How do you begin to answer this question?

it depends on what you are trying to do.
Understand the mathematics of the theory of relativity or build a fence in the back yard.

I got the impression you were speaking of some sort of accepted, lofty notion of "success", that would probably require someone do more than just build a fence in their backyard.

But, if this "Are you smart enough?" thing was really in application to everything (that is, you pick anything, and then try to see if you can do it, see if you're smart enough), I believe I've missed the point.

The point is that these lofty elevated scores on IQ tests really do not mean very much. Most of the great things accomplished and even not so great things that just need to get done get done by people who are not only "smart enough" but have initiative, motivation, imagination, hard work and opportunity. People attach way too much significance to IQ scores. You are better off not even knowing what your IQ score is.

No, I got that.

But the question you posed was, "Are you smart enough?", which, to me, seemed to bring upon us yet another scale! Another not-so-telling evaluation where "enough" would then have to have stringent meaning, such as 160 is genius, or something, on an IQ test. See what I mean now? It was like we left one arbitrary scale and jumped on another!

Haha, nevermind, I just misunderstood you; I completely understand what you meant now.

I haven't taken an IQ test since 1985, but here's what I recall:

On the Stanford-Binet, I was rated 143.

On the Weshler, I was rated 137.

--IntoTheLight--

As far as intelligence is concerned, I am a fan of Gardener's Multiple Intelligence Theory.

I believe we need to draw away from asking, "Is this person smart?" to, "How is this person smart?"

IQ tests your verbal linguistic, logical/mathematical and visual/spatial reasoning only, according to Gardener, there are eight intelligences and the IQ tests only tests 3 of these intelligences.

I realise his is not the only theory of intelligence, however, I think Gardener makes some interesting observations.

However, in light of this topic, I took a proper (not a free internet) test in 2007 and my IQ was 143. This personally means nothing to me.

Another interesting notion is that of bravery.
Many times I have seen people who are able to give a correct answer in a threatening situation, but give the incorrect answer in order to merely agree
with the authority figure. (milgram - yes)

I have come to realise that simple bravery is a far more vital character trait
than mere logical / mathematical ability.

Often the threat is even trivial, like a fear of being shouted down on a forum
or being sneered at for holding an unorthodox view.

so then accuracy is the real issue here? so with a smaller test the difference between two scores is larger. alright

My Intellectual Quantity ? At least 10,782...... :Glasses:

The original post (bottom part chopped)...I think it's worth pointing out. Truly, this was not originally actually a thread about IQ as much as it was about correlations between "intelligence" and forum activity and as such, I'm going to...erm..re-hijack? this thread...:perplexed:

If I understand the original post (which I might not), then I think he's wondering whether there is a high correlation between IQ and intelligent, polite conversation on a forum.

Regarding this...I don't IQ has anything to do with it. I think "admirable behaviour" comes almost entirely from the culture the moderation staff and owner(s) choose to expect, which then becomes the expectation of the population of a forum, and because a person who chooses to become a regular poster in a forum as a vested interest in being liked by at least a few people he or she is prone to adjusting to the culture they observe the forum having.

I offer an example of what I mean:
There is another forum I frequent (which you might find interesting for your observations, Icon). It's a gaming site and by no means should anyone mistake the forum itself as being "intellectual," and it's apparent in the membership that intelligence is not a requirement for participation.

Yet discussion is civil and intelligent: There is an expectation that one would check one's posts for errors before hitting "submit," that sexual innuendo other than the incredibly veiled variety was a huge no-no, and that being even a little mean to another member would result in you getting your hiney handed to you via a post following your own, even in the poster made it clear they agreed with you.

As of late, however, the culture has changed. It's cozier and feels more like the sort of home a person would live in, but in that feeling coming about, certain changes inherently evolved.

Members are now much more open about who they are outside the forum, people do not get instantly made fun of for misspellings anymore, and people are little bit rougher on one another. Sexual innuendo is...more open...that is: The rules have not changed, but who gets called out for it varies based on known comfort levels (for example, as a social experiement, I recently changed my name on that site and found myself with a little note from a mod informing me he had edited a post for being too explicit - something I'd never been accused of before, probably because I had a reputation for being thoughtful and respectful. Funny experience...I'd never been reprimanded for anything before, let alone had a post edited!).

I think these changes are the result of more members for the staff to moderate and not enough time to make clear through the nuances of the site what is expected. As such, the population has adjusted in accordance with what the staff "says" via action or inaction. In some ways I love the changes and in other ways I don't - but that's how I've always felt

The important thing to note regarding this example and the original post is that most of the people who had always frequented the forum remained the same. Our IQs didn't change...but the mods, other staff, and owners allowed the culture to change over time and we have responded by adjusting our expectations of new members.

To bring it full circle...I see a lot of similarities between this site and that site, and differences are largely a matter of actual topics discussed.

Like the other site, this forum has its fair share of...critical-thinkingly-challenged (for lack of a better non-word) as well as "brilliant geniuses" but nearly all (and certainly all who stick around) make an attempt to post well because everyone wants to be accepted when they're "at home."

Like the other, this forum also has remarkably intelligent and civil discussions, but I bet everyone can think of a time when that has not been the case - is it because the people involved changed IQs? Nope - they had just momentarily adjusted their personal boundaries of what was appropriate for them to post on this forum and the rest of the membership adjusted based on the reactions of the staff (whether it was a tightening or loosening of the belt, so to speak).

If this site were to follow suit with the other site, changing its culture in similar ways, I do not think most members of this population would end up leaving because most have invested themselves in this forum in one manner or another - it is a sort of home. And even when "home" changes, it's still home and we generally try to adjust with it.

The IQs would not have dropped; the culture would have changed.

...maybe someday I'll learn the are of written precision. In the meantime...sorry so long!

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.


...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 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).


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.


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.


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.


Not selective, but it does vary in severity.


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).


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).


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.


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.


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!


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.


Entirely possible. *shrug*


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!).