IQ 10 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Von II

aka noobst3R

50 XP

16th June 2008

0 Uploads

4,339 Posts

0 Threads

#1 11 years ago

IQ. Is it a good way to measure someone's intelligence? I have an IQ of 129, but i can't concentrate on things i don't like. A lot of dumb people (really) in my class who can study better, and have better grades. Thus more intelligent?

Also, i have ADHD, but i'm never aggressive or hyper or so. :p

Also, what's the average IQ?




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#2 11 years ago

LOLing at your avy... its NITE!




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#3 11 years ago

Your IQ is, at best, a rough estimate of potential, not a measurement of your intelligence. Yes, if you score 50 on an IQ test you are probably not very intelligent, and if you score 2000 bajillion or something you are probably pretty smart. But it is just a rough estimate and there will be variance from it.

The average IQ is 100, and in fact IQ scores are regularly adjusted to keep 100 as the average. Or so Wiki tells me. I didn't know that was the case.

Some researchers believe that modern education has become more geared toward IQ tests, thus rendering higher scores, but not necessarily higher intelligence.[67] As a result, tests are routinely renormalized to obtain mean scores of 100, for example WISC-R (1974), WISC-III (1991) and WISC-IV (2003). This adjustment specifically addresses the variation over time, allowing scores to be compared longitudinally.



Nittany Tiger Advanced Member

Feel me. Do I feel pretty?

289,182 XP

15th September 2004

0 Uploads

27,142 Posts

0 Threads

#4 11 years ago

noobst3R;5230375IQ. Is it a good way to measure someone's intelligence? I have an IQ of 129, but i can't concentrate on things i don't like. A lot of dumb people (really) in my class who can study better, and have better grades. Thus more intelligent?

Also, i have ADHD, but i'm never aggressive or hyper or so. :p

Also, what's the average IQ?

All attention deficit disorders are classified ADHD now, but the ADHD diagnosis is split into two subtypes: inattentive type (formerly ADD) and impulsive/hyperactivity type (formerly ADHD by itself). You probably have the inattentive type.

Anyway, I see IQ as a measure of potential intellectual abilities and one's intellectual output as measure of one's actual intellectual abilities. I see it like potential and kinetic energy.

One can put forth more or less than their potential.




Sadim-Al-Bouncer

shaken - not stirred

50 XP

8th June 2009

0 Uploads

8,262 Posts

0 Threads

#5 11 years ago

IQ seems a bit outdated and ineffecient; mostly due to the fact that one can excel in one area, but fall behind in another.




Showd0wN

Skeptic Extraordinaire.

50 XP

7th February 2009

0 Uploads

1,253 Posts

0 Threads

#6 11 years ago

I think the whole idea of having a numerical metric to explain "intellect" to be a bit silly.

I particularly find the whole IQ system to be, at best, mostly inaccurate.

Having met many exceptionally bright people in my life, and had this conversation many times, my experience (and I am not equating this with some study, this is obviously only anecdotal) is that those with higher IQ tend to be quicker at basic pattern recognition / arithmetic / etc., but are not necessarily any better at any other area.

Again, just my experience, but I think intelligence as whole would be exceptionally difficult to quantify, in any way, without a truly detailed analysis of the person. There are simply too many subtleties and "modes" of intelligence to condense into one number - that number would, by definition, become meaningless. This is why I don't think IQ is really saying much about "intellect", maybe more about rudimentary abilities.

I'm not saying the entire notion of IQ is incorrect, just that it is misleading; I would personally probably only care about the order of magnitude (<100 >100, maybe increments of 30 or so?...would need to read more about it again) as I don't think that the specific numbers have meaning.

And sorry that this post is a little less structured than most, this brings me on to another point. The "small increment digitisation" of IQ sort of makes it almost meaningless to speak of specific IQs, like people regularly do, i.e. "Yeah I have an IQ of 103" I don't think you can really achieve a granularity that makes that number anything other than misleading. IQs should most likely be quoted as magnitudes as I said earlier "about 100130" (or 130, etc.), again the exact unit of this system would take some more thought, but I think you might get my point by now.




(:o)

Damn Microwave

50 XP

29th January 2010

0 Uploads

292 Posts

0 Threads

#7 11 years ago
Killer Kyle;5230440All attention deficit disorders are classified ADHD now, but the ADHD diagnosis is split into two subtypes: inattentive type (formerly ADD) and impulsive/hyperactivity type (formerly ADHD by itself). You probably have the inattentive type. Anyway, I see IQ as a measure of potential intellectual abilities and one's intellectual output as measure of one's actual intellectual abilities. I see it like potential and kinetic energy. One can put forth more or less than their potential.

not hiding the physics degree very well i see?




Nemmerle Advanced Member

Voice of joy and sunshine

299,207 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,209 Posts

6 Threads

#8 11 years ago

IQ tests are a tool to test for learning difficulties, they're inherently something you can learn since that was the entire purpose of having the things. It's possible to increase your IQ score by studying the type of puzzles that are in it without ever becoming any better at analysing situations or constructing arguments. They have very little relevance to intelligence in the real world beyond that.




Admiral Donutz Advanced Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#9 11 years ago

As ithers said, as a general guide it may have some use. But it doesn't tell the complete story by far. You may for example suck horribly at math and screw up that aspect, but be excellent in other fields such as (foreign) language or geography.

But as a general guide, and a comment as to how well (or bad) you did in the testing topics/areas? Sure. It will say something about you. But even if you score rather low, it doesn't make you "dumb", you could for example be a most excellent craftsman who is able to lay bricks, cut stone/wood/fabric/... with excellent precision and that without any fancy tools but using your hands/head/eyes.

Ofcourse changes are also that you are indeed not a very bright person and not a "valueable " contributor in any shape or form. But then you're probably border line "I need to be in a mental ward and have my food fed to me with a spoon" person.

Nemmerle;5230937IQ tests are a tool to test for learning difficulties, they're inherently something you can learn since that was the entire purpose of having the things. It's possible to increase your IQ score by studying the type of puzzles that are in it without ever becoming any better at analysing situations or constructing arguments. They have very little relevance to intelligence in the real world beyond that.

Speaking of which, in the Netherlands most primairy schools let the pupils do a test. This test is to give a rough guide (advice) as to which secundairy/highschool you seem most suitable for: a school for people with learning difficulties, a more practise orientated school / basic theory school (future career example: carpenters and so on), advanced theory (air traffic controller for example) or highly advanced theory (advanced science career and such) school .

Now those test were design to be done "unprepared" to see how much general knowledge you have and how you deal under time constraints, However, more and more parents want to prepare there kids for these test so they end up with a better score. They'll follow practise tests and so on to familiarize themselves with the sort of questions you get in areas such as language (spelling and grammar), geography, history, mathematics and so on.

Ofcourse the test was always just a general guideline, and the makers of the test insisted it should be used as such but that the advice of the school (teacher) itself should be considered the most important (best) advice. Due to high these preperations, people who might be just a bit under the level of a certain school type now score high enough to get said school type as an advice. Even though the teacher may not agree and point out that the kid may have to change levels later on.

I guess a very basic preperation so you have a very general idea of the type of questions sounds reasonable enough. But making too many practise tests to really master the type of questions they ask is just... silly.




dinosaurJR

...

50 XP

14th March 2006

0 Uploads

8,116 Posts

0 Threads

#10 11 years ago

Hmmm - last test I did, I had an IQ of 127 - but that was an online one... so probably really inaccurate...

I don't really see how a simple number of tests can give you your "intelligence quotient" What if you didnt get much sleep the day before? Or if you're feeling a little unwell? it will make you look dumber than you actually are...

No - this type of intelligence testing doesn't hold with me...

the thing is - these sort of tests are silly - but what is the alternative? How else to measure intelligence?

Donutz - I think they do the same thing in the UK... although it started after I left school... Its not so much a measure of intelligence, more a pointer of which areas the student shows aptitude for...




  • 1
  • 2