Some items to note: Thus, the modern IQ score is a mathematical transformation of a raw score on an IQ test, based on the rank of that score in a normalization sample,[12] Modern scores are sometimes referred to as "deviance IQ", while older method age-specific scores are referred to as "ratio IQ." The two methodologies yield similar results near the middle of the bell curve, but the older ratio IQs yielded far higher scores for the intellectually gifted— for example, Marilyn vos Savant, who appeared in the Guinness Book of World Records, obtained a ratio IQ of 228. While this score could make sense using Binet's formula (and even then, only for a child), on the Gaussian curve model it would be an exceptional 7.9 standard deviations above the mean and hence virtually impossible in a population with a normal IQ distribution (see normal distribution). In addition, IQ tests like the Wechsler were not intended to reliably discriminate much beyond IQ 130, as they simply do not contain enough exceptionally difficult items.[2] Since the publication of the WAIS, almost all intelligence scales have adopted the normal distribution method of scoring. The use of the normal distribution scoring method makes the term "intelligence quotient" an inaccurate description of the intelligence measurement, but "I.Q." still enjoys colloquial usage, and is used to describe all of the intelligence scales currently in use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ
This is interesting. Really. Who is the smartest person that is still dumb enough to hang out here at SF? Seriously, IQ tests have a place, IMHO, but are certainly not the be-all / end-all of intelligence assessment. There is a lot of talk, at least in the U.S., of built-in racial bias. I think that the more accurate take would be socioeconomic bias, nonetheless, "they" are still saying that the stanford binet series is strongly influenced by culture or education. This would seem to indicate that, at least in part, the tests reflect knowledge as well as intelligence. Still, as has been asked, what alternative is there? IQ tests were originally developed to help identify mentally handicapped individuals (or whatever the current PC term is), but have turned into "badges of honor" for the literati. Oh, well. Whatever. Personally, my IQ tested quite low in comparison with my scores on other standardized tests back in the day, such as the ASVAB (US armed services) and SAT's, etc. In fact, there was some investigation as to why the disparity existed. Of course, this was a long time ago, in the seventies, so I have no idea on how things have evolved since. Also, this was before I ingested all the drugs. Drugs are bad, k kids? :m:Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ... Where was I again? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! To digress for a moment, I also tested highly negatively for ESP. Which, supposedly, is a form of ESP. Again, whatever. As to actualized, or realized potential, vs "potential" potential, I do not think there is necessarily a strong correlation between IQ and "success", especially if success is defined as "earth shattering revelations" that change the course of history. I have contributed little of long lasting value to this world, but I have made several million dollars. It seems more a matter of motivation rather than aptitude when it comes to social contribution. As others have pointed out, those of us regarded as "intelligent" (by whatever measure) tend to be outcasts. At least in my experience. I personally know five people (one now deceased) with IQs over 150, none of whom could be accused of "living up to their potential". As to whether it is reasonable to believe that there are a half-dozen (or whatever) individuals on this forum with IQs in excess of 140, I find it totally credible. After all, where would you expect to find these people if you looked for them? Oh, for the record, average IQ score 147, ASVAB 99.99997 percentile, 1594 on SATs (when perfect was 1600). Who cares? It is not something that comes into play everyday, but I can relate to the points about communication. Both sides. It is hard to communicate sometimes, but to me, it seems more about the subject matter than about some intrinsic "communicative" ability. I have one question to add. Is there a genetic lineage correlation associated with IQ?
