The Forum's IQ

[TinyBubbles]

I don't know what my IQ is, I don't really think such a broad concept as intelligence can be adequately measured by an IQ test, a better method would be just to look over the course of a person's life and see what choices they've made.

 

[Shaqie]

Last time it was above 140.

 

[jssanderson747]

*shrugs* slightly above average.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] I agree with your thoughts on IQ tests. To me, they're a lot like lateral brain teasers:

There was once a recluse who never left his home. The only time anyone ever visited him was when his food and supplies were delivered, but they never came inside. Then, one storm winter night when an icy gale was blowing, he had a nervous breakdown. He went upstairs, turned off all the lights and went to bed. Next morning, he had caused the deaths of several hundred people. How?

The solution tells you little about a person's intellegence. The way they solved it tells you far more. You can learn whether they are imaginative or linear thinkers. Do they have trouble concentrating or will they obsess over the puzzle untill a solution presents itself. Will they focus on the person or the problem.

Or if they will respond with "He didn't cause their death, he contributed to it."

 

[YourFavoriteNightmare]

It seems that people with Ni tend to have a high IQ. I would've expected as much, but it's surprising just how many people have IQs in the 130s range here. At least 4 and I can't really describe anyone that's posted as unintelligent. @YourFavoriteNightmare you might want to check this out:

http://www.businessballs.com/howardgardnermultipleintelligences.htm
http://www.literacyworks.org/mi/assessment/findyourstrengths.html

I'm 136 and I've been sitting there (135 when I took it at 4 years ago but now 136) for a couple years now. Interesting articles, I'm actually going to take the one on multiple intelligences.

 

[sprinkles]

I'm 136 and I've been sitting there (135 when I took it at 4 years ago but now 136) for a couple years now. Interesting articles, I'm actually going to take the one on multiple intelligences.

There's a margin of about +-3 points when it comes to the consistency of scores. One extra point in four years is not significant. You might have been actually 136 when you scored 135. Or you might actually be 135 when you scored 136. You might not be 135 or 136, you might actually be 133, or 139 even, but it doesn't matter because IQ does not use this level of precision.

Just letting you know.

 

[Radiantshadow]

A) There are different types of intelligences (spatial, interpersonal, kinesthetic, existential, linguistic, mathematical etc.)
B) Studies are beginning to show that the brain is actually plastic, which means someone with a "low IQ" could move themselves into a high IQ territory if they work their brain the right way. There's a really famous neurosurgeon in the United States who used to get terrible grades in school, until his mother made him read two books a week and write book reports. He didn't miss a week, and he'd eventually go on to become one of the premier neurosurgeons in the country.

Not quite.

a) There is no evidence for the multiple forms of intelligence proposed by Gardner, only the application of an intelligence applied to various avenues of experience, which is influenced by one's personality, environment, and neurological sensitivities that nudge and are nudged by one's choices. In spirit, Gardner was right: people's abilities and skillsets vary, we can do more than math and language. In practice, however, he was off the mark; discrete skills are learned expressions of normal neurological functionality.

b) IQ stabilizes in childhood and does not shift much afterwards. Neuroplasticity has been studied for decades and there is no evidence that it is possible to actually change intelligence itself in any significant way. The brain is elastic, its anatomy and physiology can and do change, but only so much, and intelligence is (unfortunately) not included. The "Baby Einstein" conceptualization of intelligence positing that nurturing forces can make people geniuses is a complete farce based on one methodologically flawed study that has never been successfully replicated. Furthermore, grades are not useful indicators of intelligence - they reflect knowledge and motivation, whereas intelligence itself is the raw potential and ability.

 

[sprinkles]

Not quite.

a) There is no evidence for the multiple forms of intelligence proposed by Gardner, only the application of an intelligence applied to various avenues of experience, which is influenced by one's personality, environment, and neurological sensitivities that nudge and are nudged by one's choices. In spirit, Gardner was right: people's abilities and skillsets vary, we can do more than math and language. In practice, however, he was off the mark; discrete skills are learned expressions of normal neurological functionality.

b) IQ stabilizes in childhood and does not shift much afterwards. Neuroplasticity has been studied for decades and there is no evidence that it is possible to actually change intelligence itself in any significant way. The brain is elastic, its anatomy and physiology can and do change, but only so much, and intelligence is (unfortunately) not included. The "Baby Einstein" conceptualization of intelligence positing that nurturing forces can make people geniuses is a complete farce based on one methodologically flawed study that has never been successfully replicated. Furthermore, grades are not useful indicators of intelligence - they reflect knowledge and motivation, whereas intelligence itself is the raw potential and ability.

Yes. IQ is fairly consistent, in theory, if full potential is correctly measured. Most people don't vary significantly.

However, the Flynn effect shows that raw IQ goes up by about 3 points per decade, mostly on the low end. This is linear as opposed to time, but is not linear in relation to the IQ scale.

Basically more people are scoring higher, but the highest scores always remain rare, which indicates that it's not an intelligence increase across the board, but rather a shortening of gaps. The average is converging.

[video=youtube;9vpqilhW9uI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vpqilhW9uI[/video]

 

[Radiantshadow]

Yes. IQ is fairly consistent, in theory, if full potential is correctly measured. Most people don't vary significantly.

However, the Flynn effect shows that raw IQ goes up by about 3 points per decade, mostly on the low end. This is linear as opposed to time, but is not linear in relation to the IQ scale.

Basically more people are scoring higher, but the highest scores always remain rare, which indicates that it's not an intelligence increase across the board, but rather a shortening of gaps. The average is converging.

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
the blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
the ceremony of innocence is drowned;
the best lack all conviction, while the worst
are full of passionate intensity.

Sorry, I really couldn't resist.
*Ahem* Moving on...

There is heated debate about the existence, nature, and causes of Flynn's research and I have not had the time to fully research it myself. If my memory serves, the majority of the Flynn effect is found in verbal scoring; when tests are decultured and made more g-loaded (i.e, more matrices), the Flynn effect vanishes. This gives rise to the environmental stimulation explanation.

 

[Majesty]

I still think that it's impossible to quantify intelligence because it's way too broad of a subject. Beside, nobody could ever agree on a definition. Of course a painter would argue that creativity is more important while the mathematician would say that logic is above all.

Proof: How come that all these so-called geniuses from Mensa can't understand the very simple fact that they annoy the crap out of everybody when bragging about their "high IQ" ?

More seriously though, having a high IQ doesn't mean that you're intelligent, it simply means that you happened to perform well in the test.

 

[Mary Shelley]

Proof: How come that all these so-called geniuses from Mensa can't understand the very simple fact that they annoy the crap out of everybody when bragging about their "high IQ" ?

MENSA : My Ego Needs Some Attention

 

[Radiantshadow]

I still think that it's impossible to quantify intelligence because it's way too broad of a subject. Beside, nobody could ever agree on a definition. Of course a painter would argue that creativity is more important while the mathematician would say that logic is above all.

Proof: How come that all these so-called geniuses from Mensa can't understand the very simple fact that they annoy the crap out of everybody when bragging about their "high IQ" ?

More seriously though, having a high IQ doesn't mean that you're intelligent, it simply means that you happened to perform well on the test.

It also means that you are more likely to get a college degree (whose usefulness admittedly ranges), be emotionally stable, be financially secure, live longer, and have the capacity to significantly contribute to one's interests. Irritating asshats with no self-awareness aside, that is a useful cluster of things.

 

[sprinkles]

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
the blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
the ceremony of innocence is drowned;
the best lack all conviction, while the worst
are full of passionate intensity.

Sorry, I really couldn't resist.
*Ahem* Moving on...

There is heated debate about the existence, nature, and causes of Flynn's research and I have not had the time to fully research it myself. If my memory serves, the majority of the Flynn effect is found in verbal scoring; when tests are decultured and made more g-loaded (i.e, more matrices), the Flynn effect vanishes. This gives rise to the environmental stimulation explanation.

There's probably something to that.

If we could actually get down to measuring g, maybe the Flynn effect would actually disappear. First we have to actually have an understanding of what g factor is and how to measure it though. It has been argued that g factor is not very meaningful because of its ability to vary between tests.

However if you manage to nail down g through strong correlation of many test batteries, have you actually discovered precisely what g is representing? I argue 'not necessarily'. Correlation tautologically will correlate.

If there's only one person in the world, and he is a scientist, and he finds his own g factor through correlation of matrices, the one thing he can learn about himself is how to make a test that he will score consistently on. He hasn't actually discovered what g is. He doesn't really know if he is intelligent or not in any absolute sense. His test is of no inherent value to himself. He can't derive anything else from it until other people appear to measure himself against, and if these other people all outscore the scientist who nailed down g factor, where does that leave the scientist who invented the test?

 

[Radiantshadow]

MENSA : My Ego Needs Some Attention

^ This should be distributed throughout the world.

There's probably something to that.

If we could actually get down to measuring g, maybe the Flynn effect would actually disappear. First we have to actually have an understanding of what g factor is and how to measure it though. It has been argued that g factor is not very meaningful because of its ability to vary between tests.

First off, I should belatedly add that I am a student. My opinions, though largely well-supported by evidence, can and likely will change, and are not representative of the greater psychological community unless explicitly stated. Now that the humility disclaimer is out of the way...

g is the estimation of general intelligence, which is essentially the ability to manipulate abstractions and patterns. I haven't done much research into the specific design of various IQ tests, but my understanding is that each tries to measure g differently and considers its components in differing lights, which clearly gives different results. If at first we do not succeed in capturing the essence of a phenomenon, we change the form of experiments and try again. Intelligence, and psychology in general, is multidimensional and difficult (read: likely impossible) to directly measure with a high degree of precision. Science is as much a process of trial and error as an epistemological method for discovery.

However if you manage to nail down g through strong correlation of many test batteries, have you actually discovered precisely what g is representing? I argue 'not necessarily'. Correlation tautologically will correlate.

We know what g represents; it is a man-made symbol, after all. The trouble is measuring and isolating its parts. Many scientists are devoted to this very task; unfortunately, they may not succeed until we have a more complete understanding of the brain, cognition, and consciousness, as they synergistically create the faculty of intelligence. The Blue Brain Project is a massive collective attempting to complete this task, if you are interested in further research. Just wiki/youtube "Blue Brain Project". They have already had some successes at virtually modeling the human brain.

If there's only one person in the world, and he is a scientist, and he finds his own g factor through correlation of matrices, the one thing he can learn about himself is how to make a test that he will score consistently on. He hasn't actually discovered what g is. He doesn't really know if he is intelligent or not in any absolute sense. His test is of no inherent value to himself. He can't derive anything else from it until other people appear to measure himself against, and if these other people all outscore the scientist who nailed down g factor, where does that leave the scientist who invented the test?

You venture closely to an argument of absurdity. The scores are not entirely relative - they describe concrete tiers of cognitive functionality that exist separately of our perception. To quote Shakespeare: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

Besides, a sample size of one is completely irrelevant and scientifically shoddy.

 

[YourFavoriteNightmare]

There's a margin of about +-3 points when it comes to the consistency of scores. One extra point in four years is not significant. You might have been actually 136 when you scored 135. Or you might actually be 135 when you scored 136. You might not be 135 or 136, you might actually be 133, or 139 even, but it doesn't matter because IQ does not use this level of precision.

Just letting you know.

Not surprised. It was different tests, so the point gained is meaningless.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=4108]Radiant Shadow[/MENTION]
I understand this and I know my example is ridiculous.

I'm illustrating the fact that g factor need not and probably shouldn't have any emotive or social value, other than maybe knowing what some people can do in a general sense.

Note that I haven't argued that g factor doesn't exist. I'm rather comparing it to something less exciting - like velocity. It is what it is and you can relatively measure it. If you have no surroundings, you cannot measure it.

Case in point: calling 130 IQ 'gifted' is as calling 130 km/h 'fast'. These descriptives serve little purpose. The fact that it is used for relative purposes without acknowledging the fact that norms are constructed and often lead to emotive behaviors in their adherents is what I have a problem with.

 

[Radiantshadow]

@Radiant Shadow
I understand this and I know my example is ridiculous.

I'm illustrating the fact that g factor need not and probably shouldn't have any emotive or social value, other than maybe knowing what some people can do in a general sense.

Note that I haven't argued that g factor doesn't exist. I'm rather comparing it to something less exciting - like velocity. It is what it is and you can relatively measure it. If you have no surroundings, you cannot measure it.

Case in point: calling 130 IQ 'gifted' is as calling 130 km/h 'fast'. These descriptives serve little purpose. The fact that it is used for relative purposes without acknowledging the fact that norms are constructed and often lead to emotive behaviors in their adherents is what I have a problem with.

Ah. I thought this was already established =) Numbers are symbols; they have no intrinsic value.

I attend an Ivy League university and see IQ-gloating all the time; it's quite ridiculous and, often, counterproductive to personal growth and achievement.

 

[YourFavoriteNightmare]

Now, this is my view. I may use "intelligent" as an adjective to describe someone who's more mature and intellectual and has a vast amount of knowledge. But, truly, I don't believe in intelligence itself. My rationale is this. Each type has strengths and weaknesses (1/2 and 3/4th function respectively but we can extend this to shadows being weaknesses as well). We each have a function and role to play in society (large or small) and that role is what comes naturally to you. We can argue about what the purpose of society is later. We have a function, a part, in making the world go 'round and getting through another day in one piece.
Each "intelligence" is really just a representation of something we're good at. So each test on a particular intelligence answers the question "How much are you like type XXXX?" Ridiculous. You have your own strengths, recognize your own and value those. And do that with others. I hate it when people say "I met this XXXX type and they are a terrible person. Insert example. Insert example. I hate all XXXX." First of all, one, two or even three persons aren't near a true sample of any type. Second of all, you feel that way because your way of thinking, feeling and perceiving the world are different. And different can be in different stages of development. Typology is all about understanding. Even if that understanding is as simple as acknowledging they think/feel/behave in contrast to you.
A ESFJ is superior to INTPs in the areas of organizing(with a preference to the interpersonal). Attending to every detail and being practical. This isn't every ESFJ but they are naturally geared for it. What if this was our "Intelligence" test? Would ESFJs and ESFPs become the most intelligent individuals in our culture?
Yet, I'm sure you take any IXTX with the same knowledge of Chess as an EXFX and the IT will win or at least lose epicly, masterfully. Not saying EFs can't be good at it also but ITs are naturally geared toward such a strategic, intrapersonal, quiet activity.

Okay, go ahead and argue you are superior to the rest of the world because you have an IQ of 180. But everything's balanced in nature. Pretty birds can't sing and the sweetest songs come from the ugliest of birds. Take Savants. Very smart people, no? Very precise memories and high, high ability in one skill. But that's the catch. One skill. Everything outside of that, plummets. Average it all out and what do you got? The same level of an average man. Point made.

 

[sprinkles]

Ah. I thought this was already established =) Numbers are symbols; they have no intrinsic value.

I attend an Ivy League university and see IQ-gloating all the time; it's quite ridiculous and, often, counterproductive to personal growth and achievement.

Yes it's established. I think it needs to be yet more established.

I have no problem with measuring and classification itself. It serves its purpose.

However it could be argued that the inscrutable nature of g factor and IQ from the perspective of the uninformed is what causes the damage.

This is related to a lot of absurd biases, and difficulties with symbology itself. There's the map-territory relation problem, where people confuse the model for that which is modeled, the dictionary problem, where if you don't know any words in the dictionary, you cannot understand the definitions - how do you learn the words then? Plus other issues with symbology and misguided attempts at 'intelligence' such as hyperforeignism and hypercorrection, where people try to be so correct that they end up being wrong.

 

[Radiantshadow]

Yes it's established. I think it needs to be yet more established.

I have no problem with measuring and classification itself. It serves its purpose.

However it could be argued that the inscrutable nature of g factor and IQ from the perspective of the uninformed is what causes the damage.

This is related to a lot of absurd biases, and difficulties with symbology itself. There's the map-territory relation problem, where people confuse the model for that which is modeled, the dictionary problem, where if you don't know any words in the dictionary, you cannot understand the definitions - how do you learn the words then? Plus other issues with symbology and misguided attempts at 'intelligence' such as hyperforeignism and hypercorrection, where people try to be so correct that they end up being wrong.

You are preaching to the choir.

We crave things to cling and attach meaning to. The call for personal glory and significance is a particularly potent psychological drug that easily transfers into an addiction. I would actually argue that the social climate in which intelligence and IQ are presented is more important than their complicated natures in determining emotive values. Demonstrate that one's merit and potential exceeds an arbitrary symbol - that what one does with the life and tools they have been given is by far more vital than scorning it for more - and the problem should solve itself. Unfortunately, there is a lot of pressure around the globe to be more than one is, to always strive for more, and to never be content. Respectful competition, between or within individuals, is healthy and fosters improvement; however, competition driven by unrealistic expectations is unhealthy, demeaning, and counterproductive. People are conditioned to evaluate themselves in relation to their environmental content (extrinsic motivation) instead of their own beliefs, desires, achievements, and aspirations (intrinsic motivation), curtailing self-actualization. It's a nasty process of misplaced priorities. But, I digress from the purpose of this thread.