How can I accurately measure my own intelligence?

[octelcogopod]

So, I've done extensive IQ tests and other tests regarding logical and spatial puzzles, picture puzzles, language tests, and other tests I can't remember.
It was done some months ago by a psychologist, took about 7 hours to do, but I'm not really happy with the result.

While the results were "average" on all counts, I feel this doesn't really encompass me.
I'm not trying to say I have above average intelligence either, I am not satisfied because the test didn't really tell me anything about myself.

If I went out there and started studying physics, programming, computers and all these academic topics, would I get a sense of my potential?
Or would that perhaps be a false indicator, considering my lack of experience?

I do have some experience with Perl programming, I know CSS and HTML, which I found easy, I deal daily with computers, and would really like to dig into physics and how the world works, but it seems hard to do by myself without education, or can I do it by myself perhaps?

Well this thread ended up being about several topics, but I hope I can get some answers.

 

[Evo]

So, I've done extensive IQ tests and other tests regarding logical and spatial puzzles, picture puzzles, language tests, and other tests I can't remember.
It was done some months ago by a psychologist, took about 7 hours to do, but I'm not really happy with the result.

The test done by the psychologist would give you the more accurate, yet totally meaningless "IQ" number.

Not to be mean, but anyone that judges himself or others based on a number isn't intelligent. Do you really need someone to hand you a big number in order to feel that you have self worth?

You can always learn things on your own, but when you're young and looking for employment, that degree is going to be very important because you'll just be one of hundreds or thousands of resumes on someone's desk and you won't have the chance to get in front of them to let them hear what you know.

I truly cannot relate to your concern over whether or not you are intelligent. Just do your best, learn what you can about things you are interested in and stay out of philosophy forums.

 

[octelcogopod]

Just do your best, learn what you can about things you are interested in and stay out of philosophy forums.

Haha, what does that mean exactly?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

...and stay out of philosophy forums.

I kind of enjoy philosophy forums. Nothing wrong with a little mind-twisting here and there for some personal gorwth :yuck:

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Not to be mean, but anyone that judges himself or others based on a number isn't intelligent. Do you really need someone to hand you a big number in order to feel that you have self worth?

...oh and I definitely believe this, but that doesn't mean I haven't tried a few IQ tests here and there

 

[Evo]

Haha, what does that mean exactly?

Philosophy forums, similar to general discussion, will stagnate all mental ability. Except in GD, we actually discuss real things. :uhh:

Getting an average score on an IQ test could just mean you don't test well, or you don't take those particular kinds of tests well. I'm the opposite, I test very well, but I know squat.

You strike me as very intelligent, don't worry about a test score. Your knowledge, personality and ability to do the things you do are what others will judge you by.

 

[Evo]

...oh and I definitely believe this, but that doesn't mean I haven't tried a few IQ tests here and there

Oh we've all succumbed to those online tests, I find the more I take them, the higher my score gets.

I took one of those online tesst that are timed on a dial up connection, then re-took it on a dsl connection and my score increased exponentially. Conclusion - DSL increases IQ.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Oh we've all succumbed to those online tests, I find the more I take them, the higher my score gets.

I took one of those online tesst that are timed on a dial up connection, then re-took it on a dsl connection and my score increased exponentionally. Conclusion - DSL increases IQ.

I'm smarter than DSL, I have 8Mb/s Comcast Cable!

 

[octelcogopod]

Philosophy forums, similar to general discussion, will stagnate all mental ability. Except in GD, we actually discuss real things. :uhh:

Getting an average score on an IQ test could just mean you don't test well, or you don't take those particular kinds of tests well. I'm the opposite, I test very well, but I know squat.

You strike me as very intelligent, don't worry about a test score. Your knowledge, personality and ability to do the things you do are what others will judge you by.

Ah, well sorry to say I used to live in the Philosophy forums here on PF.. Hehe..

But I've come to the conclusion that philosophy is mostly just discussing stuff that we are waiting for some scientist to solve, at least the major topics like consciousness and infinite regress.

It's the real work being done that brings humanity forward, the actual physical work.
On top of that computers fascinate me, yet I know very little about their inner workings.
Well I do know what RAM is and what a CPU is, but beyond that everything goes fuzzy..

Anyway, I have decided to purchase some books on computers, and go from there, physics seems a little hardcore at the moment and I have no specific use for it beyond my own satisfaction, but no doubt I will learn more about it as time goes by.

Perl programming and Linux here I come!

:)

 

[3trQN]

Haha, what does that mean exactly?

The philosophers have been contemplating such questions since the dawn of man ;)

EDIT; Aplogies if i took your post literally and it was a sarcastic pun, hard to tell from a forum

 

[Andre]

Many highly intelligent people are poor thinkers. Many people of average intelligence are skilled thinkers. The power of a car is separate from the way the car is driven.

Edward de Bono

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The test done by the psychologist would give you the more accurate, yet totally meaningless "IQ" number.

Not to be mean, but anyone that judges himself or others based on a number isn't intelligent. Do you really need someone to hand you a big number in order to feel that you have self worth?

You can always learn things on your own, but when you're young and looking for employment, that degree is going to be very important because you'll just be one of hundreds or thousands of resumes on someone's desk and you won't have the chance to get in front of them to let them hear what you know.

I truly cannot relate to your concern over whether or not you are intelligent. Just do your best, learn what you can about things you are interested in and stay out of philosophy forums.

Where were you the last time I criticised IQ tests I got really roasted for daring to suggest they weren't indicative of holistic intelligence(well not really roasted, people are too polite here) You know all the broad things that encompass intelligence in particular creativity and intuitive thought, but also in other areas such as lateral thinking skills and multi tasking, something men are traditionally bad at.

The IQ test to me is a general indication of how well you would do in a western style education system, which is why it is considered less accurate by most, the older you get, as it tends then to reflect your level of education, or in some cases how many IQ tests you've done ; if people want to take something this arbitrary as a measure of absolute intelligence they are missing that this is not what an IQ test is about, it isn't that specifically geared, it is a generalised standard, that may or may not test your overall intelligence accurately, depending on how old you are, which areas you excell at that are not encompassed by the test and any learning difficulties you may have, e.g dyslexia, discalculia and other mental conditions,that may hide your intelligence behind an inability to comprehend numbers or questions quickly enough, which is a factor in the test.

Of course I am a genius, I don't need a test to tell me that

I seem to remember Feynman had an IQ of 127 or something that was above average but not special. That's another thing too, creativity does not appear to increase significantly above a certain level of intelligence, and this is the most important skill IMO for a scientist, at least one that wants to come up with something beyond the ordinary.

I think it's true to say though, there is no test that could encompass something as complicated and difficult to peg as human intelligence, not with our current level of sophistication in understanding the human brain and where intelligence comes from, the IQ test is a nice try and a good general indication but it does have some real areas of concern.

 

[DaveC426913]

If I went out there and started studying physics, programming, computers and all these academic topics, would I get a sense of my potential?
Or would that perhaps be a false indicator, considering my lack of experience?

I do have some experience with Perl programming, I know CSS and HTML, which I found easy, I deal daily with computers, and would really like to dig into physics and how the world works, but it seems hard to do by myself without education, or can I do it by myself perhaps?

Arguably, motivation and persistance are more important factors than intelligence.
Intelligence without motivation or persistence will get you nowhere fast. Trust me on this one...

Seriously, don't worry about what a test tells you you're good at. You'll do best at doing what you love. Trust your feelings on this. You'll gravitate towards learning things you enjoy. And read read read.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Where were you the last time I criticised IQ tests I got really roasted for daring to suggest they weren't indicative of holistic intelligence(well not really roasted, people are too polite here) You know all the broad things that encompass intelligence in particular creativity and intuitive thought, but also in other areas such as lateral thinking skills and multi tasking, something men are traditionally bad at.

The IQ test to me is a general indication of how well you would do in a western style education system, which is why it is considered less accurate by most, the older you get, as it tends then to reflect your level of education, or in some cases how many IQ tests you've done ; if people want to take something this arbitrary as a measure of absolute intelligence they are missing that this is not what an IQ test is about, it isn't that specifically geared, it is a generalised standard, that may or may not test your overall intelligence accurately, depending on how old you are, which areas you excell at that are not encompassed by the test and any learning difficulties you may have, e.g dyslexia, discalculia and other mental conditions,that may hide your intelligence behind an inability to comprehend numbers or questions quickly enough, which is a factor in the test.

Of course I am a genius, I don't need a test to tell me that

I seem to remember Feynman had an IQ of 127 or something that was above average but not special. That's another thing too, creativity does not appear to increase significantly above a certain level of intelligence, and this is the most important skill IMO for a scientist, at least one that wants to come up with something beyond the ordinary.

I think it's true to say though, there is no test that could encompass something as complicated and difficult to peg as human intelligence, not with our current level of sophistication in understanding the human brain and where intelligence comes from, the IQ test is a nice try and a good general indication but it does have some real areas of concern.

No doubt, don't worry about it. You probably know yourself better than any test can measure, so you should pay more attention to what you think than what external evaluations say. Some stuff is hard to put into words, but you just perceive it in yourself, so don't worry if a test doesn't grasp the complexity of you (I recommend astrology for that, but even then there's a danger of becoming too attached to what an outside source tells you)

 

[GCT]

So, I've done extensive IQ tests and other tests regarding logical and spatial puzzles, picture puzzles, language tests, and other tests I can't remember.
It was done some months ago by a psychologist, took about 7 hours to do, but I'm not really happy with the result.

While the results were "average" on all counts, I feel this doesn't really encompass me.
I'm not trying to say I have above average intelligence either, I am not satisfied because the test didn't really tell me anything about myself.

If I went out there and started studying physics, programming, computers and all these academic topics, would I get a sense of my potential?
Or would that perhaps be a false indicator, considering my lack of experience?

I do have some experience with Perl programming, I know CSS and HTML, which I found easy, I deal daily with computers, and would really like to dig into physics and how the world works, but it seems hard to do by myself without education, or can I do it by myself perhaps?

Well this thread ended up being about several topics, but I hope I can get some answers.

Put it this way, if there exists such a thing as "high IQ" you would see realistic manifestations of it. High IQ gets you good grades, makes success commonplace (e.g. businesswise), gets you a pretty girl, wins you a noble prize...basically sets you apart.

If you're not familiar with any of the above situations then you don't have a superior IQ, and if you think that somehow the potential is dancing around in your brain in some abstract form you might want to see a psychologist for more serious issues...If you're searching for "something" and you have no idea what that "something" is, but you think that this "something" will "somehow" drastically change your life. There are plenty of ways to assess yourself, with all of the competitive situations you've been exposed to so far, you should take what you've learned so far and move on with your life.

 

[Evo]

Put it this way, if there exists such a thing as "high IQ" you would see realistic manifestations of it. High IQ gets you good grades, makes success commonplace (e.g. businesswise), gets you a pretty girl, wins you a noble prize...basically sets you apart.

At the school for the "Academically Able" in Dallas, TX where my school tried to convince my parents to send me (you had to have a 140 minimum IQ to even be considered, it was not enough to guarantee admittance), the graduates were a short order cook, a belly dancer, a housewife, no one great came out of all the GENIUSES attending this special school for the highly gifted. In other words IQ is meaningless, it is motivation, determination and creativity that get you good grades, makes success commonplace (e.g. businesswise), gets you a pretty boy/girl, wins you a noble prize...basically sets you apart, NOT a HIGH IQ. I have a genius IQ, but I got so frustrated with school, I lost my motivation. Obviously I'm not a genius even though I have paperwork that says so.

 

[loseyourname]

But I've come to the conclusion that philosophy is mostly just discussing stuff that we are waiting for some scientist to solve, at least the major topics like consciousness and infinite regress.

The thing is, those aren't really the major topics in philosophy, although arguably the philosophy of cognitive science has made the best progress of any field in recent years thanks in part to the collobarative efforts with AI research and cognitive psychology (but it is neither limited to nor encompassing of consciousness studies). They just happen to be fields that members here seem most interested in.

I'd say the most active topics today are the indispensability of mathematics in the sciences (esoteric, but legitimate progress has been made by people like Hartry Field and Hilary Putnam), bioethical issues (abortion, euthanasia, animal research, veganism), cyberethics (the ethical status of synthetic persons should we ever manage to create them, intellectual property rights in the Napster era, also philosophy of law topics), holism vs. reductionism (especially in biology), and of course, the renewal of the "what makes a theory scientific" discussion that's come up thanks to the ID craziness.

I should probably give a nod to the philosophy of language as well, especially the age-old questions of what the words "truth" and "existence" mean.

 

[Moonbear]

But I've come to the conclusion that philosophy is mostly just discussing stuff that we are waiting for some scientist to solve, at least the major topics like consciousness and infinite regress.

It's the real work being done that brings humanity forward, the actual physical work.

Well, that's good enough for me! I declare you intelligent.

A lot of high achievers don't get there based on intelligence alone. More important is how well they've persevered through the failures, and how motivated they are to put in their best effort and hard work to get to the top.

 

[GCT]

At the school for the "Academically Able" in Dallas, TX where my school tried to convince my parents to send me (you had to have a 140 minimum IQ to even be considered, it was not enough to gurantee admittance), the graduates were a short order cook, a belly dancer, a housewife, no one great came out of all the GENIUSES attending this special school for the highly gifted. In other words IQ is meaningless, it is motivation, determination and creativity that get you good grades, makes success commonplace (e.g. businesswise), gets you a pretty boy/girl, wins you a noble prize...basically sets you apart, NOT a HIGH IQ. I have a genius IQ, but I got so frustrated with school, I lost my motivation. Obviously I'm not a genius even though I have paperwork that says so.

Then what the hell is IQ? Why even consider its existence? I would tend to believe that those individuals you've mentioned "short order cook, a belly dancer, a housewife," finally realized the uselessness of the IQ tests. Parents pressure their children to take these tests, at times the moronically desparate ones who can't stand to live without their own delusions of superiority, the naieve child doesn't know why he/she is taking the IQ test, but after being told of his/her genius IQ, abandons all fun in his/her and real experiences in life to fortify the special talent. Who made the child special. It's the parent and teachers that made the kid "special." Even a elementary school student, if he or she has a talent, should know of it completely. But most of the children who go into these gifted schools don't what's going on.

I acknoweldge that despite whatever my IQ may be, I'm willing to give it its significance and accordingly to acknowledge that I don't have the special gift seeing that no talent of mine has ever set me apart to the point where the talent would become an everyday responsibility and where I would need to constantly attend to my special ability. However, I am content to have succeeded on other levels with my 3.82 major g.p.a. and with As in all my higher math and physics courses, but I maintained this attribute through constant acknowledgment of what I am and am not able to do.

I have no doubt that you're intelligent, but I'm sure that you have many other accomplishments in your life that would be good indicators of it, even if they may not be as satisfying as the result of an IQ test, seeing that such a test has an aura of competitive validation to it. A lot of the people that I've encountered, people that I've known personally and those that profess to the need for such tests, seek such tests because of a false sense of inadequacy, and "overreact" by trying to succeed through IQ tests. Unfortunately, I'm sure that many of them find the experience disappointing, but how much sense does it make to become emotionally distressed over "nothing?" An issue without a basis, except an issue which the individual created himself/herself?

 

[Evo]

Then what the hell is IQ? Why even consider its existence?

IQ tests were originally created to try to find learning disabilities, it was not designed to determine higher intelligence, people have been misusing the tests. I don't think people should consider IQ scores, there are too many reasons a person could score poorly such as lack of sleep, illness, text anxiety, etc... Nowdays, people can actually prepare for IQ tests just as they can prepare for SAT tests (which are sometimes used to equate IQ). It is not realistic.

People need to get away from "IQ" scores and look at real life knowledge and accomplishments. I can't count the numbers of morons I've met that were dumber than dirt that were Mensa members.

This doesn't mean that you can't be brilliant and also have a high IQ score, it's just that the two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

 

[GCT]

This doesn't mean that you can't be brilliant and also have a high IQ score, it's just that the two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

I agree. For the most part I don't think that it's easy for anyone to make sense out of their own IQs. Say that a very gifted individual who had breezed through college and who has inherently understood the sciences early on (without the need to really delve into texts that is, such as Alan Turing) has been tested for whatever reasons and had found that he had a +160 IQ on the Weschler Revised test. I don't think that such data would be worthwhile to consider, as it may not be such a straightforward thing to deal with emotionally, I imagine that it'll contribute to some sort of frivolous contentment and probably a bit of embarrassment too. All in all, such tests do nothing for mental stability and I don't believe that they have any importance with respect to self discovery either; except for the benefit that with the high IQ score, you'll be relatively less susceptible to any connotations of retardation. I had several friends who basically breezed through their undergraduate years (playing video games for the most part, while earning money by receiving an excess of scholarships), from what I remember one got into med school on the third year, got married, took an year off, then attended the med school. He had shunned away from discussions of IQ while me and some others were studying for an introductory psychology course and was unwilling to engage in several example questions of the subtests of the Weshler that was displayed in the text. It seems that those individuals who are most familiar with the talents that they actually possesses and have to attend to them daily don't need the unneccessary delusions of intellectual superiority. Also, to be identified with a high IQ sort of singles you out, which no one in their right mind would desire and inflict upon themselves deliberately.

But there are probably plenty of people out there who are brilliant and socially sane but enjoy the IQ aspects of things, such as those who endeavor to solve brainteasers and advocate mental health with the exercising of their brains. Nothing really dispicable about that, as long as they're not deliberately putting up such displays to get dates.

 

[Evo]

I have no doubt that you're intelligent, but I'm sure that you have many other accomplishments in your life that would be good indicators of it, even if they may not be as satisfying as the result of an IQ test, seeing that such a test has an aura of competitive validation to it.

When I was 11 the school insisted on testing me because I was always so far ahead of the class, that the teachers would take my books away so I couldn't get ahead of the rest of the class. I'd sit there day after day without books, doing nothing, listening to the other kids plowing through and wanting to SCREAM. After the tests came back they realized I had no place in public school. No kidding.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

They tested me with CAT tests(Cognative Ability Tests) for the same reasons you gave, but they came back as distinctly ordinary or at least not brilliant, which stunned them, as I had a reputation school wide as being gifted because of some mental arithemetic ability and general over aptitude at school work in general, you know the annoyingly unteachable advanced kid. They decided to send me to a school for the gifted anyway, although my mother refused to let them.

I have taken IQ tests and they show me to be in the top echelons now, but when I was a kid I was ordinary, this leads me to think that dyslexia was reflected in the tests then, but because people usually overcome the disadvantages of this condition as they get older, it wasn't something that remained with me, so essentially IQ tests are worthless except at identifying people like me as was maintained some time ago. Anecdotal evidence but interesting. But you can understand where my weary eye on the IQ tests comes from, I just think I was smarter as a kid personally :D And got thicker as I got older, I certainly learned quite recently that I'm not cut out for integration, too many rules to remember I think, at least not without some reall investment of effort. In short it's not the number that counts it's the will. and just because you can do calculations fast, doesn't mean your necessarily cut out for maths, unfortunately

 

[selfAdjoint]

have taken IQ tests and they show me to be in the top echelons now, but when I was a kid I was ordinary, this leads me to think that dyslexia was reflected in the tests then, but because people usually overcome the disadvantages of this condition as they get older, it wasn't something that remained with me, so essentially IQ tests are worthless except at identifying people like me

IQ, or rather the better statistical measure g, is of interest to brain researchers; they keep finfding correlations. And some of this recent research finds that the brains of people who eventually wind up with higher g develop more slowly than those of average people. That would explain the personal hisotry that you cite.

 

[octelcogopod]

The thing is, those aren't really the major topics in philosophy, although arguably the philosophy of cognitive science has made the best progress of any field in recent years thanks in part to the collobarative efforts with AI research and cognitive psychology (but it is neither limited to nor encompassing of consciousness studies). They just happen to be fields that members here seem most interested in.

I'd say the most active topics today are the indispensability of mathematics in the sciences (esoteric, but legitimate progress has been made by people like Hartry Field and Hilary Putnam), bioethical issues (abortion, euthanasia, animal research, veganism), cyberethics (the ethical status of synthetic persons should we ever manage to create them, intellectual property rights in the Napster era, also philosophy of law topics), holism vs. reductionism (especially in biology), and of course, the renewal of the "what makes a theory scientific" discussion that's come up thanks to the ID craziness.

I should probably give a nod to the philosophy of language as well, especially the age-old questions of what the words "truth" and "existence" mean.

I do not believe that philosophy is useless per se, but what I am interested in is the fact that it seems that there are absolutes in every field of philosophy as well, and that these absolutes lie in the fact that everything is logical and definite.
Humans will only reach a certain amount of knowledge, which is also clouded by their own judgement, rather than seeing the full absolute knowledge, the issue raw and unfiltered, so to speak, and thus all we see is relative and in a gray area.

With this in the back of our heads, we may be able to say that any attempt at understanding anything, should it be with science, philosopy or math, one should always look for the one true answer to that problem.

The answer isn't always evident immediately because humans tend to group and generalize, and cloud the logic that lies beneath, but on some level there is an absolute and unfalsifiable answer, regardless of the problem.

My opinion though, and if anyone has an example of something that has no absolute answer, then I'd like to hear it.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I do not believe that philosophy is useless per se, but what I am interested in is the fact that it seems that there are absolutes in every field of philosophy as well, and that these absolutes lie in the fact that everything is logical and definite.
Humans will only reach a certain amount of knowledge, which is also clouded by their own judgement, rather than seeing the full absolute knowledge, the issue raw and unfiltered, so to speak, and thus all we see is relative and in a gray area.

With this in the back of our heads, we may be able to say that any attempt at understanding anything, should it be with science, philosopy or math, one should always look for the one true answer to that problem.

The answer isn't always evident immediately because humans tend to group and generalize, and cloud the logic that lies beneath, but on some level there is an absolute and unfalsifiable answer, regardless of the problem.

My opinion though, and if anyone has an example of something that has no absolute answer, then I'd like to hear it.

The worth of humanity has no absolute value, how could we judge ourselves objectively, being humans, also if an alien race judges us what criteria are they applying subconsciously and are they truly subjective, you would need omniscience to have all the information at hand to make that judgement surely, in fact how do we ascribe worth to anything absolutely, it's a very subjective subject. Anyway suffice to say there are few things that we can ascribe absolute truth to, it's entirley too subjective a matter, if it weren't then forums wouldn't exist. In maths there are absolutes, in the real universe there are only aproximations, physics doesn't deal with absolutes, just theories, they may rely on maths but a lot of the maths is conceptual and although it appears to fit the facts we don't know for sure if it represents them(if you see what I mean, in other words if what they show or how they show it is actually is related to what is really happening) It's a highly educated guess true,but we can't be sure of the absolute properties of matter on the small scale, we can only infer and make guesses about it's inscrutable nature, at least at the moment with what we know and assuming that is correct. You may say but if I know all there is to know about something therefore I can absolutely define it, and it will behave exactly as I predict it will, in quantum physics particularly though, it appears that this is far from absolute, nothing is certain, all is probability, there is only a chance of something being at certain measurable value or in a certain state. God plays dice with the universe. The uncertainty principle would be a good place to start looking at the strange universe of the quantum.

 

[Zantra]

Put it this way, if there exists such a thing as "high IQ" you would see realistic manifestations of it. High IQ gets you good grades, makes success commonplace (e.g. businesswise), gets you a pretty girl, wins you a noble prize...basically sets you apart.

Will I also be able to run faster, jump higher and have more fiber in my diet?

Do you know how many really lazy intelligent people there are in the world? I know, I'm one of them Or just ask the waitress, cook or busboy.

IQ is just another measurement. It's not what you have but what you do with it that makes the difference in your life.

Remember: you can't always get what you want, but if you try, sometimes you get what you need.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Will I also be able to run faster, jump higher and have more fiber in my diet?

Do you know how many really lazy intelligent people there are in the world? I know, I'm one of them Or just ask the waitress, cook or busboy.

IQ is just another measurement. It's not what you have but what you do with it that makes the difference in your life.

Remember: you can't always get what you want, but if you try, sometimes you get what you need.

To some people a number is all they want an absolute with no value, it gives there life meaning, it absolves them from responsibility it is who they are, feel sorry for them, they fail to understand that life isn't a pay check, a Nobel prize. an absolute goal, it'd be nice to get all those things with a high IQ, but some people have gotten all this without it and some with it have no prize, no goal, just something less; pity these people because they lead a worthless life conforming to an ideal, praise the others because they had happiness not a number of want and a value you ascribe to it, life isn't a blackboard with a score on it, it's more than your pointless ideology. As you so ably said Zantra, it's not what you've got it's what you do with it that counts(Gattica showed this) The numbers fade to nothingness in the scope of things, and those who keep score are playing a game no one cares about. A moron is worth more than a genius with no criteria other than his meaningless scoreboard.

 

[GCT]

Will I also be able to run faster, jump higher and have more fiber in my diet?

Do you know how many really lazy intelligent people there are in the world? I know, I'm one of them Or just ask the waitress, cook or busboy.

IQ is just another measurement. It's not what you have but what you do with it that makes the difference in your life.

Remember: you can't always get what you want, but if you try, sometimes you get what you need.

That doesn't make any sense, unless you're qualifying street smarts, wit, or acuteness to our discussion. In that case, a high IQ would not have the grand meaning as it does in many people's minds. We should be able to directly associate IQ with something more specifically real. An IQ test is a good way to diagnose mental retardation. It is also used to qualify a child for gifted programs. For retardation, the identification is more realistic, that is treatment is adminstered right away. For the gifted program, it's more of a process, and the possible fostering of a potential that the child may possess, nothing has been established about the child.

So the conclusion of the discussion is that one's score on an IQ test is nothing specific, unless it's for the treatment of retardation. It's important to note that for the aspect of its employment for gifted programs, it merely qualifies the child for the program, which the parents will most likely have to pay for, but out of the 400 kids who attend the gifted school, a very small percentage of them will be "chosen."

Case in point is the Duke TIP program. A child who has scored well with a state standardized test or has scored sufficiently high on an IQ test will be qualified to apply for the program. Then he/she has to take the SATs at the age of ~12. If the score is adequately high, then he/she is admitted the program. Some who go through the program will rise high in life, others will get a good exposure to advanced academic matters...all in all the program is for the establishment of the few who are truly talented, that's why one's simple involvement in the program may not mean much on the resume. It's not necessarily for the benefit of the individual child, but to find the reare few who are truly gifted.

 

[Jehuty]

From what I can remember from one of my teachers French class lectures (yes, he taught us this in French class) that IQ tests are fairly meaningless. The number will only show your "smartness" in relation to the person who made it. Also, everyone is smart in their own way, some have a very hard time with math (like me! But surprisingly enough, here I am on a math based forum) and those same people can find that they can navigate through programs such as photoshop with ease when they first see it.

It's really impossible to measure your IQ, all they can really do is give you a bunch of questions. However if they give you things that are subject based, then they can see what kind of person you are and what your strengths and weaknesses are. I'm geussing IQ tests have or should have questions that test a wide varitey of skills and then take your average from that.