IQ test do they prove one is more intellegent or less incisive than another person

[Alan McDougall]

https://www.quora.com/

 

Article below for you comments (Edited by me expletive removed)

 

 

Guys please stop posting that you have a 160+ IQ. Its really embarrassing for you. The chances of that being true are extremely unlikely. To be frank, I've noticed that only moderately gifted folks, with fairly mediocre achievement, seem to be interested in IQ. Also who cares? "I've got a 140 IQ"?. (Confirmed by a two day battery of tests by a neuropsychologist) and that didn't keep me from being scum bag and screw up for my entire 20s. I'm more interested in being a good person, than in how supposedly "gifted" I am. You should be too.

 

If you're truly interested in measuring your abilities, put down the internet quiz, forget the damn test scores from school, and go to a neuropsych practice, get the standard battery, and here's the important bit, take the results to a vocational therapist, and use the information to go out in this world and be happy, rather than worrying about some dick measuring contest on the internet. Then never mention your IQ in public again. Do you like it when rich folks flash their cash?

 

He come over as a bit of a hypocrite?

 

What do you think?

 

Alan

 

 

 

[Delta1212]

I'm not sure if hypocrite is the right word, although posting your own above average IQ in a rant about how people should stop doing that comes across that way a bit, I'll allow some leeway given the context, though it probably would have been better to wait for someone to actually bring up the expected "You're just jealous because you don't have a high IQ" argument that that was probably meant to pre-empt.

 

In any case, that seems fairly true, if a bit harshly put. Obsessing about your IQ and the IQs of other people is fairly pointless. Smart isn't something you are it is something you do. Actions are smart or dumb. People can do smart or dumb things. Without corresponding action, it's an empty metric.

 

Bragging about a high IQ you haven't used for anything is, at best, bragging about having wasted potential. Bragging about having a high IQ when you have used to it accomplish things is like Stephen Hawking bragging about his high school test scores. At that point, why even bother?

[Alan McDougall]

I'm not sure if hypocrite is the right word, although posting your own above average IQ in a rant about how people should stop doing that comes across that way a bit, I'll allow some leeway given the context, though it probably would have been better to wait for someone to actually bring up the expected "You're just jealous because you don't have a high IQ" argument that that was probably meant to pre-empt.

 

In any case, that seems fairly true, if a bit harshly put. Obsessing about your IQ and the IQs of other people is fairly pointless. Smart isn't something you are it is something you do. Actions are smart or dumb. People can do smart or dumb things. Without corresponding action, it's an empty metric.

 

Bragging about a high IQ you haven't used for anything is, at best, bragging about having wasted potential. Bragging about having a high IQ when you have used to it accomplish things is like Stephen Hawking bragging about his high school test scores. At that point, why even bother?

 

I agree, but do IQ tests help assess potential success or failure of an job application?

 

I also find it difficult to accept that Gary Kasparov the world chess champion with a supposed 1Q of 190 ( who has achieved almost nothing of significance) is more intelligent that the most influential theoretical physicist of the 20th century or even all time, namely the great Albert Einstein, with an estimated much lower IQ of 160?

[thatsneakyguy]

https://www.quora.com/

 

Article below for you comments (Edited by me expletive removed)

 

 

Guys please stop posting that you have a 160+ IQ. Its really embarrassing for you. The chances of that being true are extremely unlikely. To be frank, I've noticed that only moderately gifted folks, with fairly mediocre achievement, seem to be interested in IQ. Also who cares? "I've got a 140 IQ"?. (Confirmed by a two day battery of tests by a neuropsychologist) and that didn't keep me from being scum bag and screw up for my entire 20s. I'm more interested in being a good person, than in how supposedly "gifted" I am. You should be too.

 

If you're truly interested in measuring your abilities, put down the internet quiz, forget the damn test scores from school, and go to a neuropsych practice, get the standard battery, and here's the important bit, take the results to a vocational therapist, and use the information to go out in this world and be happy, rather than worrying about some dick measuring contest on the internet. Then never mention your IQ in public again. Do you like it when rich folks flash their cash?

 

He come over as a bit of a hypocrite?

 

What do you think?

 

Alan

 

 

 

 

But dick measuring contests are the backbone of internet fora.

[John Cuthber]

"Guys please stop posting that you have a 160+ IQ."
I hadn't noticed that anyone was.

[Arete]

I've never met an actual scientist who cared about IQ scores. I don't actually know my IQ and don't really have any desire to.

 

IQ measures a small subset of analytical intelligence that has been demonstrated to be culturally biased. So, determining if it's useful depends on the use it's being put to. As a measure of general intellect, I'd say its utility is limited.

 

Also, another issue is that it's simply a test score. One may do an IQ test when feeling unwell and score low, then repeat the test on a better day and score high. I'm not sure why people describe themselves as "having" an IQ of XXX like it's a fixed score you have for the rest of your life.

 

Furthermore, most people bragging about their IQ on the internet seem to demonstrate that they lack a basic understanding of normalized scores in general. IQ is normalized, or as my undergrads might say, "graded on a curve". The mean of the distribution is fixed at 100, and the standard deviation is fixed at 10. This has two major implications:

 

1) Any IQ score is relative to the group the score is normalized to. A high IQ among a sample of dunces might not be worth much, and an average IQ at among an elite group of intellectuals might be quite impressive.

 

2) We can quickly and easily determine the probability of observing a given IQ score, which, for the more outlandish claims, gives a pretty good indication if someone is telling porkies. For example, the probability of observing a score of 140 is approximately 3 x 10^-5, so about 1 in every 30,000 people will have an IQ of 140 or higher. For an IQ of 160, the probability is less than 1 x 10^-10, so considerably less than one in a million.

 

For what it's worth, a lot of the crackpots that show up here claim a high IQ, so it certainly doesn't prevent you saying or believing stupid things, or make you a strong critical thinker.

[John Cuthber]

 

Furthermore, most people bragging about their IQ on the internet seem to demonstrate that they lack a basic understanding of normalized scores in general. IQ is normalized, or as my undergrads might say, "graded on a curve". The mean of the distribution is fixed at 100, and the standard deviation is fixed at 10. This has two major implications:

 

The SD is not fixed at 10.

So, before you go calling people liars, perhaps you should check your facts.

Estimates vary between about 13 and 15.

If it's 15 then an IQ of 160 or more is a 4 sigma outlier with odds of about 1 in 16000. Unlikely, but possible- especially when you consider how the tests are biassed.

Also, it's not a normal distribution- though it's pretty close for most people. I doubt there are exactly as many folks with 160 IQs as with 40 and if the distribution isn't symmetrical then it's not normal.

 

The system is pretty much meaningless- it measures your ability to do IQ tests.

It was probably just about fit for its original purpose- spotting those schoolchildren who were falling behind so they could be given extra help- but it's a daft thing to brag about.

 

Also, I don't think you are right about this " Any IQ score is relative to the group the score is normalized to. A high IQ among a sample of dunces might not be worth much, and an average IQ at among an elite group of intellectuals might be quite impressive. "

They are normalised- in principle,to the whole human population (though in practice, rather badly so- because of cultural effects).

[Raider5678]

Wait a second, how are the test biased?

 

I did have an I.Q. test in 3rd grade, I got 136! Yayayayayay! I can see patterns!!!!!

Who cares? I mean, sure, it means your analytical process is better/faster then other people, but does that mean your smart? It doesn't automatically teach you another language, or teach you molecular physics(or in my case, grammar.) If it means something to you, good for you. If it doesn't it don't matter. Nobody else really cares, so brag all you like, nobody will mind unless your being annoying with it. That's my opinion on it.

https://www.quora.com/

 

Article below for you comments (Edited by me expletive removed)

 

 

"I've got a 140 IQ"?. (Confirmed by a two day battery of tests by a neuropsychologist) and that didn't keep me from being scum bag and screw up for my entire 20s. I'm more interested in being a good person, than in how supposedly "gifted" I am. You should be too.

 

Doing a little bit of phycology, this is what I'm thinking.

 

(Confirmed by a two day battery of tests by a neuropsychologist)

He seems to have left his "rant" mode when typing this part. Hes much more calm and collective, but then again, that might not mean anything. If it does mean anything, it means he was once one of those who was proud of his I.Q. Score, and may still be.

scum bag screw up for my entire 20s

Hes back in "rant" mode, and he's downing himself. Like self - punishment of some sort. Mad at himself. You should get the picture.

 

 

supposedly "gifted" I am. You should be too.

 

This is an odd part. It seems to conflict what I first thought on him, but I stay with my original thoughts. He was once proud of his I.Q. It mattered to him. The fact alone that he grew up and thinks he did terrible in life is a testament to that.

[John Cuthber]

Wait a second, how are the test biased?

 

Lets start with the crassly obvious.

Do you believe that it is possible to be intelligent and blind?

 

OK, now imagine that your parents never learned to write.

How much practice would you have had at doing anagrams?

And if the solutions to those anagrams were things like "Bach" and "Holst", do you think your social background might make a difference about how easlily you solved them?

[Alan McDougall]

Guys I hope you don't think it was me claiming an IQ of 140 it was the person who wrote the article OK!

 

As for my IQ it is 55?

 

Alan

[Alan McDougall]

https://www.quora.com/

Not all highly intelligent people are psychologically healthy and well adjusted.

Highly intelligent people aren't naturally great problem solvers... aren't naturally able to express themselves clearly... don't like criticism... They come with good hardware, that doesn't mean they are naturally able to do things that are learned skills like express themselves clearly or solving a problem in a domain. They can learn them quickly, but their skills are not innate. They also think very deeply about the ideas they come across. So much so that they trust themselves over everyone and criticism is likely to be dismissed or considered wrong. It may very well hurt their pride if they are shown to be wrong.

The older they get, the more likely they'll listen to your criticism, but don't expect it to be much more than an external courtesy. If they are willing to listen and open to being wrong, they will argue the point for the specific reason of understanding - arguing is a way of testing the idea (they seem to have the attitude if you’re going to change their mind, you better be right).

They are quick thinkers, and are always thinking. They are able to hold lots of information in their head at a time and create relationships where someone their own age would generally miss them. Key phrase is "their own age". Someone older and wiser should perform just as well as a younger, very intelligent person in knowledge based situations. Also, their minds are always on, and they spend inordinately more time thinking about an issue than your average person.

They like ideas because they're minds are wired that way. Thinking and expanding their minds is enjoyable. Making connections is enjoyable. I would liken this to someone who's athletic that enjoys working out, or someone who is "emotional" who really enjoys the vast differing emotions in a life. The highly intelligent interact with their minds like those two types of people do with their bodies or emotions.

Because of their propensity to exercise their minds, they learn new things all the time and think they've understood it beyond their real level. That might be on a higher initial level than your average person learning the same thing, but the highly intelligent might very well drop the topic thinking they know it well enough to satisfy themselves. Someone less intelligent will be able to outperform them on such topics the highly intelligent has decided they know enough of. After they've sated their desire for knowledge on a topic, they have a tendency to "Dunning-Kruger" themselves on that topic. Ergo, they are not an expert on everything, but will know a hell of a lot and think they know more than they do.

They seem to underachieve because of that lack of perspective on their own knowledge level more often than fully realize themselves.

They are poor judges of themselves because they have so little bearing on what average is in terms of intelligence. They'll easily rate someone with 15 points less IQ as the same as themselves. If they're told enough how smart they are, they'll develop an annoying ego and arrogance that is hard to deal with later in life (both for the highly intelligent and the people around them).

Intelligent people seem to make it through on the knife edge of life into intellectual success (meaning making money off their intellects). Most topple and sever themselves into two people - the highly intelligent person, who they truly are, that comes out every so often (when sparked), and the mind numbed person they become because working a dull job kills them just as much as anyone. (I always associated this “failure” with underachievement, and acceptance of it, earlier in life).

Those in the mind numbing jobs look at those who built the rockets to the moon and say “I could have done that” and then get wistful.

All of this is, of course, my opinion and is based only on my life's experience. I very well may have a poor perception of highly intelligent people, but those listed are very common traits among the ones I've seen, warts and all.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Alan McDougall

[thatsneakyguy]

Guys I hope you don't think it was me claiming an IQ of 140 it was the person who wrote the article OK!

 

As for my IQ it is 55?

 

Alan

 

I thought figuring out where the quote started was part of the IQ test.

[Delta1212]

https://www.quora.com/

Not all highly intelligent people are psychologically healthy and well adjusted.

Highly intelligent people aren't naturally great problem solvers... aren't naturally able to express themselves clearly... don't like criticism... They come with good hardware, that doesn't mean they are naturally able to do things that are learned skills like express themselves clearly or solving a problem in a domain. They can learn them quickly, but their skills are not innate. They also think very deeply about the ideas they come across. So much so that they trust themselves over everyone and criticism is likely to be dismissed or considered wrong. It may very well hurt their pride if they are shown to be wrong.

The older they get, the more likely they'll listen to your criticism, but don't expect it to be much more than an external courtesy. If they are willing to listen and open to being wrong, they will argue the point for the specific reason of understanding - arguing is a way of testing the idea (they seem to have the attitude if youre going to change their mind, you better be right).

They are quick thinkers, and are always thinking. They are able to hold lots of information in their head at a time and create relationships where someone their own age would generally miss them. Key phrase is "their own age". Someone older and wiser should perform just as well as a younger, very intelligent person in knowledge based situations. Also, their minds are always on, and they spend inordinately more time thinking about an issue than your average person.

They like ideas because they're minds are wired that way. Thinking and expanding their minds is enjoyable. Making connections is enjoyable. I would liken this to someone who's athletic that enjoys working out, or someone who is "emotional" who really enjoys the vast differing emotions in a life. The highly intelligent interact with their minds like those two types of people do with their bodies or emotions.

Because of their propensity to exercise their minds, they learn new things all the time and think they've understood it beyond their real level. That might be on a higher initial level than your average person learning the same thing, but the highly intelligent might very well drop the topic thinking they know it well enough to satisfy themselves. Someone less intelligent will be able to outperform them on such topics the highly intelligent has decided they know enough of. After they've sated their desire for knowledge on a topic, they have a tendency to "Dunning-Kruger" themselves on that topic. Ergo, they are not an expert on everything, but will know a hell of a lot and think they know more than they do.

They seem to underachieve because of that lack of perspective on their own knowledge level more often than fully realize themselves.

They are poor judges of themselves because they have so little bearing on what average is in terms of intelligence. They'll easily rate someone with 15 points less IQ as the same as themselves. If they're told enough how smart they are, they'll develop an annoying ego and arrogance that is hard to deal with later in life (both for the highly intelligent and the people around them).

Intelligent people seem to make it through on the knife edge of life into intellectual success (meaning making money off their intellects). Most topple and sever themselves into two people - the highly intelligent person, who they truly are, that comes out every so often (when sparked), and the mind numbed person they become because working a dull job kills them just as much as anyone. (I always associated this failure with underachievement, and acceptance of it, earlier in life).

Those in the mind numbing jobs look at those who built the rockets to the moon and say I could have done that and then get wistful.

All of this is, of course, my opinion and is based only on my life's experience. I very well may have a poor perception of highly intelligent people, but those listed are very common traits among the ones I've seen, warts and all.

...A lot of that was creepily relatable?

 

I'm always suspicious of statements like that that I relate to, because I can never tell how much is unique to me and how much is common to everyone (the "horoscope effect" if you will). But then, that was a point that was brought up.

[Raider5678]

...A lot of that was creepily relatable?

I'm always suspicious of statements like that that I relate to, because I can never tell how much is unique to me and how much is common to everyone (the "horoscope effect" if you will). But then, that was a point that was brought up.

All of it pretty much describes me.. Though I figured out that admitting I was wrong is easier then arguing what can't be true. Though it took awhile, I must have been a nightmare before 10 years old lol.

[StringJunky]

All of it pretty much describes me.. Though I figured out that admitting I was wrong is easier then arguing what can't be true. Though it took awhile, I must have been a nightmare before 10 years old lol.

What's it like to be wrong? Does it hurt?

[Alan McDougall]

Do you think knowledge can increase your IQ score?

[StringJunky]

Do you think knowledge can increase your IQ score?

Yes

[imatfaal]

Do you think knowledge can increase your IQ score?

 

First question on first google response to "iq test"

 

1. Which one of the five is least like the other four? Dog Mouse Lion Snake Elephant

 

That is a resounding Yes

[Strange]

And, apart from requiring knowledge of what those animals are, your answer might depend on whether you are judging them on the taste of the meat, whether they make good pets, how well they can swim, or which ones are good or evil in your religion.

 

(Hard to believe that some people claim there is no cultural bias in the tests.)

p.s. I have absolutely no idea what the answer to that question is supposed to be.
I assume it is elephant, for at least two reasons.

[Delta1212]

 

First question on first google response to "iq test"

1. Which one of the five is least like the other four? Dog Mouse Lion Snake Elephant

 

That is a resounding Yes

Elephant. It's the only one that can't jump, can't fit through a typical doorway and always has at least one foot on the ground while moving quickly.

[Strange]

I hadn't even thought of those! My reasons were: elephant is the only one that is not a predator/carnivore, the others are all "human scale" while elephants are HUGE (that overlaps with your second).

Edited June 3, 2016 by Strange

[Delta1212]

And, apart from requiring knowledge of what those animals are, your answer might depend on whether you are judging them on the taste of the meat, whether they make good pets, how well they can swim, or which ones are good or evil in your religion.

 

(Hard to believe that some people claim there is no cultural bias in the tests.)

 

p.s. I have absolutely no idea what the answer to that question is supposed to be.

I assume it is elephant, for at least two reasons.

The answer they're looking for snake. The rest are mammals.

 

But yeah, you could pick literally any of those animals and make a case for it being the odd one out. That's the problem with pattern recognition tests, frankly. There is always a pattern if you look hard enough. These kinds of questions are less tests of pattern recognition and more tests of whether you can figure out what answer a test maker wants you to give.

 

I always try to find ways of making alternate answers fit a pattern whenever I do tests like this. It's especially fun with series of numbers and shapes, because they're the ones people least expect their to be alternate patterns for but there always are if you look for them hard enough.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Delta1212

[imatfaal]

Perhaps the iq bit is being able to distinguish between all the possible and unlikely to discern the most likely in the setter's eyes - just sayin; IQ tests as Empathic Quotient tests.

 

I was a bit disappointed when given my score that the most obvious part of the webpage was an advert was for "Chakra Testing"

[Alan McDougall]

 

First question on first google response to "iq test"

 

1. Which one of the five is least like the other four? Dog Mouse Lion Snake Elephant

 

That is a resounding Yes

 

Snake! Of course I got it right first time due to me having an IQ of 280?

Edited June 3, 2016 by Alan McDougall

[Raider5678]

And, apart from requiring knowledge of what those animals are, your answer might depend on whether you are judging them on the taste of the meat, whether they make good pets, how well they can swim, or which ones are good or evil in your religion.

 

(Hard to believe that some people claim there is no cultural bias in the tests.)

p.s. I have absolutely no idea what the answer to that question is supposed to be.

I assume it is elephant, for at least two reasons.

I can out with the snake. It has no legs. Its the only one who smells with his tounge, etc. Seems obvious to me...