Tom O'Neil Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) To be honest I have always had a phobia of IQ tests even though I have a 1700 chess rating, decoded the Voynich to Middle English and recently came up with a Grand Unification Theory. To be honest I think I'm humble when I meet face to face with people, but online I believe I may come across as arrogant, but that is my own perception. If you would like a challenge at chess.com lets log on and do the battle of the ego's so I can destroy your id. @Strange I really would like to play you in Chess, if you understand the game. The challenge is on so lets do the battle of the minds @ chess.com https://www.chess.com/ Edited March 13, 2017 by Tom O'Neil -1
StringJunky Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 When used by laymen, IQ tests measure your ability to do IQ tests. They need to be tailored and overseen by someone conversant in what areas they are measuring and can interpret the results correctly.
Tom O'Neil Posted March 13, 2017 Author Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) When used by laymen, IQ tests measure your ability to do IQ tests. They need to be tailored and overseen by someone conversant in what areas they are measuring and can interpret the results correctly. Ok Genius I would like to play you chess too. lol 120 - 139 : With an IQ of 120 to 139, it means you have very superior intelligence and your intelligence is better than most. A superior intelligence means that your intelligence is better than most people but not as high as those with an IQ of 140. Edited March 13, 2017 by Tom O'Neil -1
pzkpfw Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 When used by laymen, IQ tests measure your ability to do IQ tests. They need to be tailored and overseen by someone conversant in what areas they are measuring and can interpret the results correctly. My father-in-law had a small novel-sized book of IQ tests. I just did them, one by one, to the end of the book. The last test said I was an ultra-super-genius (or words like that). Almost as smart as the OP. But of course, all I'd done was learn how to do the kind of test in that book. 2
StringJunky Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 My father-in-law had a small novel-sized book of IQ tests. I just did them, one by one, to the end of the book. The last test said I was an ultra-super-genius (or words like that). Almost as smart as the OP. But of course, all I'd done was learn how to do the kind of test in that book. Practice makes perfect. 1
John Cuthber Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 "To be honest I have always had a phobia of IQ tests even though I have a 1700 chess rating, decoded the Voynich to Middle English and recently came up with a Grand Unification Theory. To be honest I think I'm humble when I meet face to face with people, but online I believe I may come across as arrogant, but that is my own perception." Based on what you have posted here "decoded the Voynich to Middle English " No you haven't, and "came up with a Grand Unification Theory." No you haven't. " online I believe I may come across as arrogant," Yes, you do. " but that is my own perception." Not uniquely. 2
Daecon Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) Eh, I had a Mensa IQ test about 20-ish years ago when I was in my early teens and got a score of 178. Edited March 13, 2017 by Daecon 1
dimreepr Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 Ok Genius I would like to play you chess too. lol 120 - 139 : With an IQ of 120 to 139, it means you have very superior intelligence and your intelligence is better than most. A superior intelligence means that your intelligence is better than most people but not as high as those with an IQ of 140. There are many types of intelligence and each type is useful, given the correct scenario; so I have to ask superior to what? 1
Tom O'Neil Posted March 13, 2017 Author Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) There are many types of intelligence and each type is useful, given the correct scenario; so I have to ask superior to what? To be honest the word superior, as in intelligence only should be understood as you only know as much as you wish to learn from an interest or passion in various subjects from each moment in time. Knowledge is a complex onion and you never fully comprehend every layer even if you peel down to the next layer. Edited March 13, 2017 by Tom O'Neil
Itoero Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 I have a very lousy level of concentration. Paying attention when I watch a movie is very challenging.
DrKrettin Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 I have ...the Voynich to Middle English and recently came up with a Grand Unification Theory. To be honest I think I'm humble .... Hang on - I thought you had claimed to have translated it to Welsh (which was not true anyway). Has your Grand Unification Theory been accepted by mainstream science (which would automatically trigger a Nobel Prize)? Any fool could come up with a theory.
hypervalent_iodine Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 ! Moderator Note We're not getting back into that manuscript. Please stick to the topic.
Lord Antares Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) even though I have a 1700 chess rating, decoded the Voynich to Middle English and recently came up with a Grand Unification Theory. If you would like a challenge at chess.com lets log on and do the battle of the ego's so I can destroy your id. @Strange I really would like to play you in Chess, if you understand the game. The challenge is on so lets do the battle of the minds @ chess.com This is utterly hilarious. First of all, I could beat you at chess. Secondly, a 1700 rating in chess is not impressive at all. It's a typical, average chess club player's rating. Magnus Carlsen is currently rated 2840 IIRC. By your logic, how much more intelligent than you is he? You're not exactly doing yourself a favor by claiming high intelligence with a 1700 rating. Thirdly and most importantly, higher rating in chess does not equal higher intelligence. Not by a longshot. While it is true that with a higher IQ, you definitely have a better predisposition to play good chess (Kasparov and Fischer were said to have a 190 and 180 IQs respectively, and them two are usually considered the best players in history), practise, experience and studying are considerably more important. A stupid person with more experience could easily beat you. This is true of any game and a vast number of jobs in life. People with higher IQs have a better predisposition to be good at those jobs, but it's far from certain they will be any good. You cannot challenge someone who doesn't play chess and beat him to prove that you have a higher IQ. This logic of yours would, if anything, indicate the opposite of what you're claiming to be. I personally know a GM and his FM wife. They must be geniuses compared to you then, right? Edited March 13, 2017 by Lord Antares 1
Argent Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 120 - 139 : With an IQ of 120 to 139, it means you have very superior intelligence and your intelligence is better than most. A superior intelligence means that your intelligence is better than most people but not as high as those with an IQ of 140. Online tests are not well suited to anyone in the top 20%, or thereabouts. They tend to give an inflated number. I'm pretty certain I don't really have an IQ of 153. As String Junky pointed out the test has to be the right one, administered in the right way. Online tests are amusing but don't mean much. Come to think of it, "proper tests" don't mean too much either. This is just a passing thought: knowing the limitations of online tests, if I only scored 120-139, I would be keeping quiet about it. 1
Delta1212 Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 I was curious so I went to the site and took the test. I must be a genius. 1
Tom O'Neil Posted March 13, 2017 Author Posted March 13, 2017 I was curious so I went to the site and took the test. I must be a genius. Awesome so lets play chess -1
StringJunky Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) Online tests are not well suited to anyone in the top 20%, or thereabouts. They tend to give an inflated number. I'm pretty certain I don't really have an IQ of 153. As String Junky pointed out the test has to be the right one, administered in the right way. Online tests are amusing but don't mean much. Come to think of it, "proper tests" don't mean too much either. This is just a passing thought: knowing the limitations of online tests, if I only scored 120-139, I would be keeping quiet about it. They are probably only really useful in measuring subjects who are challenged cognitively in some way, relative to a base-line of what is considered adequate in specific mental tasks, and this gives specialists an indication of what is required to assist such a person. Edited March 13, 2017 by StringJunky
Tom O'Neil Posted March 13, 2017 Author Posted March 13, 2017 They are probably only really useful in measuring subjects who are challenged cognitively in some way, relative to a base-line of what is considered adequate in specific mental tasks, and this gives specialists an indication of what is required to assist such a person. Why do you say this and where is your evidence? I guess under this premise you never have taken an IQ test; can this be associated with fear?
Lord Antares Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 good job ignoring my points about chess and intelligence. If I beat you in chess, will you shut up about your imaginary connection of chess and intelligence?
Delta1212 Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 Why do you say this and where is your evidence? I guess under this premise you never have taken an IQ test; can this be associated with fear? He says it because the IQ test was originally designed to identify students who needed extra assistant in an academic setting in order to excel and it was repurposed as a generalized intelligence test because people like scoring themselves, and it was what was available, not because it was especially useful for that purpose.
DrKrettin Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 If I beat you in chess, will you shut up about your imaginary connection of chess and intelligence? Oh come on, are you saying there is no positive correlation between ability at chess and intelligence? Apart from my own anecdotal experience of knowing Cambridge maths scholars who are extremely good at chess, the internet is a good source of research, for example this. Obviously it does not follow that somebody with a rating of 1700 is necessarily intelligent - in fact it rather speaks against it simply because of the self-propagated idea that it does.
Lord Antares Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) I explained that here. Thirdly and most importantly, higher rating in chess does not equal higher intelligence. Not by a longshot. While it is true that with a higher IQ, you definitely have a better predisposition to play good chess (Kasparov and Fischer were said to have a 190 and 180 IQs respectively, and them two are usually considered the best players in history), practise, experience and studying are considerably more important. A stupid person with more experience could easily beat you.This is true of any game and a vast number of jobs in life. People with higher IQs have a better predisposition to be good at those jobs, but it's far from certain they will be any good. While there is a correlation between intelligence and chess, there is a correlation between intelligence and everything. A highly intelligent person has a higher chance of being better in many different jobs and games. This is obvious. However, he is using his chess rating as if it were an IQ score. Chess is mostly experience and study. A person rated 2000 has spent more time studying chess than a person rated 1700 in a vast majority of cases. Similiarly, you can't claim that a GM is a super genious just because he has a high rating in chess. It doesn't work that way. And again, if he wants to use his mediocre 1700 rating to prove his supposed high intelligence, it doesn't help his case. Edited March 13, 2017 by Lord Antares 2
DrKrettin Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) And again, if he wants to use his mediocre 1700 rating to prove his supposed high intelligence, it doesn't help his case. Ak - ok. I had misunderstood your comment about "your imaginary connection of chess and intelligence" which I took to be a generalisation. In fact we are both saying that same thing. Edited March 13, 2017 by DrKrettin
StringJunky Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) He says it because the IQ test was originally designed to identify students who needed extra assistant in an academic setting in order to excel and it was repurposed as a generalized intelligence test because people like scoring themselves, and it was what was available, not because it was especially useful for that purpose. Yes. It's also a good means of identifying narcissists as an unintended by-product. Edited March 13, 2017 by StringJunky 1
Strange Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 @Strange I really would like to play you in Chess, if you understand the game. Sorry, the game is beyond me. I understand the way the pieces move and that's about it. With an IQ of 120 to 139, it means you have very superior intelligence and your intelligence is better than most. A superior intelligence means that your intelligence is better than most people but not as high as those with an IQ of 140. I suspect that you didn't need to explain that to people here. Maybe if you were talking to someone with learning difficulties... There are many types of intelligence and each type is useful, given the correct scenario; so I have to ask superior to what? Superior to an IQ less than 120, I assume. 1
Recommended Posts