Is a High IQ at a Young Age a Good Thing?

[PRodQuanta]

Brennen said: p.s. Paden, I've hardly had an opportunity for a success story, but i believe I've succeeded in school so far, top grades, high distinctions etc. ill get back to in 10-15 years. i guess i'll either be an author, a psychologist/neuroscientist, or working the deep fryer right along side Mr 170 at Mcdonalds.

Hey man, I wasn't saying that to you, but to everybody. Your (when I say your, I mean everybody's) IQ doesn't mean anything. It's success. How you define success is up to you.

I'm in the same boat you are though man. I'm 16. I'm going to be a Junior (year 11) in high school. Fortunetely for me, I know (or have a pretty good idea) of what I want to do with my life. I find that pretty successful myself.

IQ is potential. Knowledge is power.

Paden Roder

 

[Brennen]

i still believe that certain success is directly proportional to someone's intelligence.
i mean someone with an IQ of 200 is likely to be more successful in certain areas that someone with an IQ of 100. but otherwise i completely agree, all IQ is is an indication of how much potential you have for success, or how much knowledge you could possesses in the future. whether or not you do anything with what potential you have is what really matters. being 16 and italian, I am greasy enough as it is without having to work at mcdonalds. i know i could make something of myself in the future, knowing my IQ is "above average" gives me a certain amount of confidence that i can.

knowledge is power, but i thought IQ was an indication of your potential knowledge.

then again, my physics and chemistry teacher, who's taught me all throught high school, told me once that him and his brother (who i believe are the same age) were very competetive all through their school years. His brother had a photographic memory, and hardly exerted any effort at all, but Mr Thompson (my teacher) tried to his absolute limit, and in the end he graduated higher. i think actual effort (something i lack) comes into it a great deal. someone with a lower IQ, or potential, can still be more successful than someone with vast potential, because they actually fill what potential they have.

i guess that's the key, filling what potential you have.

 

[plus]

Let's test it :)
Take about 60-90 seconds to answer each question:

Question 1
A vendor sells h hot dogs and s sodas. If a hot dog costs twice as much as a soda, and if the vendor takes in a total of d dollars, how many cents does a soda cost?

Question 2
In 1980, Judy was 3 times as old as Adam, but in 1984 she was only twice as old as he was. How old was Adam in 1990?

These questions are far far too easy to be a reasonable test for someone with an IQ of 187. At best, they should be testing material for someone with an IQ of 100. However, if they are challenging material for someone with an IQ that high, then I probably have an IQ of 195. That is the score that I am awarding myself on this IQ test.

Seriously though, the only IQ test I ever did was the UK mensa one, which has a upper limit of 155 (standard deviation = 24). This was the score that I got, which put me in the top 1% of the population, and I was a little bit dissapointed that it did not tell me where I stood within this top 1%.

 

[Monique]

That was not intended as an IQ test but rather an example of word problems, anyone can solve them, the question is how quickly and with what accuracy.

 

[Brennen]

challenging? when did i find them challenging? one of them i misread but did actually get right, and the other one was confusing as to what was required. it was midnight, and I am sick (stomach ulcers), and i was tired, so cut me some slack. i know they were easy questions, but i knew em. stop awarding yourself an IQ based on mine and how stupid you might think i am. you shouldn't assume things.

sorry if I am being snippy, I am in a bad mood. i'll just go now, bye bye "plus"

 

[Tasthius]

i mean someone with an IQ of 200 is likely to be more successful in certain areas that someone with an IQ of 100.

Not true. There have been numerous studies done on both gifted children and adults. High IQ and success only correlate up to a certain IQ level (about 150 S.D. 16) Often times, those with IQs in the stratosphere are not very successful.

For more info, see http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/Outsiders.html

 

[zoobyshoe]

Let's test it :)
Take about 60-90 seconds to answer each question:

Question 1
A vendor sells h hot dogs and s sodas. If a hot dog costs twice as much as a soda, and if the vendor takes in a total of d dollars, how many cents does a soda cost?

So, the trick to this one is recognising, in the time alotted, that it asks how the cost of a soda in cents relates to any given daily total? In other words, the difficulty is not really a math difficulty, but a verbal comprehension under time constraint difficulty?

Question 2
In 1980, Judy was 3 times as old as Adam, but in 1984 she was only twice as old as he was. How old was Adam in 1990?

This one, you're saying, is difficult for the same reason: it is easy to miss the fact that the answer they want you to submit is Adam's age in 1990.

 

[Brennen]

Not true. There have been numerous studies done on both gifted children and adults. High IQ and success only correlate up to a certain IQ level (about 150 S.D. 16) Often times, those with IQs in the stratosphere are not very successful.

i didnt mean historically speaking, like, history tells us smarter people are more successful, that's not what i meant. i just mean, if you've got 2 people, in identical fields, working along side each other, and both exerting equal effort, isn't it likely the higher IQ's work would be more advanced or more eccentric or more brilliant? (or whatever word you want to label it with)

i didnt mean to imply that intelligence equals success, merely that i think higher intelligence would equal a greater likelihood for success in certain fields. wouldn't it?

not success, just potential for success. isn't that what IQ is?

 

[Math Is Hard]

i didnt mean to imply that intelligence equals success, merely that i think higher intelligence would equal a greater likelihood for success in certain fields. wouldn't it?

not success, just potential for success. isn't that what IQ is?

I don't think so. In the example above, I think talent would also have to be considered - in any field.

 

[Tigers2B1]

i didnt mean historically speaking, like, history tells us smarter people are more successful, that's not what i meant. i just mean, if you've got 2 people, in identical fields, working along side each other, and both exerting equal effort, isn't it likely the higher IQ's work would be more advanced or more eccentric or more brilliant? (or whatever word you want to label it with)...

I agree with what you're saying --- but I think you might think Tasthius is saying something he isn’t. But – maybe Tasthius will speak for Tasthius -

Barring that ------ I think Tasthius may be saying that if a child is really IQ smart that may translate into some odd behaviors relative to other kids. Talking like you're 30 in the 5th grade doesn't make you cool. That in turn will make the child with the 'very berry' high IQ a social outcast. AND THOSE bad experiences will make the kid a tad 'nurture weird' in addition to his/her 'nature weirdness.' It's like compounding interest. Compound weirdness doesn’t help one get along with others --- and getting along with others is an important factor in the common definition of “success.” Tas? -- can you put the batteries in and enlighten?

 

[Brennen]

I don't think so. In the example above, I think talent would also have to be considered - in any field.

yeh i agree. but isn't talent taken into account with IQ? talent is just natural quality or ability, much like intelligence, which, ruling out social factors, is partially predetermined by ur genetics.

when i say "intelligence" I am taking natural talents and everything into account, I am using it as a broad term to describe a persons ability to acquire and apply knowledge, and their ability to think in a complex way.

i do consider natural talent as an important factor.

 

[Brennen]

btw, the whole social outcast thing. about half of my friends are just normal people, not academically brilliant, and the other half of my friends are people that i can really discuss anything with, people who are academic, and i feel lucky to be able to have both.

Apparently I'm having trouble maintaining both as when I am with my less bright friends, i tend to act less bright and constantly saying "you know what i mean?" when i do say something intellectual. Then when i go talk to my other friends, they think I am being condescending. That's actually one of the reasons i broke up with my ex-gf, who was really smart and mature, and sometimes i would be condescending to her apparently. she thought i didnt respect her sometimes, which i really did. it seems by trying to maintain both sides of my life, they tend to fall apart.

i know this is going to sound "poor little smart boy", but sometimes i envy my regular friends, because everybody suspects so much of me in the future, and they don't have to worry about it to the same extent. I am sure a lot of you understand what i mean. my life tends to fall apart at times, usually all at once.

intelligence isn't always a gift. it seems to mess around with my life.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Welcome to the club. Of course it's infuriating to you now to be told that you'll eventually get better at social relations, but you will. But you will always find that your smart academic friends tend to be intellectually competitive and your less intellectual friends will be sensitive about it. We all want to be the stars of our own lives.

 

[Brennen]

its like I am two people, and i guess the trick is keeping them as two separate people and not blurring the line between them. i don't want to choose one, or just be whatever i feel like, because i like being both those people.

shall take time to perfect the art of multiple lives. fun road ahead.

 

[plus]

challenging? when did i find them challenging? one of them i misread but did actually get right, and the other one was confusing as to what was required. it was midnight, and I am sick (stomach ulcers), and i was tired, so cut me some slack. i know they were easy questions, but i knew em. stop awarding yourself an IQ based on mine and how stupid you might think i am. you shouldn't assume things.

sorry if I am being snippy, I am in a bad mood. i'll just go now, bye bye "plus"

Well saying that you cannot do a problem should make it self evident that you find it challenging. Saying that you were tired or ill is simply making excuses. Also, having a girlfriend before the age of 16 correlates negatively with IQ. Do not blame me for bringing to you the revelation of your lower than expected IQ. I could have done those problems in my sleep.

 

[plus]

I don't think so. In the example above, I think talent would also have to be considered - in any field.

I believe that intelligence makes success in some areas easier, for example academia. Intelligence is not too important to succeeding in life though (ie being happy). Men with high IQ are less likely to marry and have children, and women are not very impressed by intelligence. In business, social maladaption prevents many intelligent people with good ideas from succeeding. Intelligent people often suffer through life with lazyness due to the lack of challenge in their formative years.

 

[Tigers2B1]

Well saying that you cannot do a problem should make it self evident that you find it challenging. Saying that you were tired or ill is simply making excuses. Also, having a girlfriend before the age of 16 correlates negatively with IQ. Do not blame me for bringing to you the revelation of your lower than expected IQ. I could have done those problems in my sleep.

Nerd War! Nerd War!

 

[plus]

Nerd War! Nerd War!

Yes I was only joking. I thought that from his language he seemed far too upset about me questioning his ability than seemed natural, so I decided to push it a little further.

 

[Monique]

Plus, why are you being so condescending.

Brennen should be left in his value, being academic is something one should be proud of, although not put too much emphasis on. Putting other people down to look good yourself is a rather childish behaviour.

 

[PRodQuanta]

Brennen said: intelligence isn't always a gift. it seems to mess around with my life.

"Isn't it strange that a gift can be an enemy? Isn't it weird that a privilige can feel like a chore?"-Incubus

 

[plus]

Plus, why are you being so condescending.

Brennen should be left in his value, being academic is something one should be proud of, although not put too much emphasis on. Putting other people down to look good yourself is a rather childish behaviour.

IT WAS A JOKE. And why are you only reprimanding me? You should not have deleted my post. I have had many many insults slung at me. eg

about the girlfriend thing, I am sorry. its not my fault you probably never got a single date in your life.

Is this or is this not an insult and childish behaviour? The title of this thread is 'what is your IQ'. I was merely challenging the fact that he had an IQ of 187.
btw brennan, what standard deviation was this test based on, so I can see which percentage of humanity you claim to be in?

 

[Monique]

You were the one who started the conflict by stating that having a girlfriend at an early age indicates low IQ. If you provoke, deal with the consequences.

The standard deviation of the test really does not matter in the discussion, as he has already stated accomplishments that indicate intellect besides that test. Accuracy of the test can be put into question, witout the need of personal attacks.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I had my very first boyfriend in Kindergarten (age 5). That must make me a moron!

 

[plus]

You were the one who started the conflict by stating that having a girlfriend at an early age indicates low IQ. If you provoke, deal with the consequences.

The standard deviation of the test really does not matter in the discussion, as he has already stated accomplishments that indicate intellect besides that test.

The title of this thread is about what IQ people have, not what intellectual feats you have accomplished. Stating an IQ without a standard deviation is not helpful. To attach any meaning to the number, you have to state the standard deviation.
Engaging in romantic relations aged 5 is disturbing.

 

[BlackVision]

Accuracy of the test can be put into question, witout the need of personal attacks.

Certified IQ tests as used by psychologists are highly accurate.

As far as 187 IQ. There would be less than a handful in the world. with a SD of 16, the odds of a 187 IQ is 1 in 50 million. A country like the US would have about 5 or 6 people meeting or passing this IQ level. And since I've met at least a hundred Americans stating such a figure, it's quite clear that most who do state this IQ number is lying their ass off. But Brennen is from Australia. A country that does not even have half the population of 50 million. Meaning there's more of a chance that a person of a 187 doesn't even exist in the entire country of Australia then there is. What Brennen is doing is claiming that he is the smartest person in the entire continent of Australia.

Anyone who states such an IQ level should be expected to meet a lot of suspect from everyone he/she tells it to. Not to mention Brennen did not even mention the name of the IQ test which makes it even more suspect.

 

[BlackVision]

Stating an IQ without a standard deviation is not helpful. To attach any meaning to the number, you have to state the standard deviation.

That is correct. The IQ figure is useless. It's really how many standard deviations above average you are.

Cattell has a SD of 24 as do so a few other IQ tests. If Brennen is quoting a score from one of these tests, then the 187 IQ figure is equivalent to 158 IQ on the Stanford Binet. Both will be 3.63 SD above average.

On a side note, I'm sick of people quoting either online IQ scores or SD 24 IQ scores.

 

[Brennen]

i don't actually know what the SD was, but based on what i know i would quickly assume it wasn't a 16, possibly 24. no way would i have 187 on an SD 16. i'd like to just move on from this, sorry about my rather immature behaviour. nice incubus quote from PRodQuanta. i wasn't given a great deal of information about the actual test i took, and if i was, i don't really remember. there's not a chance i am the smartest person in australia :P that's crazy talk.

plus, you seem like a pot-stirrer, and i like that, lol. i tend to do that myself alot, get people to react. thanks for standing up for me Monique. i question the accuracy of the test and the score myself anyway, and i don't blame everyone else for doing the same. if/when i take another i will make sure to look further into it, and possibly get back to everybody, with something much more accurate.

this was a rather interesting series of posts :P farewell all.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Certified IQ tests as used by psychologists are highly accurate.

As far as 187 IQ. There would be less than a handful in the world. with a SD of 16, the odds of a 187 IQ is 1 in 50 million. A country like the US would have about 5 or 6 people meeting or passing this IQ level. And since I've met at least a hundred Americans stating such a figure, it's quite clear that most who do state this IQ number is lying their ass off. But Brennen is from Australia. A country that does not even have half the population of 50 million. Meaning there's more of a chance that a person of a 187 doesn't even exist in the entire country of Australia then there is. What Brennen is doing is claiming that he is the smartest person in the entire continent of Australia.

Anyone who states such an IQ level should be expected to meet a lot of suspect from everyone he/she tells it to. Not to mention Brennen did not even mention the name of the IQ test which makes it even more suspect.

Terman, I believe it was, found that the high end of the IQ curve has a "fat tail", that is the curve is not strictly speaking normal on the upside, and you can't directly apply the normal probabilities to high IQs. There are statistical methods to allow for this.

 

[plus]

Terman, I believe it was, found that the high end of the IQ curve has a "fat tail", that is the curve is not strictly speaking normal on the upside, and you can't directly apply the normal probabilities to high IQs. There are statistical methods to allow for this.

Yes, but this was for the childhood 'ratio' IQs, and not the adult 'rarity' IQ.

http://www.geocities.com/ultrahiiq/Deviation_IQs.html

Here is a website which shows the conversion factors between the 2 methods of measuring IQs.

 

[Monique]

Terman, I believe it was, found that the high end of the IQ curve has a "fat tail",

I've seen this phenomenon in GRE test scores, which really surprised me.. but is actually predictable. There must be a few so fixed and trained on these tests that they answer everything correctly, not necessarily reflecting their innate ability to take the test.