Any high IQ people here?
As a child I grew up knowing that school was something very mundane and standardized according to the norm. As some of you may know, the average IQ is usually 100. A doctor or lawyer will have 120 IQ. The higher your IQ the closer you are at attaining a label such as 'gifted' or 'genius'. The quotient of 'genius' begins at 140.
When I was about 15, I scored the ceiling on most abstract tests that my father took me to. That was around 160 IQ. In my adult years I took some heavy g weighted tests and scored pretty low. All I know is that I score the maximum on cognitive complexity and abstract measures of intelligence, with some fMRI scans indicating very efficient neural networks for intelligence. But, due to lack of interest in knowledge in my youth I remained very low on the g factor describing memory and knowledge. I don't memorize things easily and I have to spend time utilizing the Loci method or chunking or other tools at memorizing information. I have pretty much specialized all my interests in philosophy, mostly.
I have a question about my situation and whether anyone relates to it? My IQ is very high for hallmark features of superior IQ, and yet my memory of what symbolic representations by numbers or associative memory of analogous reasoning fall short. What should I do about this?
I plan on applying to a 160+ IQ group, called Promethean Society to chat with more people for intellectual stimulation and such. Are there any high IQ people on this forum and what would you have to say about my situation? I enjoy reading journals of high IQ groups like the Mega Society, called Noesis.
Thanks and regards.
When I was about 15, I scored the ceiling on most abstract tests that my father took me to. That was around 160 IQ. In my adult years I took some heavy g weighted tests and scored pretty low. All I know is that I score the maximum on cognitive complexity and abstract measures of intelligence, with some fMRI scans indicating very efficient neural networks for intelligence. But, due to lack of interest in knowledge in my youth I remained very low on the g factor describing memory and knowledge. I don't memorize things easily and I have to spend time utilizing the Loci method or chunking or other tools at memorizing information. I have pretty much specialized all my interests in philosophy, mostly.
I have a question about my situation and whether anyone relates to it? My IQ is very high for hallmark features of superior IQ, and yet my memory of what symbolic representations by numbers or associative memory of analogous reasoning fall short. What should I do about this?
I plan on applying to a 160+ IQ group, called Promethean Society to chat with more people for intellectual stimulation and such. Are there any high IQ people on this forum and what would you have to say about my situation? I enjoy reading journals of high IQ groups like the Mega Society, called Noesis.
Thanks and regards.
Comments (75)
Take up some form of art.
Try to persuade your farmer/owner not to turn you into bacon to buy more time. I'm sure they'll spot an exceptionally bright pig with the help of some other high IQ animal who can spell words.
I'm actually very dumb because I guessed all the questions on the IQ test. As a result, I have a very low IQ. :cry:
Me no understand question.
Would Plato have still produced his works with an average IQ?
I wonder, because the counterfactual almost doesn't obtain when you reduce their IQ's.
:rofl:
Mongo just pawn in game of life.
Long live the pawns!
I don't set much store in IQ tests though. Someone said "intelligence is the ability to grasp complex relations". That says nothing about the speed required by IQ tests, and it also obviously requires a good memory. The other important thing about intelligence that IQ tests cannot measure is the ability to see what's salient and having a good imagination.
It's quite remarkable.
Idk, the theory of forms seems abstract.
Which, incidentally, doesn't increase my regard for IQ tests.
Yeah, I notice you usually post interesting things about anything philosophy related.
Hmm, LSD and psilocybin, I tried microdosing LSD at college, and it definitely pushes you in 'some' direction to try harder or encourages some kind of creativity in effort towards aims and goals. I also took Psilocybin after college to reduce anger in my life. I'm pretty sure it helped with that.
I'm not sure how much of IQ is navel gazing or just ego inflation. I tend to think that the cult of individualism comes off as inflated in human civilization. Yet, it seems true that Newton, Spinoza, Shakespeare, and Aristotle had very high IQ's.
Ah, I haven't spent too much time reading it; but, I think I might look into it.
What are your thoughts about it?
That is probably true, although we cannot get them to do a test. I have read that Einstein's IQ was "only" about 160, but I don't know if he was tested or if it is an estimate. I remember when I was a kid I read a book that estimated the IQs of some of the greats. From memory (take the precision of the actual figures with a grain of salt, but I think my memory of the order is right), I think they scored da Vinci at 170. Goethe at 190 and Leibniz at 210.
I can't make heads or tails of it.
I suspect that part of the problem might be that he thinks himself so smart, he gets lost in jargon. He seems to mix theology with physics and argues that the universe is a language and that he has developed a metatautological system which can't be refuted.
So...
According to Wiki: Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability.(link)
There's a very interesting Quora page on "CTMU".
https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-of-Chris-Langans-CTMU
:up:
Thanks for sharing, will check it out.
https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/421234/christopher-langan-alt-right/
Yes, that's what I heard also. He actually is often quoted with saying that the cult of individualism is so highly regarded that he found it close to or actually grotesque.
Similarly, Newton stated he was peering through the shoulders of giants before him in his own discoveries.
Have you heard of John Von Neumann?
Thanks!
I'm not surprised by this at all. Note that this does not say that they are reliable indicators of other kinds of ability.
I will say this: intuitively, a person incapable of complex work in the real world is probably incapable of scoring well on an IQ test. It's also intuitively plausible that those who do well on an IQ test are more likely to be able to handle complex real-world tasks.
That said, is it not strange to fetishize tests that merely suggest the possibility of achievement as opposed to the achievement itself? Such tests seems like a cost-effective hack to me. It's cheaper to print 500 copies of a sequence of pattern games and crunch some stats than to give children opportunities to development and demonstrate their intelligence in more realistic ways.
I did a quick calculation. An IQ of 160 indicates that one scored better than about 97.72% of fellow test takers. This means that that roughly 2.28% of test takers score better than a 160 IQ.
EDIT: I mistakenly used SD = 30 as opposed to SD=15 in the calculation above. An IQ of 160 is very much in the top percentile.
In my opinion, a percentile score would be more informative and less misleading. It's not hard to do the conversion (https://onlinestatbook.com/2/calculators/normal_dist.html), but why not just percentiles to begin with? Or would that be too demystifying?
There's a famous book called The Bell Curve that argues all sorts of connections between IQ and abilities. The book has long since attracted a ton of criticism because it links race and IQ.
Quoting hanaH
I agree. Some people are smarter than other. Just a fact of life.
Quoting hanaH
I don't think it was meant for vanity. There's a horrible history of people misusing the IQ test (racism, eugenics). The test was originally used to help school children. I like what Steven Hawking said “People who boast about their I.Q. are losers.”
Quoting Shawn
I have, but I know little about him. I think I have a book by or about him somewhere on my shelves, but I haven't read it.
I can imagine practical uses for the test, like steering children through some system.
But when adults give it too much thought, I imagine they've never done intellectual work with smart people. When you are kid and no one trusts you with anything real, they give you a pencil and a test. In the real world, there are actual, difficult problems to be solved...as well as financial rewards for solving them (or the adoration of the curer of cancer, etc.)
I know what you mean. 'Genius' makes me think especially of artistic genius (Van Gogh, etc.). It's hilariously banal to apply this old word to someone who merely aces an abstract pattern recognition test. Obviously it's cool to do well, but still....
I've heard that Von Neumann was to brilliant people as brilliant people are to normal people, and it's the brilliant people who said so (and who else would be in a position to do so?).
Probably Von Neumann would or did destroy an IQ test, but that's trivial compared to the work he did, which is what surely impressed those brilliant people who could half-understand him (or rather understand him by taking much longer than he did to arrive at the thought.)
Perhaps.
Quoting hanaH
Exactly! The video I posted early, physicist Michio Kaku argues that IQ is merely "bookkeeping" ability. He mentions other forms of intelligence (such as planning and scheming).
Quoting hanaH
Yeah, and some problems require other brain abilities (besides IQ): coordination, organization, time management, rational thinking, etc..
Yes, he was called Johnny by his peers at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project.
It's amazing how quickly he understood the implications of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem's right after his seminar.
Just watched it. Nice vid!
Quoting Wheatley
Right. So the test, maybe good for some things, is maybe just overblown.
"Smith just cured cancer. Now let's see what he can do with an IQ test...."
Yeah, that's what I had in mind. I also am becoming more interested in economics and game theory...as something like the heart of reality...and that makes me relate to him (on the level of interest anyway.) I also like CS, and he was deep in that. A god among men, a superman, an anomaly.
Amen :up:
:clap:
Facts. Well said.
Who knows?
So, essentially your not happy with the test or criteria?
Most likely that and the well above average level of complacency and corruption in those classes. That said, I guess complacency and corruption could arguably be seen as functions of stupidity. :wink:
I don't know man. It's Jack fucking Nicholson, so who gives two shits?
It wouldn't be an intelligence test if it was about, as you say, "Quoting 180 Proof"
So, your argument is a non sequitur, no?
But, you do agree that what you describe as a competency test doesn't amount in any manner to psychometric IQ testing?
So, I take it your not happy with the test...
5:00 psychometrics is not useful for judging individuals. It's useful at scale (studying populations).
Predictive of what?
So, since you use the term, "high aptitude" I suppose you see this as non relevant to academic achievement? I mean, the correlation is pretty strong between the two.
IQ is a measure of a quality. Other qualities exist, which may enhance or diminish what success one with a high IQ may achieve. On the other hand, even the concept of "success" is at stake, or rather, a matter of individual preference, which is subjective, and is therefore not a good benchmark.
Some say success is the individual's ability at reproducing his or her own DNA in the largest number of replication. In this case, people with the highest success, and therefore the most intelligent, are Mick Jagger, Madonna (the singer / songwriter), several boxers and several basketball players. While the bottom of the totem pole of success are those with no DNA derivatives of their own; such are Hitler, Jesus Christ, most Catholic clergymen, and people who are born dead or are
eaten soon after they get born.
Sure, whatever floats your boat. Call it a stupidity test as you did, whatever that means.
Quoting 180 Proof
I filled in the parts in parenthesis. Are these tests actual IQ tests?
Silence is golden! :chin:
Admission tests to law school and graduate school. Pure IQ tests, to decide who gets in and who does not.
Proves my point.
IQ tests that score higher and higher are less and less accurate. IQ tests now also come in many different forms aimed at different groups.
We know higher IQ (g factor) generally relates to higher all round achievement but it isn’t necessary for high achievement (whatever that maybe) nor does having a higher IQ mean you’ll ‘achieve’ anything.
There is a lot of misconceptions surrounding IQ tests. The bottomline is they do measure something generally referred to in the field as the g factor (but it is not an amazingly accurate measure of g and we don’t even know exactly what g is other than to say the higher it is in some individuals the more it seems they’re able to solve novel problems others cannot or do so quicker than others can.
Really though comparing people in this manner is kind of pointless as it is like comparing the art of a musician to the art of a sculptor. We can roughly agree on what music is passable and what sculptures are okay, but cross comparisons only hold so much weight. A bad singer can be successful and a great singer can receive no success. Mostly it seems to be down to planning and hard work when it comes to success, yet for extraordinary success a latent ability and/or luck are key ingredients.
Note: By ‘success’ I mean creations and/or solving problems not ‘living a good life’.
I suppose ethical concerns might be raised (in particular) if it would all be on public record.
I'm guessing surgeon Ben Carson would get a good score.
:up:
Yes, both banal and arbitrary I'd say.
Shit, I always thought he was a fuckin' genius; and now I'm confused. :yikes: