Post: #26

(03-06-2016 05:24 PM)johnbozzz Wrote:  So IQ is basically processing speed and the ability of one to think in the abstract?

...

But do you think it would be possible for Feynman to have scored 125 if the test were heavily weighed toward the verbal side versus the logical/mathematical side?

By hypothesis, I have been accepting the story as true, even if it might not be. It's an apocryphal story, although Feynman suggested it was true--however, he had a habit of being too keen on "generating anecdotes of himself," to paraphrase Gell-Mann. It's very possible this "125 IQ" story is just plain false.

If true, it's possible high verbal weighting and/or low math "ceiling" would contribute to such a result, but that would fall under the umbrella of noisy childhood testing, since tests on children are generally more affected with these types of issues.

Standardized tests generally work well, and work better with age.

IQ is a re-representation of a percentile ranking, the IQ distribution is just a scale and location adjustment to the standard normal distribution. People with better working memories, faster processing speeds, etc. (hence the phrase "cognitive ability") will perform better, and thus achieve higher rankings.

Post: #27

I haven't taken an official IQ test but a few to do with my cognitive functioning. I scored lower than average on the puzzles and mathematics. It was a very long time ago when I was in high school. I had another test about 3 years ago but the results weren't told to me by my doctor.

I do remember from my high school test that in one aspect, I think to do with memory, I was in the 99th percentile. In some ways I am kind of daft so it evens out.

I would like to take an IQ test but these days I am pretty spaced out or on edge which makes some tasks more difficult than others.

Post: #28

Although politically incorrect, apparently SAT and GRE scores (and I assume other tests managed by ETS) correlate very strongly with IQ. So if you had a high score, you can assume you have a high IQ as well.

Post: #29

(03-06-2016 06:39 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  Although politically incorrect, apparently SAT and GRE scores (and I assume other tests managed by ETS) correlate very strongly with IQ. So if you had a high score, you can assume you have a high IQ as well.

Intersting. I recall doing well on one part of the SAT (my math, logic score was 770), although the other two verbal sections were in the mid 500's. But I never purchased a vocabulary builder book or whatever. A few girls from my high school scored in the 700's for the verbal parts and literally failed the math/logic portion. You are automatically given 400 points, and some of these girls scored in the high 400's. Shocking, until you acknowledge the difference between our brains.

Post: #30

Quote:Although politically incorrect, apparently SAT and GRE scores (and I assume other tests managed by ETS) correlate very strongly with IQ. So if you had a high score, you can assume you have a high IQ as well.

According to those I would have a 140 IQ. I kind of doubt that... I feel "somewhat" smart, but not quite smart enough. My brain lets me down all the time. Then again, maybe it helps explain my lack of getting laid. There's a thread about that here somewhere.

Even if you are intelligent, I think it can be a bad idea to think of yourself as such or to self-identify with academic achievements. It will lead to massive blind spots in life and can create tremendous performance anxiety and stress in academics.

It's also obvious that you can have a high IQ but also be lacking in social intelligence or common sense.

Post: #31

(03-04-2016 07:59 PM)highcardace Wrote:  Don't take IQ tests seriously. For example it is known that Richard Feynman only had an IQ of 125, yet he is considered a genius and one of the smartest people alive in his time. And yet arguable the highest IQ score ever recorded was from Richard G. Rosner, who was a stripper and television writer.

Most IQs have a standard deviation of 15 or 16 so that 125 IQ is actually very impressive, at about the 94th or 95th percentile.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspx

Post: #32

(03-06-2016 06:39 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  Although politically incorrect, apparently SAT and GRE scores (and I assume other tests managed by ETS) correlate very strongly with IQ. So if you had a high score, you can assume you have a high IQ as well.

I don't agree with that. Who am I? Nobody in particular. I have no formal background in statistics but have done some research at the graduate levels on IQ in particular and intelligence in general. I have heard of the generalization you mention but have found the correlation to be not that strong. Particularly on those high IQ persons who are poorly motivated students. Many of them have SAT, ACT, GRE, etc test scores that belie their high IQs. Not saying there is no correlation, just saying I found it overblown.

Post: #33

(02-23-2016 10:50 AM)johnbozzz Wrote:  I tested at 121, which is the bare cutoff for the gifted program,

As you point out, the problem is that the 120-130 kids are grouped in with the 140+ kids, making any such program or school a little problematic. I think that's probably why a lot of smart kids don't do well in gifted programs or in private schools. The curriculum is necessarily scaled up to challenge the top tier.

You can easily be considered too-smart-for-your-own-good in public school and be a mediocre to poor performer in the gifted programs.

However, in my opinion, another factor is that the brains of different children tend to mature at different rates. Some smarter kids likely mature at a slower rate (in line with general mammalian patterns) and so you may even see some intelligence maturity forthcoming. I wouldn't look to firmly gauge your intelligence until you are at least 25 years old. With that in mind, watch the drinking and drugs until then. Kids with earlier and more sex hormone output will likely mature in their max intelligence earlier.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the correct way to state your IQ is by what standard deviation that you fall into. Your score can range across that deviation. Though, if you've taken the test multiple times and it it always around the same score then you can probably claim a numerical value with some validity.

Also, these scores will vary with the specific test. So, you'd probably want to state something like "I'm in the second standard deviation on the Wechsler".

Keep in mind that all of these scores are standardized to a specific group. Your score is only valid in comparison with that group (hence "standardized"). So, an Aboriginal person taking a test standardized to White or Indian people, for instance, gets a score that tells them where they are on the range in comparison with that other group. 100 is the median for all groups. Thus, "100" for one person that is of the group that the test is standardized to (whomever it is - spotted dinosaurs - whomever) is not the same intelligence as 100 for another individual of another group in a test that is standardized to that specific group. You take the test that gives you the score that compares you to the group that you want to be compared against.

I'm pretty sure that one can find legit tests online that are correlated to the Wechsler.

Post: #34

(03-06-2016 06:12 PM)Kabal Wrote:  By hypothesis, I have been accepting the story as true, even if it might not be. It's an apocryphal story, although Feynman suggested it was true--however, he had a habit of being too keen on "generating anecdotes of himself," to paraphrase Gell-Mann. It's very possible this "125 IQ" story is just plain false.

This IQ doesn't correlate well with the level of intelligence that I associate with even unremarkable professional physicists, let alone one that had to likely have had an above average spatial / problem solving ability even for physicists.

Personally, I would estimate the average cutoff point for professional physicists to be at 140 on the Wechsler. I would guess that a man like Feynman to be at 145+ if not well north of that.

Post: #35

So is skill in mathematics more important to IQ than reading/writing comprehension, or is it a mix of all of them?

Likewise, what genetically speaking determines your IQ? Does intelligence come mostly from one parent, or is it more complicated than that?

Post: #36

(03-17-2016 06:34 PM)rw95 Wrote:  So is skill in mathematics more important to IQ than reading/writing comprehension, or is it a mix of all of them?

Likewise, what genetically speaking determines your IQ? Does intelligence come mostly from one parent, or is it more complicated than that?

In regards to skills in mathematics, it's largely based on whether you're a boy/man or girl/woman. Men, in general, will notice shapes, patterns and designs (abstract things) far more often than women, who will prefer to chat, gossip and write health blogs. This is not an accident, if we're going back to evolutionary biology. Women are smaller, weaker, and would stay put, gather things, and warn each other about dangerous people, situations, etc. They live in the concrete world. They are only fertile from ages 15-32, so it was, and still is, important for them to be out and about and available.
Men, on the other hand, being larger, stronger and the protectors of the group, could easily spend hours and days examining the leaves, categorizing them, observing shadows, developing math, astronomy, and, more importantly, forming theories - "abstract" things. A woman would have never discovered the fibonacci sequence. A guy can sire kids until he's, hell, in his 50's? I'm sure that it can be done later but there are more risks for birth defects.
I hope this answer made sense.
So what I'm saying is a woman may have an IQ of 140 and will have made no contributions to an abstract field (math, etc), but perhaps she'll excel at something like acting (it's basically mimicry, very concrete). Use Meryl Streep, as an example.
I believe IQ is dictated by genetics. As my dad's family consists of dentists, consultants and lawyers, they are all likely to be in the 120-135 range. My mom's, on the other hand, is comprised of ex-showgirls, showgirls, and salesmen, probably in the 95-110 range. I fall somewhere between the two.

Post: #37

A few points regarding IQ:

Heritability is what some of you are referring to. It's basically the amount of variance due to genetic factors. Most in cognitive psychologists believe intelligence is roughly 80 percent genetic and 20 percent environmental.

IQ scores remain relatively consistent after age 9. However, you can gain in what is called crystallized intelligence, or your verbal skills and acquired knowledge. Fluid and quantitative reasoning decreases with age.

Post: #38

(03-17-2016 03:23 PM)Scorpio Rising Wrote:  

(03-06-2016 06:39 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  Although politically incorrect, apparently SAT and GRE scores (and I assume other tests managed by ETS) correlate very strongly with IQ. So if you had a high score, you can assume you have a high IQ as well.

I don't agree with that. Who am I? Nobody in particular. I have no formal background in statistics but have done some research at the graduate levels on IQ in particular and intelligence in general. I have heard of the generalization you mention but have found the correlation to be not that strong. Particularly on those high IQ persons who are poorly motivated students. Many of them have SAT, ACT, GRE, etc test scores that belie their high IQs. Not saying there is no correlation, just saying I found it overblown.

Thanks for the correction. Much appreciated. I read about the correlation in Geoffrey Miller's book Spent. I didn't know the correlation was actually weak. Though from what you say, it seems that high scores do correlate with high IQs, low scores don't necessarily correlate with low IQs. Is that correct?

Post: #39

I was given a 'proper' IQ test as part of entry exams into my school, and then had to sit another one a year or so later as part of some evaluative tests to assess whether my reticence to do any homework and my boisterousness in class were the result of a learning difficulty. Both scores were pretty consistent as you'd expect given that they were within a short time of each other. I'm not sure how reliable they were as I had zero interest in either of them, and had more or less stopped paying attention by the middle of the test. I've always taken a fairly dim view of 'testing' for its own sake - it feels much like forcing a monkey to perform.

Post: #40

No and I'm not sure if I want to anymore. I like thinking I'm smart. People tell me all the time. I think that's enough for me.