Do you feel you are intelligent?

Originally Posted by HgaleK

Click to expand...

Tagut's response is prettier than mine would be. http://www.pnas.org/content/105/19/6829.full <<<Are they getting more intelligent?
Tagut's response has little, if anything, to offer in support of your arguments. In fact, it more closely supports what I've been trying to spell out for you. In fact, I'm increasingly unclear on precisely what your overall point is. It seems to be a moving target. I have been working from the basic assumption that your point is that IQ tests are "bullshit," or if not, highly flawed to the point of being meaningless as measures of any kind of intelligence. Is this still your general thesis?

Originally Posted by mehhhh

Click to expand...

I made a 1030 on the old SAT when I was in the 7th grade. Took it as part of a Duke University project called the Talent Identification Program. Having said that, I only made a 1320 when I was a senior in highschool. I admittedly forgot to bring a calculator. I got into South Carolina despite graduating highschool a semester late. That shows the low number of ***** given by me during my highschool career.

My younger brother is kind of the opposite. A born intellectual, he scored an even 1100 when he took it in the 7th grade. Five years later he threw down a 1580 as a senior and got a full ride to school. He worked harder than me and was always better with the math stuff.

I voted myself 'above average' but would put people like my brother in the top 5%.

well, sounds more like you didn't care...

Originally Posted by Don Carlos

Click to expand...

Tagut's response has little, if anything, to offer in support of your arguments. In fact, it more closely supports what I've been trying to spell out for you. In fact, I'm increasingly unclear on precisely what your overall point is. It seems to be a moving target. I have been working from the basic assumption that your point is that IQ tests are "bullshit," or if not, highly flawed to the point of being meaningless as measures of any kind of intelligence. Is this still your general thesis?
I don't know why I bolded the last line and then said Tagut. Looking at the argument and my stance, I've been trying to argue multiple things, mixing them, and then adding random things that aren't directly relevant. My issue is: One shouldn't be able to study for a test that is designed to get the closest thing we can find to a measure of fluid intelligence if it's fixed. The link was to a study that showed (to some extent) that fluid intelligence doesn't appear to be fixed, which is issue number two, but something entirely unrelated to IQ testing, and something already agreed upon. My issue with IQ then really isn't the testing, but instead the way that IQ is generally viewed. This has nothing to do with IQ and testing, but general misconceptions on intelligence. That being the case I was arguing nothing. In conclusion- nvm. Edit: holdup. I did have a few things in there that weren't resolved before I started. I've just been super ADD about it all. The above was just the latest. In order to avoid losing a bunch of things and getting distracted, I'll take them one at a time. -If an IQ test provides accurate measures of whatever it is measuring, why wouldn't the results of the second test be as valid as the results of the first. Both tests should provide "true IQ."

Full argument (I think- I may miss a few things)

-IQ test is designed to measure IQ.
-IQ is the closest thing that we have to a measure of intelligence
-Mensa provides study material shown to increase IQ by 10-25 (15 points is 1 standard deviation)

So, one of the following is true (or some of all of them), no?
-IQ tests do not measure IQ very accurately
-IQ does not provide a very accurate measure/approximation/whatever of intelligence
-Studying the Mensa material makes you more intelligent

Originally Posted by HgaleK

Click to expand...

Full argument (I think- I may miss a few things)

-IQ test is designed to measure IQ.
-IQ is the closest thing that we have to a measure of intelligence
-Mensa provides study material shown to increase IQ by 10-25 (15 points is 1 standard deviation)

So, one of the following is true (or some of all of them), no?
-IQ tests do not measure IQ very accurately
-IQ does not provide a very accurate measure/approximation/whatever of intelligence
-Studying the Mensa material makes you more intelligent

Or that your mental agility is in a constant state of flux influenced heavily by your current emotional, environmental and physical condition?

You could be good at math, but when you're pissed off you're going to solve equations slower than after a coffee and a *******.

Originally Posted by HgaleK

Click to expand...

Full argument (I think- I may miss a few things) -IQ test is designed to measure IQ. -IQ is the closest thing that we have to a measure of intelligence -Mensa provides study material shown to increase IQ by 10-25 (15 points is 1 standard deviation) So, one of the following is true (or some of all of them), no? -IQ tests do not measure IQ very accurately -IQ does not provide a very accurate measure/approximation/whatever of intelligence -Studying the Mensa material makes you more intelligent
Well of course, all measurements can be fudged a bit. In the case of IQs, people's egos demand it. IQ questions tend to come in a handful of discrete types. Obviously, if one has been prepped, and knows what to expect of the forms the questions take, one is going to perform better than a person who enters the test blindly. At base, intelligence is a subjective concept, and people make on-the-fly determinations of others' intelligence all the time without use of objective benchmarks. What we have in the IQ test is an attempt to quantify what everyone intuitively recognizes as "intelligence". Again, in trying to quantify it, one may disagree with the metrics of intelligence that are included or excluded (spatial reasoning, pattern recognition, etc.), or disagree with the way these metrics are weighted. Not to overstate the obvious, but IQ has nothing to do with achievement. A guy with a 190 IQ could very well just be a normal schlub who just so happens to be gangbusters at solving the NY Times crossword puzzle.

lulz @ almost 85% thinking they're "above average" It's funny; when you look at the research, you see that high IQ correlates with very, very little. So, even though I have tested at anywhere from two to four standard deviations above "normal" (that's what happens when half your friends are psych majors with pet research projects), it's done **** all for me in my life. Yeah, it has been helpful in my academic career, allowing me to learn the same material as "average" people with a bit less of a time/effort investment. It also facilitates deep, abstract thought. And I suspect that being a sharp guy is the reason I've always been inclined to spend a lot of time and energy following intellectual pursuits; it's easier to enjoy things that aren't prohibitively difficult. But, ultimately, am I better off for it? Not really; there are a lot of people out there who aren't as smart as I am, but are much better positioned in their professional/personal/academic/creative/whatever life than I. In fact, if anything, I might suggest that being a lot smarter than everybody else has actually come to be a disadvantage. Because school was so easy for me, I could get by without trying very hard; I got 90% results with 40% effort. Consequently I didn't develop the same work ethic, the same habit of putting my full effort into the things as others did. That works just fine in the beginning, but as one gets into the upper echelons of academia/certain careers/whatever, 90% is no longer good enough to distinguish you. The only scenario in which I could imagine my high IQ being absolutely necessary in my life is if I had turned my hobby/interest in theoretical physics into a career; that is an arena in which raw intelligence is a prerequisite. But I didn't go that route, so... I've often viewed having a high IQ as analogous to having a large penis; it might impress people who are underendowed-to-average, but the truth of the matter is that there's not much you can do that they can't.

Originally Posted by Surfrider

Click to expand...

lulz @ almost 85% thinking they're "above average"

you think youre top 5%, why wouldnt 85% of people who chose to respond think they are at least above 50%?

It's funny; when you look at the research, you see that high IQ correlates with very, very little. So, even though I have tested at anywhere from two to four standard deviations above "normal" (that's what happens when half your friends are psych majors with pet research projects), it's done **** all for me in my life. Yeah, it has been helpful in my academic career, allowing me to learn the same material as "average" people with a bit less of a time/effort investment. It also facilitates deep, abstract thought. And I suspect that being a sharp guy is the reason I've always been inclined to spend a lot of time and energy following intellectual pursuits; it's easier to enjoy things that aren't prohibitively difficult. But, ultimately, am I better off for it? Not really; there are a lot of people out there who aren't as smart as I am, but are much better positioned in their professional/personal/academic/creative/whatever life than I.

In fact, if anything, I might suggest that being a lot smarter than everybody else has actually come to be a disadvantage. Because school was so easy for me, I could get by without trying very hard; I got 90% results with 40% effort. Consequently I didn't develop the same work ethic, the same habit of putting my full effort into the things as others did. That works just fine in the beginning, but as one gets into the upper echelons of academia/certain careers/whatever, 90% is no longer good enough to distinguish you.

The only scenario in which I could imagine my high IQ being absolutely necessary in my life is if I had turned my hobby/interest in theoretical physics into a career; that is an arena in which raw intelligence is a prerequisite. But I didn't go that route, so...


I've often viewed having a high IQ as analogous to having a large penis; it might impress people who are underendowed-to-average, but the truth of the matter is that there's not much you can do that they can't.

Click to expand...

no whats funny is people who disparage iq tests and yet always have to get their score in somehow, like "well i tested at 175 but it hasnt done much for me"

I feel that my success in life is largely due to perception, not intelligence

btw even though i have a 12" long 8" circumference peen it has not done much for me

yes its been helpful in bed, making women *** harder and more often but ultimately am i better off for it? i think not

in fact having a member like a babys arm has actually come to be a disadvantage. most women simply cant take my manhood

and because its so easy to get a woman off i got 90% results with 40% effort. that is fine in the beginning but now that im in the Appreciation industry banging hot whores everyday for cash money its no longer good enough to distinguish me

I don't see why everybody thinks the above average figures on this site are weird. If this were a dick measuring contest and everyone chose "above average" and "top 5%" it would be lulz but if I were to make an estimate of the SF intelligence, I would put it close to where it is now (whereas I would probably put penis size at slightly below average as we get skewed down by people who need to compensate and I don't think we have any Appreciation star posters to skew us back up). SF is very self-selected and the level of discussion here makes it clear.

I would definitely place myself above average to the general population (and maybe even in the 5% group...my standardized tests at least put me there and I did well at a top 5% school). I would have trouble accurately measuring myself within my peer group or my company or my college graduating class...but against the population, I am quite sure.

It doesn't mean I have great social skills. I can be abbrasive, cold and distant, and I don't get excited by a bunch of the stupid **** that other people go "WOOOOO" over. So at this point I can see globetrotter's argument that at a certain point it tends to be detrimental to other areas of your life. Luckily, I don't think I am so smart that it is really bad and I am able to recognize my strengths and weaknesses.

I think if the seletion read, &quot;above median&quot; the answers would produce even more lulz. I am sure intelligence however you want to measure it is a log-normal distribution, much like income.

The three smartest posters on this forum are tagutcow, Foo, Don Carlos, and Vox (in no particular order). Yes, I am qualified to judge.

Been working with flashcards. IQ now up to 103.

Originally Posted by StephenHero

Click to expand...

Been working with flashcards. IQ now up to 103.

http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/

Working memory, homeslice.