U dont get it do you , i simply dont agree with you , its not something i have to understand . I understand the concept of IQ perfectly , and i believe it fails dramatically (dramatic failure is what made me choose the SYMBOLIZED 1%) . I ask you for the 3rd time , how does it prove the learning ability . You show me one damn question/item that shows in whatever iq test u want that shows how one'learning ability is . Thats the 3rd time I ask i , and its the last . If u cnat show me i think we're both know where we're at . I dont agree a genius having ur little 150 IQ , a genius could have just as well an IQ of lets say 80 , because the whole damn tetsts dont prove a one thing . Please show me otherwise if you can , u cant . You ask weither it is coincedence , i dont even agree on ur premis , whitch is somebody with higher IQ mastering something faster/easier than somebody with low . And again about 1% , its just symbolizing the isnignificance of IQ Oh and i dont agree with EQ as well , just so u know . Iq tests are based on education/skoolsystem/college levels , people who perform good in skools will perform good on IQ tests , it says little about intelligence , since intelligence has little to do with performing in skool , and even learning capabillity , the thing closest to "education" , has little to do with performing in skool . And them preforming better in college relies on their learning capabillity , how do you prove such a thing ? How about MEMORY . What if i am dumb as fuck in absolutely everything , but i simplyu memomirize evrything perfectly .....im an A studentgraduading cum laude then , am i not ? Or at least u must agree with me that i WILL perform in such a way u would call it "good" . Life may be all about tests , but thats a whole different subject . All these tests are incorrent and kind of sad , and actually a shame for modern science . A classic case of false empirical application . People just start adding all sorts of crap thinking they have this great result , its bullshit . And u shouldn compare me with SAT criticizers since i dont even know what SAT is , ur generalization about a person u know from 3 sentences are SAD . IQ=SAD concept .
First thing: you seriously need to work on your sentence structure and punctuation. Now, let's move on to the good stuff... I've explained it twice so far and still you have difficulty understanding: I won't bother trying a third time. Also, it's disappointing that you have to invent a number to make it look like you have a more or less good position to stand on. My examples are real-life observations and even though it doesn't make them valid right away, it's much better than your nagging that everything but your voice is wrong. I'm sorry Allah, you lost this battle. Better luck next time...
What do I require my writings to be in this sense A)clear for me B)readable for u to me they are clear , and it seems that u got through the complications involved with my sentence structure etc . Do i care to make things easier for you ? No i do not . So I suggest u stop reading what i write if u cannot find peace knowing this will not change . again , no argument to be found ......and hey , dont steal my 3 time concept , by actually trying to quit one sooner than me . Oh well....u probably dont even know what im talking about . You here self claim the invalidity of ur arguments , so id say my point is clear even to you . And you know whats nagging ? .....telling u that u cant hear my voice but can only read my typing . First of all I find discussions always in purpose of achieving knowledge more superior than the knowledge one enters it in . In no way do I recognize ur little "I win" concepts implied by such things as "battles" . And thanks for calling me your superior being and God , i appreciate it alot .....support from "those down there" is always a nice thing . But lets end this little discussion since u bring in no arguments in any way . So id like to ask anyone else , who can show me the relevance of the "iq concept" in relation to that what is intelligence (and learning abillity as it was specified in here) ? Id say thats far more interesting than discussing something yet to be proven relevant for compare .
I like your approach to debate, Allah's_Mathematics. You should go in wanting to increase your knowledge, instead of 'winning or loosing'. I don't consider a change of mind a loss. To the contrary, it's a sweeter victory than comming out with a 'W' tattoed on my forehead all the time. As for your little argument, I'm not trying to involve myself.
Blah blah, yeah yeah... "You're wrong, I'm right." "I'm right, you're wrong." Ad infinitum ... and the circle of life continues. You might be right after all: your difficulty in understanding proves that somehow, IQ must not help or show learning ability because by now you should have noticed how erroneous you really are. Congratulations, we have a weiner. PS. This is my last post. Have fun replying...
Elbaz a change of mind is always a gain in some knowledge , and when it is true knowledge , it was a good change of mind . That is why I want to know how in gods name the IQ concept identifies with intelligence , if I would have knowledge of such a id be done with all my epistemological bullshit , and i could just go around calculating who's smart and who's dumb based on a certain formula , man that'l b great . Its to bad this argument is to little for you to get involved in , perhaps you know stuff i dont , i could learn from it and well , ur advantage would be to know that u have tought a person something , if that satysfies u in any way . Untill sofar I havent hear one single argument , even approaching the proposed suggestion , or assumption at least , to achieve a fase in whitch people actually cmpare and discuss matters in a relevant way . Cuz if not .........i suggest my dickhead-o-meter , i came up with . It shows somebody having a certan dickhead quotient , lets call it DQ , based on the first 5 letters of one's actual statement numerologically measured . The higher u get , the more ur dickhead quotient is . So hows ur dickhead quotient guys , mine sux really , im not such a dickhead afterall , i had a 34 (achang) , while the max possible score is 130 , but we here at the dickhead-o-meter services estimate ugly people like martin luther or immanuel kant to have had score of 894 and 926Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!confused: :m: ) Dikhead-Quotient respectively . Hey , how the way is it possible each time i take another dickhead-o-meter test i end up with different results ? Oh man.....the more i think about this shit , the IQ-sect believers/followers/disciples are not just simply of low IQ as they would say themselves IF the concept would have ANY meaning , but perhaps mentally ill or just MAD or something . Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
IQ tests were designed specifically to predict school grades. The designers of the test intended not to define or measure global intelligence, but to select, for predictive purposes, a series of mental tasks that older children, on average, did better on than younger children, and that children with satisfactory school grades did better on than children with poor school grades. The IQ, by this definition, incorporates non-cognitive components such as attention span (take, for instance, the "Freedom From Distractability" index on the WISC), in addition to being presumptively based on a limited school format rather than on global mental ability. A child who scores below the 2nd %ile (WISC 70) on an IQ test *and* is failing in school (*both* conditions must be met) is considered for placement in a special education program wherein the child receives more attention and is administered a study regime that better matches his or her needs. IQ tests generally do their job well. A sizeable sample of children who score 130 on average will get better grades in school than a group of children who score 90 on average, all other salient variables being controlled. (An IQ of 90 is in the average range, by the way.) IQs are also the most valid known predictor of vocational and socioeconomic success. They were not designed to predict these things, but they do. IQs correlate best, though, with achievement test scores. Mensa once accepted SATs, GREs, ACTs, and certain military tests for admission, though they don't anymore; they still accept the LSAT, but I suppose it's only a matter of time before that test undergoes some incremental change that Mensa decides they don't like. We might ask whether IQs are more defensible than college-level achievement test scores for Mensa's purposes. Consider that David Wechsler, the designer of the most commonly used IQ tests in America, strongly advised against the use of his tests to diagnose "giftedness" (IQ 130+), suggesting that such high-range scores were prone to pitfalls of accuracy, of which basic unreliability was only one. The book "Emotional Intelligence" basically says that if you take a group of people whose SATs are roughly the same, then the variable of EQ, being uncontrolled in that group of people, will be found to correlate better with their scholastic success than their SATs will. "No shit, Sherlock," as the goofy old retort goes. The SATs in the author's study are in a RESTRICTED RANGE, while the EQs are not. In such conditions, EQs will correlate "better" with college grades than SATs will, but ONLY because of the restriction of the range of SATs. For a more authoritative explanation of the "Emotional Intelligence" folly, ask a psychology professor or statistician. The basic idea is that if you include the entire range of SATs in your study instead of the SATs of Ivy-League students only, most of which are at least 1200, then the SAT *will* predict scholastic success better than the EQ test will. The author of "Emotional Intelligence" is not taken seriously by the psychological community.
"justagirl" wrote: > the triple nine accepts these test and scores as admission and > pretty much all other test are considered meaningless as an > accurate reflection of your IQ. I am a member of the Executive Committee of the Triple Nine Society. http://www.triplenine.org Tests that aren't on our list of qualifying scores may be poorly constructed, but they may also simply not discriminate at our qualifying level or be so new that we haven't heard of them yet. > These days though there even seems to be a debate on what > a genius level is..Mensa has used 132 on their test and I hear > 140 thrown around alot. There is no official "genius level" IQ, and IQs are reported on different scales, so it's a little tricky to say much about this. However, people who do groundbreaking scientiifc work generally score at the 99.99th percentile or above in general intelligence. > Chris Langan which they say has the higest IQ in the world is > around 200 as he went off all of the charts and they were left > to guess. Langan's claim rests on his score on Ronald K. Hoeflin's Mega Test, but the real ceiling of the Mega is far lower than that and Langan didn't make a perfect score. He's definitely a very smart guy but he's got some very screwy ideas. See my replies to him in *Noesis*, the journal of the Mega Society: http://www.megasociety.org > But to show you how meaningless most of this is, he is a > bouncer that's just getting by but he has written some > impressive articles. That's not evidence of the meaninglessness of anything but the standards by which society selects people for highly-remunerated jobs. "Fair compensation for genius is wealth." However, Langan's work is impressive only to those who fall for a lot of fancy words without real content. Langan's stuff is full of undefined neologisms; he's so vague that it's impossible to pin him down to any empirically-verifiable proposition. There are a number of different high-IQ societies with different qualifying percentiles, differerent levels of competence in setting their qualifying test scores, different organizational philosophies, and different levels of activity. For more information, see: http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/index.html Kevin Langdon http://www.polymath-systems.com
My IQ is pretty low cuz I am drunk. So what? Who cares anyway. BTW, how many IQ threads are there? So far I counted about five...
As far as I observed it, the IQ is normally used to boost someones ego, and I do know people who are supposed to have a high IQ, but if you ask me, their are just plain dumb. So yes, IQ is subjective, and I do not think that there is much use for all those test, except for intellectual masturbation of course.
> Eggo > Junior Member (2 posts) 04-01-03, 04:17 AM > My WAIS-3 Full Scale IQ (psychologist tested) was 142, with > subtest scores ranging from average to high. I took that test > because I was a psychology student at the time, and my > stodgy, conservative psych professor was constantly saying > "IQ this and IQ that and IQ everything." It was a mite > annoying, but it made me curious enough to try it. On the > Internet, I have achieved scores ranging from 137 (Classical > IQ Test) to 162 (iqtest.com). Most Internet tests are > unverified and should not be taken seriously. I find it > unfortunate that many websites tout their ersatz tests as > "real" IQ tests. Too many people are being led to believe > intellectual assessments that are probably inaccurate, at > least according to the traditional concept of IQ as a fair > predictor of scholastic and vocational performance. What is most important is whether a test is a fair measure of what psychometricians call *g*, the general factor that underlies the high intercorrelation of test scores based on superficially quite dissimilar item types (spatial, numerical, verbal, etc.). I agree with you about most of the tests available on the Internet, but there are some that are considerably better than others. See: http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/psychomet/testlink.html As high-range psychometrics has been avoided by the acadamic psychometricians, many of the better high-range tests have been constructed and normed by knowledgeable amateurs. (One of my tests, the Langdon Adult Intelligence Test, is very well known but it is not currently online.) > I joined Mensa for a year, and attended a few Mensa social > gatherings; I learned some interesting stuff, but the general > attitude there was snooty and complacent, so I lost interest. That tends to be true of those who attend the meetings of many Mensa local groups, particularly those in large cities. However, there are people worth meeting among the narcissists and unhousebroken boobs. > The journals were interesting to read, though. I might join > again in the future, but I'm not too interested. There are interesting journals published by the Triple Nine (99.9th percentile), Prometheus (99.997th), and Mega (99.9999th) societies, and subscriptions are available to nonmemebers of the societies. Contact information for all the societies can be found at: http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/hiqsocs1.html > I'm sure some educational institution might have a "Mensa > scholarship," but I'm not familiar with any such program. Mensa itself has a very modest scholarship program. > Some people use their Mensa membership to impress job > interviewers, but I find that tactic redundant. If you have > an IQ score report, and your prospective employer would > be impressed by such things, then just show them that. Good point. But, unfortunately, there's not much demand for abstract reasoning ability, despite the fact that it's why we're not living in caves any more. > My humble reply to a few previous achievement flaunters > on this thread: a perfect SAT Math score is way out of > my league (I only got 650 on the GRE-Q), and I don't have > much of an aptitude for chess. My abilities lie elsewhere. I > realize that intellectual functioning is multi-dimensional, > and that comparisons between people on the basis of > general IQ scores can be misleading. Say, for instance, > that someone's IQ was 20 points below mine. That person > might still make a better engineer or mathematician (or > whatever) than me, being more proficient in certain narrow > abilities. Most abilities, come to think of it, are narrow. > You find your particular strengths, and use them. There are two sides to this question. On one hand, there are separate mental and physical *g* factors. But on the other, with respect to *cognitive* ability, the ability to perform abstract reasoning tasks, it turns out, statistically, that the bulk of the variance on these tests comes from a single, unitary factor. I suspect that there will turn out to be a separate emotional *g* as well, despite the fact that the state of the art of testing "emotional intelligence" is very primitive. See my review of Danile Goleman's bestseller *Emotional Intelligence* at: http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/essayrev/emintrev.html Kevin Langdon http://www.polymath-systems.com
I took an intelligence test before. I was suprised when it came back negative. I wanted to take it again. So I did, and it came back O- . . .
> Cris > In search of Immortality (5,126 posts) 03-14-02, 08:34 AM > It is worth pointing out that practice at such tests does in fact > improve your scores, not surprising huh? The better tests have very high test/retest correlations. Second scores tend to be within two or three points of the first. Practice effects are temporary. > But what does that mean? That you are becoming more > intelligent? No of course not. > So I wonder about the reliability and comparability of these > tests. The reliability of the better tests is around .9 and they tend to correlate at the .7 level or higher with one another. > And as expected we are each quoting our results, if we have > them. And the inevitable effect will be to put each of us in > classifications and assign labels. And that is probably not a > good idea. It would be a good idea to base the classification and labeling that is the business of everyone's intellect on sound empirical data and statistical treatment. For information about the principles of psychometric statistics on which IQ testing is based, see the resources linked from: http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/psychomet/psmlinks.html > I would rate someone who has a lowish IQ but works hard and > studies hard, much higher than someone who has a highish > IQ and wastes their life doing nothing. You're setting up an artificial dichotomy. IQ is important; working hard is important. > In terms of effectiveness in life it is more important to view > what is accomplished rather than just potential. But much more possible to view potential in advance. > I can usually tell the relative IQ of someone I meet. It is usually > the speed at comprehending complex issues, and in my industry > of computing, I see many such situations. And you make use of that knowledge, don't you? That shows that IQ must be good for something. > When all work equally hard then I do have great respect for > those who use their higher intelligence and I have no problem > looking to them for help. > I've also noticed that those who do have high IQs, tend to be > very tolerant of others, and present a level of humility and > modesty that I find very impressive. Yes. It tends to work that way. > I suspect that those who flaunt their alleged higher intelligence > probably aren't very intelligent. Often they're actually highly intelligent but tend to exaggerate about just how smart they are. A lie usually contains a grain of truth. > Probably of greater importance than your actual score is fully > understanding what you can realistically achieve in life, and > knowing your limitations. You can't know all your limitations without trying to do a great many things; in practice our knowledge of this is partial. But it's certainly important to understand something about the practical requirements and constraints that apply in the situations you find yourself in. > The temptation when comparing scores is for someone to say, > look I'm better than you. And there are too many other > factors to consider before such statements could be accurately > judged. It's a mistake to become attached to any one of the many facets of our human nature to the exclusion of others, but intellectual intelligence is certainly one of the most important human abilities. And because superior intelligence makes people uncomfortable the importance of IQ is actually usually *understated*. Kevin Langdon http://www.polymath-systems.com
According to http://www.iqtest.com my IQ is 135. Great! That is about 15 points higher than I anticipated. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ~Cory
