Why a high IQ doesn't mean you're smart

[seax]

Anybody 'smart' wouldn't want the damn job.

Look at what we have now.

seax

[THE MATRIX]

Bush IQ is 120? WTF?

This should be Bush's IQ:

Bush's IQ = EPIC FAIL

Edited November 13, 2009 by wolfram&hart12345

[Ryinrea]

Bush IQ is 120? WTF?

This should be Bush's IQ:

Bush's IQ = EPIC FAIL

Lmao

[puridalan]

You might give him a lot of grief, but I certainly don't see that many invididuals volunteering to be president. Plus, the media shows a lot of things they do and do not do. Just saying

[cluey]

I don't think starting this about bush,nixon(don't know if that's double x or not) or many other us presidents is the point.Intelligence is not measured by an IQ test.We are a product of our enviroment......and all other factors that influence us play a huge part.Some incredibly stupid people are very cunning and deceptive.....and quite easily become successful due to this.I do also think that it usually takes a person with at least some intelligence to be smart enough to learn and become a more knowledgeable person from their experiences.

Edited November 13, 2009 by cluey

[shinkyo00]

Ok I'd like to add my 2 cents and perhaps set a few things straight. First of all, studies have shown time and again that I.Q. scores correlate well with achievement, generally. That said, it's entirely possible to find a person with a very high I.Q. who screws up. That's just the way the statistics are. The general rule doesn't apply to any one specific case and neither does one specific case say anything representative of the generality of these cases.

Assigning a number to any abstract human attribute is futile, but it should at least include more than just intelligence; a sort of MQ, or multi-quotient.

Factually, I.Q. does not translate to: "You are n points smarter than this other person, who scored n points lower than you."

Rather, it should translate to: "Your I.Q. as measured by this test is x, putting you at the kth percentile, meaning you outscored k percent of the population who took the same test as you did."

Since I.Q. is measured on a bell curve, the difference of even 1 point could mean the difference in rarity of a few thousand or even more at higher ranges. Also, I.Q. is the single best predictor of success so it most definitely is not futile. http://www.paulcooijmans.com/interviews/int_jonah.html <-- Last paragraph on this page addresses the issue of multiple intelligences.

It just so happens that I.Q. measures selective perceptual ability and logical and rational thinking, which is basically what intelligence is. It's the ability to make sense of things and then to maximize the utility of the outcome as pertains to one's goals, using the information obtained in the first place.

The notion that Bush's IQ is 120 is absurd. He would be lucky to hit 90 on a good day and nobody has accused him of being intelligent or "smart" as you put it.

Intelligence is born out of thought integrity and courage springs forth from love. Bush is the most corrupt person I have ever seen and he has zero courage.

How is it absurd? Conversions from SAT scores are as reliable for Bush as they are for everyone else. If it's absurd, then the problem is with the conversion table and not with the notion itself. An I.Q. of 90 would mean that Bush couldn't have gotten the SAT score that he did. Further, there is no relevant evidence to prove that his I.Q. is NOT 120+ so at best the notion of Bush's I.Q. being 120+ can be questioned on grounds of lack of conclusive evidence for it, and not because it's "absurd". Regarding "smart", it's entirely possible that his ideals and therefore goals were entirely different from those of the people who don't agree with his actions. In general, an objectively "smart" person is capable of achieving his goals. A kind of "smart" like planning for the greater good etc is only subjective, in the sense that planning for the greater good can be argued for or against with equal validity.

There are three main components to most comprehensive IQ scores: verbal, visuo-spatial and mathematical/quantitative. It could be argued that many questions, especially the verbal, have more to do with education than anything else (thus the need for 'culture fair' tests). Really though, standard IQ tests measure only a very narrow range of skills and abilities. 'Smart' can really be a broad, misleading term.

This is true for most comprehensive I.Q. scores. However, on "power tests" (untimed, unsupervised tests of extreme difficulty) like Ronald K. Hoeflin's now famous "Mega Test", the required verbal knowledge is not what is difficult, or anyone would be able to solve the verbal section using a dictionary or thesaurus. What is difficult about the verbal sections on these tests is the obscurity of conceptual constitutes involved in the analogies. This makes these verbal items more alike to the spatial items in that you're looking for a "rule" that best describes the connection(s). Otherwise, Cybele is correct in stating that many questions on most comprehensive I.Q. tests have lots to do with education and "smart" can be a really broad and misleading term.

IQ tests only measure how good you are at IQ tests. They don't measure how intelligent you are.

F

"Fitness tests only measure how good you are at fitness tests. They don't measure how fit you are." Does that make sense at all? It's called a fitness test for a reason. It contains the specific test items for a reason. I don't claim that I.Q. tests are valid for the same reason that fitness tests are valid. However, there is a reason people with extremely low I.Q. do not ever achieve anything requiring extreme intelligence. There is also a reason why people with extremely high I.Q. learn things easily and often are able to reason, abstract, and invent on a level far beyond the comprehension of someone with significantly lower I.Q. and you will never see a reversal of these roles.

I think they do measure certain types of intelligence fairly well. For example, visuospatial questions, which involve the mental rotation of 3d objects, test abilities that are very important in engineering. IQ scores correlate fairly well with SAT scores and the highest educational degree a person will acheive. The problem is, there are many different types of intelligence and IQ tests don't and can't measure them all.

I agree with everything up till the last sentence, on which I'm actually undecided. There is evidence for both sides of that argument and since I'm neither a statistician nor a psychometrician by training, I can't say anything except maybe that I favor the single measurement of "g" more than multiple intelligences. It seems multiple intelligences complicates the issue and violates the principle of Occam's Razor. Nonetheless, here's a link that talks, in brief, about the theory of multiple intelligences. Last paragraph: http://www.paulcooijmans.com/interviews/int_jonah.html

I never thought those tests measured intelligence. I've seen some people with high IQs who were pretty dang dumb.

I take it you know these people well enough to know that first, they're not lying about their I.Q. and second, the reported I.Q. is preferably a deviation I.Q. on a 15 or 16 point scale and third, that dumb refers to said people being unable to achieve goals even if they tried. Otherwise, your personal experience is no better an indicator of the invalidity of these tests than another's personal experience that claims otherwise.

I agree, my IQ is 127, and I can barely answer the questions on Are you smarter than a 5th grader

The questions on the show are culturally loaded and also, many of the questions are definition based, which means strictly speaking, it does not matter how smart you are if you don't know the definition. If for example you didn't know what a octagon is then you cannot possibly answer how many sides it has. Of course, in reality it's more complicated because you could guess the answer with knowledge of the prefixes and/or suffixes though it would be in the TV producer's best interest to include only questions that cannot be figured out that way.

This is my point. If you were to attempt a standard MENSA IQ test each day for a year, you would gradually get better at them as you became accustomed to the format of the questions and got a 'feel' for the range and density of the questions and the answers required; your IQ would 'go up.' At the end of the year, if you then tried to get a job as a rocket scientist, you would be flummoxed by the simplest and most fundamental theorems that faced you.

Think of cryptic crossword clues... they may baffle you (they do me) but once you get a feel for the angle the writer is taking, they become easier to solve; you don't learn anything from cryptic clues though.

F

Mensa uses culturally loaded I.Q. tests exclusively (Source: http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/multiple.html), and if I am not mistaken, Mensa tests are timed. Of course improvement would be possible, and on 3 levels at that. First way to improve is to practise these tests so that the style becomes familiar. Second way is to assimilate the culture such that the content becomes familiar. Third way is to save time on the actual test using method 1 and 2 such that one has more time to figure out the remaining items of higher initial difficulty. The statement about the rocket scientist is a moot point. First of all, rocket science requires vast prior knowledge, which is the opposite of what I.Q. is supposed to measure. Second, you are supposing that the Mensa test will not make someone understand technical information a rocket scientist understands and by corollary, will not make that person qualify as a rocket scientist. Of course not, but is that supposed to be a surprise? The Mensa test is not intended for such a purpose in the first place. There's not the slightest sign of a causal relationship between the Mensa test and becoming a rocket scientist.

I feel that it boils down to how you define genius, smart, and intelligence.

As an example I think everyone would agree that Mozart was genius for his music, yet his IQ score was probably horrible.

Definition is definitely key. However, the question of whether Mozart was a genius has been addressed (and the conclusion was no, he was not a genius, just very intelligent but still a product of about 10 years of hard work) and his I.Q. was probably NOT horrible. Although in Daniel J. Levitin's book, "Your Brain on Music", he claims that approximately 10 years worth of practice is necessary to achieve mastery, I doubt that just any child could have endured the practice that Mozart did. It would've taken a keen intellect to be able to master his craft the way Mozart did. We have plenty of child prodigies these days in music, yet not many are comparable to Mozart. Regarding Mozart's I.Q., here is a link: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Cox300.aspx

This study has been criticized before so I'm not sure how valid it is. However, it's definitely believable that Mozart did not have a low I.Q. considering he was a master of composition by classical music standards, where the complexity surely would have overwhelmed a weak intellect.

1st edit - replaced 99.99 with "k" when addressing percentile

Edited November 14, 2009 by shinkyo00

[Fitter]

"Fitness tests only measure how good you are at fitness tests. They don't measure how fit you are." Does that make sense at all? It's called a fitness test for a reason. It contains the specific test items for a reason. I don't claim that I.Q. tests are valid for the same reason that fitness tests are valid. However, there is a reason people with extremely low I.Q. do not ever achieve anything requiring extreme intelligence. There is also a reason why people with extremely high I.Q. learn things easily and often are able to reason, abstract, and invent on a level far beyond the comprehension of someone with significantly lower I.Q. and you will never see a reversal of these roles.

You choose to make an incorrect analogy. What you should have said is "Fitness tests only measure how good you are at fitness tests. They don't measure how good you are at the 100 metres sprint." Which is actually an untrue statement. If you are going to dissect peoples opinions and rationales, you need to be accurate. Fitness tests test the general level of fitness, however, any athlete will tell you that different fitness regimes are required for different disciplines. So it is for intelligence. A different type of development is required for excellence in specific roles, and testing basic deductive skills will not measure actual creative intelligence.

Mensa uses culturally loaded I.Q. tests exclusively (Source: http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/multiple.html), and if I am not mistaken, Mensa tests are timed. Of course improvement would be possible, and on 3 levels at that. First way to improve is to practise these tests so that the style becomes familiar. Second way is to assimilate the culture such that the content becomes familiar. Third way is to save time on the actual test using method 1 and 2 such that one has more time to figure out the remaining items of higher initial difficulty. The statement about the rocket scientist is a moot point. First of all, rocket science requires vast prior knowledge, which is the opposite of what I.Q. is supposed to measure. Second, you are supposing that the Mensa test will not make someone understand technical information a rocket scientist understands and by corollary, will not make that person qualify as a rocket scientist. Of course not, but is that supposed to be a surprise? The Mensa test is not intended for such a purpose in the first place. There's not the slightest sign of a causal relationship between the Mensa test and becoming a rocket scientist.

Thank you for agreeing with me on this point, however I have to disagree with you on the issue of rocket science being a "moot point." In fact, rocket science was used as an example, as it involves mathematical equations that are fundamental to many career routes. Actual knowledge of rockets is not a pre-requisite of studying rocket science; the phrase is a misnomer. However, you reach the crux of the point when you say "The MENSA test is not intended for such a purpose in the first place" That's true and that's why it does not really measure intelligence, merely the ability to do the tests ! Simple...

The reason that there is no relationship between ability to perform well on MENSA tests and so-called "mentally challenging" careers is that not everyone who can do well in MENSA tests is clever enough to get a career in those challenging arenas.

You're right, definition is critical... Mozart was a genius.

F

[shinkyo00]

You choose to make an incorrect analogy. What you should have said is "Fitness tests only measure how good you are at fitness tests. They don't measure how good you are at the 100 metres sprint." Which is actually an untrue statement. If you are going to dissect peoples opinions and rationales, you need to be accurate. Fitness tests test the general level of fitness, however, any athlete will tell you that different fitness regimes are required for different disciplines. So it is for intelligence. A different type of development is required for excellence in specific roles, and testing basic deductive skills will not measure actual creative intelligence.

Thank you for agreeing with me on this point, however I have to disagree with you on the issue of rocket science being a "moot point." In fact, rocket science was used as an example, as it involves mathematical equations that are fundamental to many career routes. Actual knowledge of rockets is not a pre-requisite of studying rocket science; the phrase is a misnomer. However, you reach the crux of the point when you say "The MENSA test is not intended for such a purpose in the first place" That's true and that's why it does not really measure intelligence, merely the ability to do the tests ! Simple...

The reason that there is no relationship between ability to perform well on MENSA tests and so-called "mentally challenging" careers is that not everyone who can do well in MENSA tests is clever enough to get a career in those challenging arenas.

You're right, definition is critical... Mozart was a genius.

F

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

If I had said what you intended to be the right analogy for me to use, then I would have been inherently wrong wouldn't I? I intended to say what I said and there's nothing inaccurate about it. Rather, your rebuttal contains the strawman argument. The analogy I used works insofar as it describes the measurement of a certain umbrella concept by utilizing specialized tests, in both cases. I.Q. tests intend to measure intelligence as fitness tests intend to measure fitness. Or: "I.Q. tests : fitness tests :: intelligence : fitness". Nothing wrong about it at all there. Entirely accurate. I think that we're debating with different premises, which is why you're disagreeing and missing my point.

Premise one: I.Q. tests show excellent correlation between scores and real world achievement. This is a fact.

Premise two: Though there are underperformers, there is not a single case of role reversal as far as scoring and real world performance goes. I.e. a person scoring extremely high will not end up associated with the mentally retarded, and a person scoring extremely low will never be able to achieve past a certain threshold. This is another fact.

Let me add another point here. Creative does not imply artistic. A geometric proof arrived at by deduction can be just as creative. There is no reason to think that a test measuring logical processing cannot or does not measure creativity. That is not a matter of opinion but a matter of statistical analysis to find whether there is a relationship. This is yet, another fact.

You are stating that a different development is required for excellence in specific roles. Agreed. But that also misses the point entirely. I did not say anywhere that specific roles do not require specific preparation. I merely said that I.Q. testing measures intelligence, and correlates well with real world achievement. I also did say that I don't claim I.Q. tests to be valid for the same reasons that fitness tests are valid. It is merely an analogy and can only be taken as far as the analogy goes.

So far as the rocket scientist argument goes, it is a reinstatement of the claim that "a different development is required for excellence in specific roles". Again, I did not say that a different development is not required. The keyword as you may have noticed is "development". I.Q. tests are not intended to measure development, but rather they are intended to measure selective perceptual ability, logical, spatial and verbal reasoning ability, and the utilization of said ability to synthesis a plan to achieve whatever goals, however. The rocket scientist argument is still moot because rocket science requires years of study and preparation. An I.Q. test does not measure what you have studied in all those years. It measures how suitable you are to take on such a course of action as studying dense material requiring a high level of spatial, logical, and verbal ability. In short, I.Q. tests are innate ability tests and not tests of skill, which can be developed.

Also, I did not say "Actual knowledge of rockets is a pre-requisite for studying rocket science." nor did I imply it, or its contrary. Therefore your analysis of the contrary is not applicable to what I said. Rather, it is another strawman argument. I still stand by what I did say: "Vast amounts of prior knowledge is a prerequisite for studying rocket science. I did not specify which specific pieces of knowledge are requisite.

Again, you are mistaken in saying that there is no relationship between ability to perform well on Mensa tests and ability to perform well in mentally challenging careers. First of all a Mensa test is culturally loaded like I said. Therefore it is not representative of I.Q. tests in general which is the focus of the debate. Second of all there is a definite correlation between high I.Q. scores and high ability to perform academically, professionally. The only thing it does not predict is whether you ARE in fact going to be successful or not. It DOES however predict that you have better chances of success. They are not the same, so please do not confuse them as evident by arguing that ability on a specific task such as sprinting is out of the range of fitness tests, and that the result of a Mensa test does not indicate success on a rocket science job. These two arguments are actually COVERED by the I.Q. theory and I.Q. testing. As I said, I.Q. theory and testing is the single best predictor of academic and real world success. The catch is that it does not predict directly. It just predicts that you have better chances of success. The reason of course, is as follows:

1) I.Q. shows an excellent positive correlation with success and achievement, so it is logically sound to say (and in fact that's what positive correlation literally is) that as I.Q. gets higher, success and achievement are each more likely proportionally. As I.Q. gets lower, success and achievement are each less likely proportionally.

2) Humans aren't governed by a law as inanimate objects are. Humans can produce any kind of data within a reasonable range. Therefore I.Q. only measures potential and not actual achievement.

Therefore yes there is a relationship between Mensa tests and mentally challenging tasks. If given to a sample of people who are controlled for education, then those who score higher have better potential to succeed at mentally challenging tasks.

Last, you are mixing preparedness into the definition of "clever" here. Since it is firmly established that I.Q. tests intend to measure innate ability, one ought not and cannot discredit them for failure to measure preparedness.

[Fitter]

If...<snip> ...preparedness.[/b]

Wow..so many contradictions and so much bold !!!

Your argument is still wrong, whichever words or type you choose to dress it up in, and that is all I'm saying. The analogy I used was to example my interpretation and was not intended for you to alter before using it in an incorrect way in an attempt to make me look wrong by by own words.

"IQ tests only measure how good you are at IQ tests. They don't measure how intelligent you are." Is correct, whereas

"Fitness tests only measure how good you are at fitness tests. They don't measure how fit you are." Is patently wrong.

And let me add that at no time did I say that those who score high in IQ tests are not intelligent, I merely said that IQ tests do not give an accurate measure of intelligence. I agree that there are many intelligent people who score highly in IQ tests, and as a general rule, those who score badly in IQ tests are considered not so, however the implication (semantically) is that one who has never taken an IQ test must be retarded as they have no score. This is, of course, the typical sort of cloth-eared syllogism that causes such half-assed misunderstandings in the first place...

..such as your defence over the 'rocket scientist' example. For that is all that it was, an example... I may have emboldened the sentence, but I was not trying to tell you that you said the opposite, though I hope that you would agree that implication is most frequently in the ear of the hearer.

...and there is too much incongruity in saying that repeated IQ tests will show a gradual improvement, yet at the same time insisting that it can be considered an accurate measure. The implication there is that one can become more clever just by doing IQ tests...

Is there no difference between intelligence and the potential to be intelligent ?

Lastly, IQ tests are on the way out as a measure for intelligence in autism as another example. And here, I feel compelled to point out that I am not trying to say you are autistic. The AAAS presented a report some years ago stating that IQ tests were poor measures for autistic subjects, preferring the Raven Progressive Matrices in these cases...

And there I think I will leave this issue before I get more involved in the disagreement than the point of discussion.

F

[shinkyo00]

Wow..so many contradictions and so much bold !!!

Your argument is still wrong, whichever words or type you choose to dress it up in, and that is all I'm saying. The analogy I used was to example my interpretation and was not intended for you to alter before using it in an incorrect way in an attempt to make me look wrong by by own words.

"IQ tests only measure how good you are at IQ tests. They don't measure how intelligent you are." Is correct, whereas

"Fitness tests only measure how good you are at fitness tests. They don't measure how fit you are." Is patently wrong.

And let me add that at no time did I say that those who score high in IQ tests are not intelligent, I merely said that IQ tests do not give an accurate measure of intelligence. I agree that there are many intelligent people who score highly in IQ tests, and as a general rule, those who score badly in IQ tests are considered not so, however the implication (semantically) is that one who has never taken an IQ test must be retarded as they have no score. This is, of course, the typical sort of cloth-eared syllogism that causes such half-assed misunderstandings in the first place...

..such as your defence over the 'rocket scientist' example. For that is all that it was, an example... I may have emboldened the sentence, but I was not trying to tell you that you said the opposite, though I hope that you would agree that implication is most frequently in the ear of the hearer.

...and there is too much incongruity in saying that repeated IQ tests will show a gradual improvement, yet at the same time insisting that it can be considered an accurate measure. The implication there is that one can become more clever just by doing IQ tests...

Is there no difference between intelligence and the potential to be intelligent ?

Lastly, IQ tests are on the way out as a measure for intelligence in autism as another example. And here, I feel compelled to point out that I am not trying to say you are autistic. The AAAS presented a report some years ago stating that IQ tests were poor measures for autistic subjects, preferring the Raven Progressive Matrices in these cases...

And there I think I will leave this issue before I get more involved in the disagreement than the point of discussion.

F

Please, if you care to, point out the contradictions. You have no validity in merely declaring that my arguments are "just" wrong. Also provide sources if you are to try to provide rebuttals. Otherwise, it's your word against my sources.

"I agree that there are many intelligent people who score highly in IQ tests, and as a general rule, those who score badly in IQ tests are considered not so, however the implication (semantically) is that one who has never taken an IQ test must be retarded as they have no score."

Please, that's yet another strawman argument. That is not implied at all. All it means scientifically is that they have not yet scored. By analogy, are you supposing that someone who hasn't taken a height measurement must not exist in the vertical plane since they have no height at all? Also, semantics refer to meaning. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics <-- Look it up. There is nothing semantic about an implication of a conclusion from a premise. That's the domain of logic if you will.

In this, here is the logical form of your case:

A: Those who score high on an I.Q. test are intelligent and those who score low are not.

B: Someone does not have a score.

What you're supposing by the "semantic implication", or more commonly known as the logical conclusion: Therefore they are retarded since they have no score.

Does this make sense at all? Ask any logician or any student who has taken half a philosophy or logic class. Better yet, ask a mathematician. If you insist it does, I rest my case. But please, provide some evidence.

""IQ tests only measure how good you are at IQ tests. They don't measure how intelligent you are." Is correct, whereas

"Fitness tests only measure how good you are at fitness tests. They don't measure how fit you are." Is patently wrong.""

Never once did I alter your claim. First, I provided my own analogy. Second, I have shown in my previous post that the analogy maps perfectly. Third, I have provided sources disputing your claim that I.Q. tests don't measure intelligence whereas you have not. Fourth, there is nothing correct about your claim until you can make an argument and prove that it is, preferably backing it up with scientific research. Lastly, my analogy is an analogy first and foremost so it's not meant to be taken at face value, which you are. It maps onto the topic perfectly, supports my claim correctly, which I have backed up with sources. Also, it is not "patently wrong" just because you say so. Please, provide evidence that it is wrong.

"..such as your defence over the 'rocket scientist' example. For that is all that it was, an example... I may have emboldened the sentence, but I was not trying to tell you that you said the opposite, though I hope that you would agree that implication is most frequently in the ear of the hearer.

...and there is too much incongruity in saying that repeated IQ tests will show a gradual improvement, yet at the same time insisting that it can be considered an accurate measure. The implication there is that one can become more clever just by doing IQ tests... "

Now you're changing your stance on the example. Why not just admit you were mistaken? First of all, an example chosen to exemplify a point is exactly that. It is used to prove the point. So defend it, or you're just mistaken either in choice of example or in your held views. There is no middle ground (i.e. Oh maybe it's just an example, pardon me, let's just let it slip. Implication is most frequently in the ear of the hearer anyway, things are subjective you know.).

On your second point, I do admit that there is a problem with assuming that I.Q. is static and cannot be improved with practice. There is much debate on whether an artificially inflated I.Q. means anything. However, if you think about what the I.Q. tests are measuring, you will see a clearer picture. I.Q. tests typically measure:

1) Verbal mastery and by corollary lexicographical complexity

2) Selective visual perceptual ability and by corollary visual reasoning

3) Mental spatial manipulation and by corollary spatial manipulation

4) Logical reasoning ability and number sense and by corollary abstract thinking and mathematical ability

These abilities are very real. To the best of my knowledge, no one has said, definitively, that an increase in I.Q. score does not correlate with an increase in these abilities, and neither has anyone said, definitively, that an increase in I.Q. score does not translate to improvement in these abilities. If someone has said so, definitively, please provide the evidence.

If anything, practice on I.Q. tests imply an increase in the above abilities. It is only logical:

1) In order to score higher on the verbal section do you not need to increase your vocabular and lexicographical complexity?

2) In order to score higher on selective the visual perceptual ability and visual reasoning section do you not need to be more visually acute?

3) In order to score higher on mental spatial manipulation section do you not need to better manipulate spatially?

4) In order to score higher on the logical reasoning ability section do you not need to be able to reason better logically?

If your answer is no to any of the above, I rest my case. But please! Back up your claims.

"Is there no difference between intelligence and the potential to be intelligent ?"

The premise needs to be kept in mind. The premise, as I put it in my first post, is that intelligence is the ability to selectively perceive, analyze, then synthesize such that one may achieve one's goal whenever, wherever, however. Therefore you cannot meaningfully draw a line between intelligence and potential to be intelligent. For all practical intents and purposes, one who is intelligent does not become mentally challenged the moment they perform an act worthy of having them labelled so. By contrast and extension, one does not become intelligent the minute they achieve something groundbreaking. Intelligence is a trait. It does not phase in and out, except where medical reasons complicate things. I think it's helpful if the colloquial usage of "intelligent, intelligence" is separated in this topic, where a scientific meaning must take hold or we risk going in circles as we already have.

"Lastly, IQ tests are on the way out as a measure for intelligence in autism as another example. And here, I feel compelled to point out that I am not trying to say you are autistic. The AAAS presented a report some years ago stating that IQ tests were poor measures for autistic subjects, preferring the Raven Progressive Matrices in these cases..."

This is the weakest possible evidence for your point. Autism is a very, very specific case. Just because conventional I.Q. tests do not measure a specific case properly does not invalidate them. I have plenty of amusing analogies for this one but given your tendency to attack my analogies without good cause, I will refrain. Also, the RPM (Raven's Progressive Matrices) IS an I.Q. test.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven's_Progressive_Matrices <-- Check out

the page. Though I generally avoid wikipedia for debating purposes, what it says on this particular page appears to be legitimate.

The RPM is a culture-fair test so of course it's better for autistic subjects who are likely to have problems even identifying with their own native culture.

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/autism/detail_autism.htm <-- Check out autism here. Again, it's a legitimate site.

1) Specifically noted in the first paragraph, autism affects social interactions and communication. It is therefore likely that autistic subjects don't have a very impressive vocabulary and more importantly, a well formed lexicon. That addresses the problem of verbal sections on conventional I.Q. tests.

2) Any other section administered verbally will likely be tough on autistic subjects. The optimal solution then, is to administer a test that utilizes visual information only. Hence, the RPM.

So, this report by the AAAS doesn't surprise me at all but that's a side note. The important thing to note here is that this piece of evidence doesn't any anything meaningful about standard intelligence testing with regards to this topic and my proposed premise. All it says is autistic subjects are better tested with the RPM. It does not address anything about the correlations between intelligence and real life performance nor does it address anything about possible causal relationships between an increase in I.Q. score and an increase in real life performance.

I don't take things personally in debates. Even if you did try to say I'm autistic, I'd simply provide evidence to disprove.

"And there I think I will leave this issue before I get more involved in the disagreement than the point of discussion."

Now that, is just a dirty move so you can slip away without bruising your ego. How about you come up with some evidence for your claims and not resort to assertations simply stating that I am wrong?

The bold is just so you can read my rebuttals easier without having to strain your eyes separating my arguments and your arguments.

Edited November 15, 2009 by shinkyo00

[Fitter]

Please.. <snip> ...arguments.

It must have taken you absolutely ages to work out and then type up such an aggressive stance, whereas I am a firm believer that quality wins over quantity, every time.

I like the short, succinct post approach, so at risk of making myself a hypocrite and replying when I said I was not going to, I will answer, as you have asked so nicely...

You have taken this statement : "I agree that there are many intelligent people who score highly in IQ tests, and as a general rule, those who score badly in IQ tests are considered not so, however the implication (semantically) is that one who has never taken an IQ test must be retarded as they have no score."

out of my post and used it as a basis for argument, however, you have chosen to ignore the final sentence in that paragraph : "This is, of course, the typical sort of cloth-eared syllogism that causes such half-assed misunderstandings in the first place..."

Which states that the above is a false syllogism, (you did, of course notice the "cloth-eared" and the "half-assed") and thus your argument is not only invalid, but deliberately weighted to make me appear wrong, when in fact it is you who is making another mistake.

And you accuse me of dirty tricks !!!

This makes me suspect the remainder of your post, so I dismiss it...

You do not seem able to grasp the concept that this is a discussion and not a trial of some sorts. No one is going to win here and no one is going to lose. The best that anyone can hope for is a smug satisfaction at seeing their words in print; not a very endearing trait. So I suggest that you put your points and be happy with that. There is no feeling on my part of a need to justify or prove my opinions to anyone on here, least of all you.

You may want to look up 'syllogism' and 'opinion'

F

Edited November 16, 2009 by Fitter

[shinkyo00]

It must have taken you absolutely ages to work out and then type up such an aggressive stance, whereas I am a firm believer that quality wins over quantity, every time.

I like the short, succinct post approach, so at risk of making myself a hypocrite and replying when I said I was not going to, I will answer, as you have asked so nicely...

You have taken this statement : "I agree that there are many intelligent people who score highly in IQ tests, and as a general rule, those who score badly in IQ tests are considered not so, however the implication (semantically) is that one who has never taken an IQ test must be retarded as they have no score."

out of my post and used it as a basis for argument, however, you have chosen to ignore the final sentence in that paragraph : "This is, of course, the typical sort of cloth-eared syllogism that causes such half-assed misunderstandings in the first place..."

Which states that the above is a false syllogism, (you did, of course notice the "cloth-eared" and the "half-assed") and thus your argument is not only invalid, but deliberately weighted to make me appear wrong, when in fact it is you who is making another mistake.

And you accuse me of dirty tricks !!!

This makes me suspect the remainder of your post, so I dismiss it...

You do not seem able to grasp the concept that this is a discussion and not a trial of some sorts. No one is going to win here and no one is going to lose. The best that anyone can hope for is a smug satisfaction at seeing their words in print; not a very endearing trait. So I suggest that you put your points and be happy with that. There is no feeling on my part of a need to justify or prove my opinions to anyone on here, least of all you.

You may want to look up 'syllogism' and 'opinion'

F

Again, no evidence for anything you say. There is no aggression except where your ego can't take rebuttals. Conveniently, you dismiss all my evidence and arguments by asserting I am wrong. If you had glanced through the post at all, you'd notice I know perfectly what a syllogism is. You never stated the nature of your arguments. Was I supposed to know it was all opinion (in which case why are you refuting my arguments and evidence with them)? Once again, there is nothing semantic about the implication. It appears you not only lack an understanding of the technical terms required for this argument (as you have accused me of dressing my arguments in), you also misuse terms. In addition, all I did was point out (and thus affirm) that the "false syllogism" is a strawman argument and is therefore invalid. That would be agreement (with you I might add), implying that you are the one with the aggressive (almost hostile) stance here. The idea that anyone would get a smug satisfaction at seeing their words in print is utterly pathetic. I am sorry, but I joined here and posted on this topic for the sole reason of sharing information and correcting some wrong assumptions regarding intelligence, intelligence testing, and intelligence research. That is why I went to the trouble of posting evidence and research links etc on THIS particular topic only, whereas I usually only commented in passing on any other topics in the short time I've joined.

Regarding your comment on quality over quantity - Short does not inherently mean good. My posts are long because I post arguments, back them up with evidence which I then explain, and also comment on any places where my arguments might fail and suggest reasons for them. That would make my posts at least 3 times as long as yours, which only contain allegations without evidence.

Lastly, if you're just here to throw around unsubstantiated opinions against my arguments and evidence, please say so in the first place so I can just ignore such posts. Again, this is with no negative connotations.

[Alienated Being]

He wasn't very smart at all - his father paid his way through highschool, did he not?

[Admiral Danger]

He wasn't very smart at all - his father paid his way through highschool, did he not?

isn't it true that george bush's father was president...

it could be possible that he had his final results changed, so he could then manage to have enough qualifications to get a job flipping burgers in mcdonalds until something else happens

Edited November 17, 2009 by Dr Alien

[Fitter]

Again, no evidence for anything you say. There is no aggression except where your ego can't take rebuttals. Conveniently, you dismiss all my evidence and arguments by asserting I am wrong. If you had glanced through the post at all, you'd notice I know perfectly what a syllogism is. You never stated the nature of your arguments. Was I supposed to know it was all opinion (in which case why are you refuting my arguments and evidence with them)? Once again, there is nothing semantic about the implication. It appears you not only lack an understanding of the technical terms required for this argument (as you have accused me of dressing my arguments in), you also misuse terms. In addition, all I did was point out (and thus affirm) that the "false syllogism" is a strawman argument and is therefore invalid. That would be agreement (with you I might add), implying that you are the one with the aggressive (almost hostile) stance here. The idea that anyone would get a smug satisfaction at seeing their words in print is utterly pathetic. I am sorry, but I joined here and posted on this topic for the sole reason of sharing information and correcting some wrong assumptions regarding intelligence, intelligence testing, and intelligence research. That is why I went to the trouble of posting evidence and research links etc on THIS particular topic only, whereas I usually only commented in passing on any other topics in the short time I've joined.

Regarding your comment on quality over quantity - Short does not inherently mean good. My posts are long because I post arguments, back them up with evidence which I then explain, and also comment on any places where my arguments might fail and suggest reasons for them. That would make my posts at least 3 times as long as yours, which only contain allegations without evidence.

Lastly, if you're just here to throw around unsubstantiated opinions against my arguments and evidence, please say so in the first place so I can just ignore such posts. Again, this is with no negative connotations.

I see your posts are getting shorter, like mine. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thank you for that...

Given that, it's a shame that the content is once again contradictory and misleading.

Of course there's no evidence. I already told you why there wouldn't be. If you actually read my posts, rather than just dissecting them looking for faults I'm sure you'll find the reason why. I'd just like to point out here that this is an internet forum that gives equal truck to Atlantis, werewolves, the LHC and all four Beatles still producing music in a parallel dimension. What exactly did you expect ? If you want to teach and educate then maybe your talents would find themselves more comfortable in a school, where the students have to do as you tell them.

I did say a few days ago that I wanted to bow out of this thread, as I could see it was degenerating into an argument. (For that is what you and I are having now, this bears no relation to the discussion on IQ tests and intelligence) But, of course, I relented and can see now that is the crux of the matter... that you see the debate on IQ tests and intelligence measure as an argument and not a discussion; It must be won at all costs and all must agree with you !!! It's a shame that you can't see that and overcome the pedantic need to criticise. There is nothing to gain in continually chasing someone to try and brow beat them into thinking the way you do, or into accepting what you say. Would it benefit you or anyone if I walked the halls weeping because I can't see the error of my ways or bow to your superior intellect ?

Well surprise, surprise, "It ain't happening..."

I respect that you have views, and that you feel the need to example them (at length.) However, when another person has differing views, it is surely likely to offend when they are told that opinion is wrong. It is not enough to provide copious tomes of evidence to support claims that another person is 'wrong' It is better and more polite to merely place ones own views as a counter point, rather than as a correction; especially in an arena such as this, where all are equal. Thought >> that's a basic teaching skill, so maybe a school would not be the best place for you...

Lastly, since you crave examples, try this one... In my last post I said that I am a firm believer that quality wins over quantity, and that I like short succinct posts.. Whereas you come back with "Short does not inherently mean good." No mention of your 'preference.' No mention that you 'like' or that you 'believe.' Simply that "short does not mean good" I'm wrong and you're right. Simple as that. No discussion. No room for doubt. No room to maneuver or to contest. That's the issue and that is that. But isn't that what you're accusing me of ? So what does that make you ?

..And no, I will not oblige by outlining future posts in a manner that you can understand just so you know how to 'take' them or for that matter on topics to which you give me 'clearance'. It's a free forum and I will post with appropriate comments and material as I please in the way I please. (within forum rules of course)

F

Edited November 18, 2009 by Fitter

[shinkyo00]

I see your posts are getting shorter, like mine. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thank you for that...

Given that, it's a shame that the content is once again contradictory and misleading.

Of course there's no evidence. I already told you why there wouldn't be. If you actually read my posts, rather than just dissecting them looking for faults I'm sure you'll find the reason why. I'd just like to point out here that this is an internet forum that gives equal truck to Atlantis, werewolves, the LHC and all four Beatles still producing music in a parallel dimension. What exactly did you expect ? If you want to teach and educate then maybe your talents would find themselves more comfortable in a school, where the students have to do as you tell them.

I did say a few days ago that I wanted to bow out of this thread, as I could see it was degenerating into an argument. (For that is what you and I are having now, this bears no relation to the discussion on IQ tests and intelligence) But, of course, I relented and can see now that is the crux of the matter... that you see the debate on IQ tests and intelligence measure as an argument and not a discussion; It must be won at all costs and all must agree with you !!! It's a shame that you can't see that and overcome the pedantic need to criticise. There is nothing to gain in continually chasing someone to try and brow beat them into thinking the way you do, or into accepting what you say. Would it benefit you or anyone if I walked the halls weeping because I can't see the error of my ways or bow to your superior intellect ?

Well surprise, surprise, "It ain't happening..."

I respect that you have views, and that you feel the need to example them (at length.) However, when another person has differing views, it is surely likely to offend when they are told that opinion is wrong. It is not enough to provide copious tomes of evidence to support claims that another person is 'wrong' It is better and more polite to merely place ones own views as a counter point, rather than as a correction; especially in an arena such as this, where all are equal. Thought >> that's a basic teaching skill, so maybe a school would not be the best place for you...

Lastly, since you crave examples, try this one... In my last post I said that I am a firm believer that quality wins over quantity, and that I like short succinct posts.. Whereas you come back with "Short does not inherently mean good." No mention of your 'preference.' No mention that you 'like' or that you 'believe.' Simply that "short does not mean good" I'm wrong and you're right. Simple as that. No discussion. No room for doubt. No room to maneuver or to contest. That's the issue and that is that. But isn't that what you're accusing me of ? So what does that make you ?

..And no, I will not oblige by outlining future posts in a manner that you can understand just so you know how to 'take' them or for that matter on topics to which you give me 'clearance'. It's a free forum and I will post with appropriate comments and material as I please in the way I please. (within forum rules of course)

F

You relented!? Please! You just want to have the final word. Admit it: Your ego simply can't take it. You are the only one taking this as a contest.

Now, for the person with the golden ego:

Fitter, the amount of ego-stroking you do in your posts is incredible. You probably think that I am getting very offended (hence your reference to aggression and your need to facetiously, I hope, take my shorter post as flattery).

As usual, I see that you have simply dismissed all the points in my post(s) and incorrectly picked at a logically coherent statement - that short does not imply quality. There is simply no logical causal connection at all and for me to provide evidence would be analogous to glorifying a tautology. For the record, the Raven's Progressive Matrices test IS an I.Q. test contrary to what you implied it to be. Also for the record, I am not trying to win in the literal sense of the word. It is only you who takes it that way. I am simply giving evidence to show what is currently scientifically correct. Think of it as updating the knowledge banks of this topic. It just so happens that I am stating what is currently scientifically correct. If anyone states anything else, I am sorry I have taken the side of science and in the process, made them look bad. Also, if new knowledge makes you throw fits, I am sorry to be such an impairment to your health. I promise that I am not affiliated with any medical billers you may have.

Rather than continue your game with you (you seem to keep coming back so that you can have the last post), I will not return after this post and I will be true to my word. It seems that you obviously hold yourself in higher regard and talk to me as though I have a lower index of human worth. If you like, I offer an apology along with the admission of my defeat by your obviously superior intellect, one that is capable of dismissing all that I say, simply by virtue of your obviously incredible existence as a logically superior being. I ought to bow to you in your glory, but I can't, simply because in your presence, I am a dust mote. Now, if you are so kind as to excuse me, I will leave so you can m******** to your golden ego.

Unlike you, I will not make pathetic excuses and be true to my word but of course that means nothing to you. You just want to have the final word. Don't believe me? Watch.

Edited November 20, 2009 by shinkyo00

[Fitter]

You... <snip> ...Watch.

At this point, I should admit that my nerves are not so susceptible to twanging as yours obviously are...

I expected this; right from the moment when you goaded me into continuing, at my backing out of the argument that you instigated... Flame wars are banned under forum rules, so you knew you were in the wrong from the very start...

I do applaud your being magnanimous in defeat though, and that you have learned that one does not need to provide evidence for feelings or views... another parallel that I appreciate. It is what makes us human; that personality and inherent human qualities triumph over logic and reasoning every time. The defining attribute between man and machine... That is, of course, if you can deny it being "just a dirty move so you can slip away without bruising your ego." ?

'till next time.

F

[Render]

The big problem with these IQ tests seem to be that they are rather Left Brain oriented. Which is ridiculous. The right brain gives you the ability to see the bigger picture..think more holistically, etc.

Left brain is more in the box thinking.

Ppl who confide in an IQ test, just because they have a high score fool themselves immensely. It states that you can think logically and rationally about a concept using the tools already given to you, instead of maybe thinking of a more efficient one.

This article isn't really top notch either, in my opinion. Seems like a pseudo-smart guy wrote it maybe having to meet a certain deadline or something.

"Indeed, it seems even the super-intelligent are not immune. A survey of members of Mensa (the High IQ Society) in Canada in the mid-1980s found that 44 per cent of them believed in astrology, 51 per cent believed in biorhythms and 56 per cent believed in aliens"

What does this have to do with anything? So what? If you're smart it should be impossible to believe in aliens? Because extraterrastial lifeforms is a dumb thing to assume while being confronted with a massive universe? Oh sure...

Mensa in itself I find an arrogant society. I don't really understand why it exists. Do they actually do anything for the community except flaunt their high IQ scores? Pretending they're the super-intelligent elite cuz they scored high on a very aged test? Fooling themselves that they're already got it made in terms of wisdom cuz hey, mensa included them. Big whoop.

Sure they can come together and form a group..but pretending they talk about super smart topics cuz they're "Mensans", sheesh...And excluding ppl from these super smart convos cuz they're not in the top 2% of the tests...so sad.

Unlike MIT for example, they don't mind putting lectures/classes online..sharing they're expertise, wisdom, guidance. That I find way more admirable than ha, Mensa.

[lynxster]

I scored a 141 on a MENSA test in 1979. I blew it off and went in the Army at 17. I have to say I was smart book-wise but stupid world-wise back then. I took another MENSA test 8 months ago and scored a 153. No way in hell am I going to apply for membership. They must have lowered their standards.

[questionmark]

I scored a 141 on a MENSA test in 1979. I blew it off and went in the Army at 17. I have to say I was smart book-wise but stupid world-wise back then. I took another MENSA test 8 months ago and scored a 153. No way in hell am I going to apply for membership. They must have lowered their standards.

I did not join Mensa because I refuse to join any club that would have me.