Academically speaking, most likely 95th percentile, but intelligence is a lot more than academic achievements. I picked above average because I feel that my life experience has been fairly linear so far.
How exactly are we defining "intelligence?" Getting good grades? Solving ridiculous math problems? Being good at trivia? My grades were always pretty average in high school, and to a certain extent in college, but tested well with sat's, ap's, and mcat; I guess grades are indicative more of 'hard work' than anything else. I suppose my intelligence plays a big role in my career (or at least it's supposed to), but I really find a good chunk of medicine is just having a really, really good memory or studying long enough that certain processes become ingrained in you. Even on the diagnostic side, it's all about taking in information and remembering which characteristics can belong to which diseases, which processes can be affected and how they manifest, etc. It's really like memorizing the world's largest flowchart. But do I feel intelligent? I was never really all that great with math but if you asked me the incubation period for rubeola I could tell you based on remembering which slide number on which page of a printed out copy of an exanthematic disease class I had eight months ago. Maybe with intelligence it's not so much how you came to know the answer but that you got the answer right.
If I recall my undergraduate/graduate psych studies correctly, an IQ of 125 equates to roughly the beginning of the top 5 percentile (1.65 standard deviations above the mean for a one-direction percentage, assuming 15 points per standard deviation, which however varies from test to test).
I do well on aptitude tests (SAT, LSAT, etc.) and score higher than the top 5%. I can do a pretty good job at remembering some types of obscure facts. I am also very quick on my feet. I have a hard time remembering things like the names of restaurants I've been to, or the type of beer I drank somewhere (unless it was something I drink all the time).
A lot of my success at work is based on the fact that I can focus for a lot longer than the average person. I have an ability to be able to work long hours at a level that stays pretty constant from beginning to end. I also attribute some of my success at work because, as others have described, I have ice running through my veins and I don't get very nervous in situations that make a lot of people nervous.
That being said, I am not a well rounded individual. I'm good at what I do, and I even do well in trivia, but I don't have a lot of knowledge that is not relevant to my field. I am no renaissance man.
Had my IQ tested when I was 12. It was pretty darn high. I maxed the Army "IQ" test which is supposed to correlate to your actual IQ. Probably lower today as my wits dim with age.
Still, I don't think I am particularly smart in the sense of being shrewd, sagacious or clever. I often think I am a bit slow-witted. My "people skills" haven't been the greatest. I always like to say, "If I were really smart, I'd be rich." I now suspect I may have been (or am now) at least a borderline Asperger's Syndrome case. However, since the "aspies," as they style themselves, claim practically every man of genius who ever lived (and many other high achievers) as one of their own, at least I am in excellent company if this is the case.
I scored 760 on the GMAT (99th percentile) but don't think that makes me any smarter than lower scoring individuals. I just practiced enough that I became good at answering the type of questions they ask. I also have a very good memory and can recall many useless and trivial pieces of knowledge. Again, I don't think it makes me more intelligent. I am probably above average but who knows. More importantly, I don't believe being smart will make you more successful, rich, happy...
I've always had a hard time defining intelligence (I was a philosophy major in college). Does it regard knowledge, ability or some combination of both?
I'm someone who is pretty good at what I do, which is read, write, speak and analyze. I'm a law student at a top-14 school, and I'm currently in the top 10%. I scored in the top 98% on the LSAT, and had good grades from a semi-elite college - majoring in philosophy and economics. These are things I can do and do fairly well.
That said, I'm the absolute worst trivia teammate you could ever have. Sports, pop culture, historyÂ ---Â pretty much anything that doesn't involve computational or analytical skills and isn't precisely what I've studied in college or law school -- I'm sunk.
I can handle math through calculus and linear algebra, but that's about it - and that's really not very much. I was pretty abysmal at physics too.
But I've been successful by knowing exactly what I'm good at and capitalizing on that. I majored in basic-math, non-science subjects and applied to a professional school that admits students on the basis of grades and a test that requires you to solve logic puzzles and comprehend what you read.
I always like to say, "If I were really smart, I'd be rich."
I remember reading an essay several years ago that discussed the correlation between raw intelligence as measured by IQ and achievement and leadership. The author's contention which he supported with research was that there was a fairly low correlation between high intelligence (genius level) and being a good leader. He said that an important element of being a good leader was quickly selecting a course of action and pursuing it, and that the super-intelligent tended to see too many consequences and alternatives to be decisive.