way to test this unless everyone took a standardized test at the same time under the same conditions. Expounding on what you've said, basically this is a fruitless experiment because the tests are not the same and the scale varies as well as the condition of the test taker as well as the number of times one has taken the test. So this number truly is meaningless. Well then I suppose I will have to find some other scale for potential in which to meassure accurate or semi-accurate results that would match with social conduct in a pure communicative social structure.
Bingo! I think that of all the ways this set of concepts was explained, this one did it best.
If, though, one wanted to use "IQ" as a variable in the observations of social interactions on forums, then I think your best bet would be to create an IQ-like test (not just use one floating around, for obvious reasons), create a timed program for it, stick it on a website with login information required which would include any other variables you want to track with scores (what forums they frequent more than X times per week, screennames [so's you can independently track information about posts like frequency, syllable count, whatever], sex, age, education level, educational and vocational emphases, webcomics viewed regularly, ethnic heritage, favorite color of fingernail paint...whatever).
Then the person, using unique login information, would take the test hopefully first reading the page that explained the sort of test it was, about how long it might take (worded carefully so as not to influence results unduly), and ideal circumstances one should be in while taking it.
They'd take the test and the program would calculate their result based on complicated algorithms, taking into consideration anything that might possibly be relevant and adjusting for it.
Then, after awhile, you'd have a lovely amount of mostly useless but utterly fascinating data at your disposal
Bonus! for the purposes stated in this thread, it would probably give you the answers you were looking for.
Can there be such a thing as selective Autism?
Not selective, but it does vary in severity.
So I need to find some scale which allows me to meassure potential accurately or semi-accurately according to social conduct in a purely communicative social structure.
I suppose the required question here is: Potential for what? At that point we might be able to ponder whether measuring that potential is possible in a purely communicative social structure (which I think most types of potential are, with enough data, though some types of potential would be easier to gather said data for and as such a PCSS would be better suited to being used to learn about that particular type of potential).
Might I suggest that everybody tries a single test, so as to get a more accurate comparison?
Which brings me to the question of 'What is the best IQ test around?'. I've tried a lot of the free ones, but do you get better results, in terms of accuracy, in those you pay for?
I'd imagine so, but mostly because the test would be more likely to be "unique" (you probably noticed remarkable similarities in questions on free tests...).
As to the first part of this particular post, if someone posteda link to a free online test that Icon was all right with, I'd participate in this psuedo-experiment (given that it's not scientific at all I have a hard time calling it an experiment).
My big question is still "who really cares what your IQ is?"
Yeah...so far as I can tell, no one cares. My sisters both took IQ and creativity tests when they were young to determine whether they were "gifted" enough to be in a special program. That's quite literally the only time I've personally seen it have any impact on anything at all. Most college placement tests are based on particular tests (SAT, ACT, or individual subject tests).
Just a number to know, so far as I can tell. I can see it being useful if one were a truly self-reflective sort of person.
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.
This would imply pretty heavily that a person with a 214 IQ is knowledgeable, and that's not necessarily the case. Chances are high that they are, but not even then it's not necessarily about statistics or about an IQ test itself. See previous comments I've made in this post if that's not sufficient.
...I would be happy to put it on my list of things to read but I am already up to a book a day.
If this (and other things you've posted) is (are) the case...I'm terribly jealous and personally hope you're not wasting your talents. I'm not dumb by any means, but I know that I must do things slowly to do them well, including reading, and it's frustrating as 'ell!
One either chooses the path of pure reason, carefully and with calculation, or one ignores it in the face of ignorance and base passion.
I"ma have to disagree. This is a logical fallacy. No "regular" person falls entirely within one of these or the other; they may lean toward one or the other, but I've never met someone who has "chosen" one or the other of these and successfully aligned with it.
Some dark suspicion is rising in me. Idol wants to make some joke, not only about his own IQ but about the complete topic.
Entirely possible. *shrug*
Perhaps one could start a thread about our weight or about the size of our pants?
I vary between 115 and 135 pounds; right now about 125 and pant size is between a 9 and a 12.
'bout average, all things considered. As is my IQ, I figger. Haven't taken one that wasn't a free online one and on those I tend to score in the "above average" range...I don't buy it. Like my weight and size, and as has been pointed out here, I'm certain there are days I really am "above average" but there are certainly days I feel every bit of that metaphorical 135lbs (I'm a tiny build...135 is a big number on it!).