Originally posted by ZahlanziI would say that is an accurate perception.
returning to IQ, it is only relevant to modern society. a kalahari bushman, being able to find water anywhere is considered to be a genius by his people. but when given an iq test he will score enough to be classified a retard(mentally challenged, special person for those offendable)
iq test only measure our perception on intelligence. that is why there ...[text shortened]... calculus problems might be an idiot when it comes to fixing his car, or painting a work of art.
Originally posted by joe shmoI would only add that you can create IQ tests relevant to the society and thet they do not have to be paper and pen tests.
I would say that is an accurate perception.
The "genius" who finds water has got abilities, the trick is to find an easy way to test it and to realise that this test will probably not be 100% reliable.
IQ's like most information can be dangerous in the hands of those who do not understand its strengths and limitations.
Originally posted by petrosianpupilIQ does measure roughly how well, statistically speaking, who will fare better in school. That's about it. For instance, you have Einstein with his IQ of something like 190 yet he did poorly in school but changed the world of physics forever. And there is Richard Feinman, who also changed the world of physics, was said to have only a 126, a bit on the high side only. Then you have other people with proported IQ's of 180 or so lke Bill Clinton who was a Rhrodes Scholar and could have undoubtedly done anything or any job on earth, mathemetician, Lawyer, doctor, musician, etc., but aimed for politics and did reasonably well at it. What will history say 100 years from now? Will they see a jump in the competency of his decisions vs Bush Jr or Sr?
I would only add that you can create IQ tests relevant to the society and thet they do not have to be paper and pen tests.
The "genius" who finds water has got abilities, the trick is to find an easy way to test it and to realise that this test will probably not be 100% reliable.
IQ's like most information can be dangerous in the hands of those who do not understand its strengths and limitations.
Or Lincoln or Kennedy? I suspect Clinton had the highest IQ of any president so far but what did that vaunted intelligence actually do to help the world that any other president could have done in his place at that time? It is said the present Bush has an IQ somewhat below average yet he has certainly got political saavy, which for better or worse got him to the white house, so what does his 90 IQ say about his performance as president? Not much I suppose, except possibly a lesser ability to see through arguments made for this or that subject by his staff. I would expect someone like Clinton to be able to read the stamp of special interest when someone presents a proposal and maybe do a better job of it than Bush Jr. Thats about all I can see where IQ would make much of a differance, and I could be even wrong about that.
Originally posted by sonhouseBush's IQ is NOT 91 as has been reported. That turned out to be a fabrication by some jerk.
IQ does measure roughly how well, statistically speaking, who will fare better in school. That's about it. For instance, you have Einstein with his IQ of something like 190 yet he did poorly in school but changed the world of physics forever. And there is Richard Feinman, who also changed the world of physics, was said to have only a 126, a bit on the high ...[text shortened]... all I can see where IQ would make much of a differance, and I could be even wrong about that.
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg30805.html
Originally posted by sonhouseAlso IQ's are less and less accurate the further away from 100 you go.
IQ does measure roughly how well, statistically speaking, who will fare better in school. That's about it. For instance, you have Einstein with his IQ of something like 190 yet he did poorly in school but changed the world of physics forever. And there is Richard Feinman, who also changed the world of physics, was said to have only a 126, a bit on the high ...[text shortened]... all I can see where IQ would make much of a differance, and I could be even wrong about that.
By the time you get to 130 (or 70) you are dealing with such a small section, that comparisons to normal human intelligence are very difficult.
Einsteins 190 IQ is really not valid. Who sets the test questions for a genius?
Originally posted by petrosianpupilMarylin Vos Savant🙂
Also IQ's are less and less accurate the further away from 100 you go.
By the time you get to 130 (or 70) you are dealing with such a small section, that comparisons to normal human intelligence are very difficult.
Einsteins 190 IQ is really not valid. Who sets the test questions for a genius?
Originally posted by sonhouseThanks for the name, I had never heard of her. I looked it up and saw "the monty hall problem" it looked interesting. It fooled me.
Marylin Vos Savant🙂
But her IQ is really an example of how IQ tests are useless at being an accurate guide at the higher levels.
Also Einstein never did an IQ test.
Originally posted by petrosianpupilThere are a number of high IQ societies, like mensa but with higher scores needed to get in. The mensa people freaked me out enough not to join them🙂 Anyway, the highest one is called 'the nines' or something like that, where you are one in a billion! I corresponded with one of them, a german guy who got a 199 on that test. Somewhere I heard Marylin got around 185 on the same test.
Thanks for the name, I had never heard of her. I looked it up and saw "the monty hall problem" it looked interesting. It fooled me.
But her IQ is really an example of how IQ tests are useless at being an accurate guide at the higher levels.
Also Einstein never did an IQ test.
It seems her 235 was a youth test, and they don't corrolate very well when you get to be an adult. So if you take a test at the age of 10 and is says you have an IQ of 200, it generally means that kid more or less equalled what a 20 yo would have done on the same test.
However, when you get to 20, you can't say now that you have an !Q of 200, you would perform like a 40 yo. It just doesn't work like that because of the brain peaking out at 12 or so. So when that 20 YO takes another test, it is bound to have a lower number. Not that all this means much, but just talking about the results.
Originally posted by sonhouseInteresting about the brain peaking at 12, I think that must be mainly because of brain speed. I don't think that real intelligence can peak anything like that early.
There are a number of high IQ societies, like mensa but with higher scores needed to get in. The mensa people freaked me out enough not to join them🙂 Anyway, the highest one is called 'the nines' or something like that, where you are one in a billion! I corresponded with one of them, a german guy who got a 199 on that test. Somewhere I heard Marylin got ar ...[text shortened]... d to have a lower number. Not that all this means much, but just talking about the results.
Einstein and Newton both had "miracle years" in their early twenties, where they did much of their truly creative stuff.