Just, out of curiosity, let’s assume I scored “163” in Kindergarten. Wouldn’t that be off the scale according to your way of thinking, Wendell? It’s “simply unmeasurable”. Which is why I didn’t believe it in the first place.
On a different bend, however, my mother is a first grade teacher. She understands that IQ is a number that means next to nothing, also. She would definitely agree with Mr. Zambezi, however, when he states that IQ scores CAN assess relative intelligence. In her classroom last year, she had an average IQ of 83, and only one child above 100. This year she averages about 95. She has told me numerous times over the phone that this year’s class is much better, more intelligent, and much better behaved than last years.
Of course, a simple reading test can also tell the same things.
Bottom line: I am firmly convinced now that a standard deviation of 15 is close to correct, and that differences of about that much can make a difference.
But let’s all play Jeopardy and see who’s REALLY smarter.
And this all brings up another point: What is Intelligence? The Webster’s definition doesn’t work…it’s so broad, that one number alone can’t describe it.
So, in short, I now feel IQ has a limited function and then only in the broadest terms. I am content with how smart I am, and now must go to History class to learn more and thus become more intelligent/knowledgeable about the world.
“Enter any 11-digit prime number to continue…” Anon.
Just to clarify: Uncle Cecil’s IQ probably isn’t higher than Marilyn’s… those Guiness people are pretty thorough about their book. Nobody ever claimed that Cecil has the highest IQ in the world; what’s claimed (and true) is that he’s the smartest person in the world. IQ tests do measure something, and that something is correlated with how smart a person is, but they’re not the same thing. And I think that the above-mentioned IQ test web page (moderator, are we allowed to put up the link?) is published out of Lake Woebegone (sp?), where everyone’s child is above average :).
“There are only two things that are infinite: The Universe, and human stupidity-- and I’m not sure about the Universe”
–A. Einstein
You can spiritually earn those 3 extra points needed to become a super-genius, like Wiley Coyote! First, you must learn how to not let this bug you. Only then, will you have achieved true enlightenment. And then, you will find true wisdom about what is and what is not important! Then, my son, you shall have your 3 extra points!
And, until the rest of us catch up, please have patience with the rest of the average world. Just keep muttering this montra “Wax on, wax off…”
“They’re coming to take me away ha-ha, ho-ho, hee-hee, to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time… :)” - Napoleon IV
OK, so you got me curious. I decided to try this site www.puzz.com and take several of the quizzes. It’s just for fun and not very exact. I kept scoring 120-130 except on the quiz for Conventional Wisdom for which I earned a 150, the highest score possible. I always thought I was very conventionally wise, now I have proof. But what I really wanted to share was that my score on the math-based test that I took was right about where I would expect it, 130. I <b>knew</b> that either I am gifted in math or nearly everyone I know is a math moron. I also knew that I am not a math genius because I do know several people that are much smarter about math than I am. Therefore, I spent all of that time just confirming what I already knew. It was fun though. I think I have to agree with Jinx about the 3 points.
{{{In some college class, I remember being introduced to a six- or seven-axis intelligence schema. That is, there were half a dozen types of intelligence, each of which was orthogonal to the others, with no implied positive or negative correlation…}}}—Boris B
I was introduced to something similar about 3 years ago. A self-procalimed administrator dropped a 40 page outline of a similar 22-point schema on my desk and informed me that it was now policy to cover the material in all classes.
Oh really?
I put it in my file drawer and told her that I would research the facts and get back to her on the matter. Investigation revealed that it was nothing but her own half-baked and cite-less conjecture. The best of the collateral works that I could dig up were rife with citations from less than credible sources. I returned it to her with my findings attached.
The last I heard of her, she was teaching her material at a school of truck driving.
At best, such things are merely an index of creative expression–not the innate intelligence they purport to measure.
TheHungerSite.com “If our lives are indeed the sum-total of the choices we’ve made, then we cannot change who we are; but with every new choice we’re given, we can change who we’re going to be.”
Not being one to slam the folks at Guiness… they make a mighty fine brew, after all, but one of the reasons that Marilyn’s score is so high and hasn’t been topped is that there were flaws discovered in the scoring mechanism and the scoring was changed shortly after Marilyn was tested. My understanding is that it is patently impossible to score as high as Marilyn with the new rules, so there can never be anyone to have scores recorded that high again (sombody correct me if I’m wrong - like I have to ask).
As for on-line IQ tests, I’ve yet to find one that correlates with my results on the Stanford-Binet… though, admittedly I’ve not spent much time searching. The on-line ones seem to always yield higher scores. Given that my Stanford-Binet tests were administered professionally with follow-ups, I tend to trust it a bit more… not that any of this narcissistic, intellectual ego stroking has any relevance, whatsoever…
Isn’t IQ testing relative? What I mean is that the true measure of intelligence should include learning ability,long and short term memory,ability to do several tasks at once…etc. Some of the Engineers I know have been tested.One individual stands out clearly.I believe his IQ was in the high 140’s.He was scary smart…didn’t relate to people well…couldn’t walk AND chew gum at the same time.I would think a TRUE intelligence measuring test would incorporate these functions!
I’m not kidding about this: my IQ tests steadily dropped in score from Kindergarten for now. I was one of those “not measurable” kids in Kindergarten, “almost genius” in the 6th grade, a little lower om the 8th, and merely “above average” the last time I was tested at about age 17. Wanton drug abuse and a succession of knocks on the head likely only played a major role on that last one. Naturally, “Flowers for Algernon” was a favorite short story of mine.
Now think I score a “sleeps with his female housemate.” I suspect that in five years or less, I will rate a “lowers I.Q. of others around him.” That’s when they’ll make me the boss.
Thanks for the corrections on the precise equivalents of the IQ scores. I didn’t have a table of standard deviations with me, so I had to guess at the numbers from memory.
It’s not a matter of whether the (1 standard deviation = 15 points) or the (mental age/chronological age) is the correct definition. You can define IQ any way you feel like, since there’s no physical thing to correspond with it that it has to match (whereas you can’t just arbitarily change the definition of height or weight, for instance). The (1 standard deviation = 15 points) definition is better because the (mental age/chronological age) definition is more likely to change through your lifetime. Any definition is still pretty arbitrary though.
Ummmm IQ? Hmm, okay here is how it works, an IQ of 100 means you are equal to someone the same age. 150 means 1.5 times as old as you are. Really. That’s all basically.
So if you are 50 & have an IQ of 150, you have the brains of a 75 year old person.
I was using the wrong formula before. I’m amazed I came as close as I did to the right answers. Here they are again, this time I think they’re right.
1)Allanadale’s score of 163 is about one-in-85,000
2)Genius cutoff of 166 that he mentioned is about one-in-260,000
3) one-in-a-million IQ is somewhere between 166 and 175
4) Smartest human alive (among 6 billion): the area under the normal curve between 194.3 to infinity contains an area of 1/6*10^9. Exactly what IQ in that range to assign to the smartest living person, I don’t know. It seems logical to assign the number that has half that area to the right and half to the left. That number is about 195.6.
5) Number of people who would have to be alive for one of them to have an IQ of 200: about 69 billion. In that case, one person would have an IQ of zero. Negative IQs are possible when the population exceeds 69 million.
I’ve been known to be wrong so take these numbers with a grain of salt. I’m sure the numbers I gave previously are wrong, and I think these are approximately right.
Work is the curse of the drinking classes. (Oscar Wilde)
Several years ago during my teen years I spent a few hours being tested for my IQ. Having an above-average intelligence and an ego I was curious to the results. I scored surprisingly well, surpassing even my expectations with 184.
As I’ve grown older I look back on the test and question how it really measures intelligence as such. The identification of patterns and minor reasoning do not necessarily equal superior intelligence. If I’m totally honest with myself I have to say that I don’t think I belong that far up the IQ scale because my brain is anything but ordered or structured. In fact it’s quite scatty and prone to running off on tangents: fine qualities for creativity perhaps but symptons of intelligence?
For me a friend of mine who has a strong understanding of things scientific with greater recall is ‘more intelligent’ as such though it’s interesting to note he scored well below me.
And when it comes to the net versions of IQ tests my scepticism reaches new heights. Strange how nearly everyone I now scores above average on these things. The one I did recently even virtually asked the same question four times with different adjectives.
Intelligence, like so many things, is all relative. The real proof is more in the application anyway.
The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.
That could happen even with a well-designed test (which the Inernet tests generally aren’t). As a person with an IQ of 184 (or thereabouts), you are highly unlikely to have any reason to deal with people of below-average IQ, unless your profession calls for you to associate with members of the general public. Your friends are probably not randomly chosen, or representative of the larger population.
Work is the curse of the drinking classes. (Oscar Wilde)
Just delurking to say that there is a blip in the bell curve at either extreme. There are far more people testing at over 180 than would be predicted by statistics. Ok they are still rare but there are still more than ‘should’ be there.
There is a new Stanford Binet test being normed in the next couple of years. It should be released in 2003. I have heard this will measure up to 200 and I have also heard that is crap ;). It is entirely possible (probable even) that some of the kids who currently score in the profoundly gifted range (180 and above) will drop with the new test. The SB LM is an outmoded test but still seems to be the best instrument for getting high scores.
Someone said that reading was a good indicator of giftedness. Well, actually no. If a kid is reading at 2 that is a good indicator but it is possible for an exceptionally/profoundly gifted kid not to be reading until the normal age. Unusual but possible.
As a side note, ask any experienced psychologist how insane people score. Insane people get a perfect score on almost any test. Yep. Even the Minn Multiphastic Personality Test gives them a perfect straight line. No kidding.
But what I really wanted to share was that my score on the math-based test that I took was right about where I would expect it, 130. I <b>knew</b> that either I am gifted in math or nearly everyone I know is a math moron. I also knew that I am not a math genius because I do know several people that are much smarter about math than I am. Therefore, I spent all of that time just confirming what I already knew. It was fun though. I think I have to agree with Jinx about the 3 points.