Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

IQ

Re: IQ
November 21, 2007, 07:19:29 PM
Quote
IQ was never meant to measure applied intelligence; potential and intelligence are essentially synonymous with regard to it.


I know this, but my point is that someone's IQ implies less than most people seem to think. Basically, a high IQ doesn't guarantee greatness or intelligence, and like The False Profit said, real genius is measured in accomplishments. I'm sure this didn't even need to be mentioned, as you all probably knew this already.

Anyway, I'm going to look into taking one of these tests soon.

Quote
Are you familiar with Mozart's history? The man could barely dress himself, leave alone perform simple tasks around the house. Possibly, this list over rates him for all I know. Either he had a high IQ and complete lack of practicality, or low IQ and a musically complex mind. Either way, he does not fall in to the category of "useful" people for the survival of the earth, because let's face it, we can live and achieve greatness without ever having heard his music. In which case, he would stand for "culling" ::) I would agree with the statement that reality is the real test. Good luck testing 7 billion people for how useful they are.


Mozart was the paragon of the child genius. He had an extraordinary ability for memorization, and was able to write out the scores to some works while they were being performed. As far as his lack of practicality goes, many great geniuses are odd like that. Whether or not he was "useful" for civilization, I don't think it really matters.

Re: IQ
November 21, 2007, 07:46:27 PM
Quote

Mozart was the paragon of the child genius. He had an extraordinary ability for memorization, and was able to write out the scores to some works while they were being performed. As far as his lack of practicality goes, many great geniuses are odd like that. Whether or not he was "useful" for civilization, I don't think it really matters.


You're missing my point though you've agreed to it in the response to Kontinual- that having a high IQ is not a good way in deciding who is necessary and who is not for the survival of civilization. If we had a whole bunch of people over the IQ of 140 that were able to memorize music and write entire works at one go, while not being able to dress themselves or cook themselves a meal or do anything to stop the decay around them, we're worse off than having those of a lower IQ around. Being able to do all that Mozart did is cool, no doubt, but it isn't necessary.

Re: IQ
November 21, 2007, 07:54:27 PM
If necessities constituted human life, than we would be only animals.

We need gods and clods, as someone said.

Re: IQ
November 21, 2007, 08:32:51 PM
Quote
If we had a whole bunch of people over the IQ of 140 that were able to memorize music and write entire works at one go, while not being able to dress themselves or cook themselves a meal or do anything to stop the decay around them, we're worse off than having those of a lower IQ around.


Yeah you're right. Retards are inevitable since nobody over 140 can tie shoes, prepare food and sanitize toilets. Go away.

Re: IQ
November 21, 2007, 09:28:48 PM
Quote
I honestly don't think IQ tests are very meaningful. I know plenty of people who seem like they would have high IQs, but make stupid decisions or waste their time on meaningless shit. IQ is more about potential than actual intelligence.


Logical argument is also a test. You may not want to commit the fallacy you did above.

We're talking about differentiating between useless-stupid and useful, and you start talking about how some people with high IQs are fuckups. Yes, we know. But stupid people cause far more damage than a few lab nerds.

The whole point of this argument is thus: when stupider people exist, they pull society down to its level, and destroy those above them if they can. The best solution is to raise the bar by eliminating the lowest.

People under 120 IQ points are generally best at following orders and causing problems for smarter people. There are a handful of exceptions, and anyone except a 4-bit machine would figure that out. You don't define the rule by the exceptions, however. You apply the rule and keep an eye out for exceptions.

I think this whole argument on this forum boils down to two groups: those who want to move ahead to a higher level of society, and those that are afraid so they invent moral reasons, questions about the validity of the IQ test (actually, not in scientific doubt; the IQ test is a powerful diagnostic tool, especially when you're cutting a line between the useful and the horde) and other bullshit. And really it's just bullshit. Say what you mean.

Personally, I've seen how in this era the proliferation of stupid people has made this society fat. It moves slowly. It waddles. Anytime there is need for some decisive action, thousands of slow voices call out in unison with different objections. So nothing changes and the decay goes on.

Do you want decay, or do you want a society that will actually do something that's not hellish? Maybe we should decide that question first.

Re: IQ
November 21, 2007, 10:05:28 PM
I find online IQ test aggravating, this is mostly because with different tests my IQ fluctuates between 110 and 150.

Does anyone have any modern IQ tests that are being used in educational facilities in major countries of the world right now?  

But IQ test aren't measures of intelligence. They measure aspects of a persons mind that are often associated with intelligence like logic, pattern finding, mathematics etc. It is however a useful tool for seeing who is most likely a genius and moving onto more specific "tests" from there, like psychiatric evaluations.

I found the tickle IQ test after looking for the WAIS-III which is a revision of the Wechsler-Bellevue IQ test. So i thought it would be trustworthy. I got 131. Did anyone else do this one?

http://web.tickle.com/tests/uiqnew/

Re: IQ
November 21, 2007, 10:16:43 PM
IQ tests have to be administered by a psychologist. Online tests are not going to cut it.

After the crud is separated from the worthwhile, the Jung-Meyers-Briggs typology can serve as a caste guideline.

1) find out who remains (IQ)
2) find out where those who remain may best fit in (typology)

Re: IQ
November 21, 2007, 11:16:58 PM
Quote

But stupid people cause far more damage than a few lab nerds.



Although, stupidity is not restricted to only dumb people. Intelligence + stupidity is far more damaging than just stupid people. For example, we have wonderfully smart people coming up with ways to cure disease in the world, but then we are left with over population. A lot of technology is created by smart people but the technology and the way it is used is stupid. Although, I do agree with most of your points, I just think there is more to it and the problem of stupidity is more dynamic.
I remember back when I studied psychology the definition, interpretation and methods of measuring intelligence were in open debate.

Re: IQ
November 21, 2007, 11:30:55 PM
1a)

Quote
The point is to cut out the real fools, who are those who score below 120 and have done nothing of any importance whatsoever, and then put the rest into combat so they can eliminate the perverts, criminals, parasites and whores.


and the unwise moralists who create overpopulation

STS

Re: IQ
November 22, 2007, 12:04:20 AM
Quote
I honestly don't think IQ tests are very meaningful. I know plenty of people who seem like they would have high IQs, but make stupid decisions or waste their time on meaningless shit. IQ is more about potential than actual intelligence.

That said, I'd still like to know mine. How did you find out yours? Could you recommend a reliable test (preferably not online)? I've never cared much to take an IQ test, but I've always been sure its higher than my classmates'. All I have is a high SAT score...


Aside from what has already been posted here, an IQ test doesnít necessarily indicate whether or not someone will produce anything meaningful in life- it is limited by it's inability to test some types of intelligence (i.e. emotional, creative, several others) therefore there will exist a margin of uncertainty for absolute potential- however, the IQ test still helps to put other forms of human intelligence (i.e. spatial, analytic) into context. In sum, the IQ test tests for potential, but it doesn't guarantee that potential will be fulfilled. †

Re: IQ
November 22, 2007, 12:31:09 AM
Quote
IQ tests have to be administered by a psychologist. Online tests are not going to cut it.

After the crud is separated from the worthwhile, the Jung-Meyers-Briggs typology can serve as a caste guideline.

1) find out who remains (IQ)
2) find out where those who remain may best fit in (typology)


This is the best and most realistic answer of the thread so far.

With those two test, NOW we can really (or actually, be more precise in it) see who's good for the gas chamber and who's not.

Only IQ test is not enough.

Re: IQ
November 22, 2007, 12:34:22 AM
Quote

Aside from what has already been posted here, an IQ test doesnít necessarily indicate whether or not someone will produce anything meaningful in life- it is limited by it's inability to test some types of intelligence (i.e. emotional, creative, several others) therefore there will exist a margin of uncertainty for absolute potential- however, the IQ test still helps to put other forms of human intelligence (i.e. spatial, analytic) into context. In sum, the IQ test tests for potential, but it doesn't guarantee that potential will be fulfilled.  


Creativity can be assessed through an IQ test

The definition of a genius is a person with enhanced mental abilities, and a unique and non imitative approach. So as to reach ideas by themselves that others only reach by being taught. Those with massive IQ's (in the 160 and above range) will almost defiantly be a genius unless the test was a fluke. Musical genius's have several things in common. Enhanced memory for intervals, tone relations and a complete memory towards music that has only been heard, and often a long time ago. Also a common trait is is the ability to hear on the upwards of seven different melodies at any one time where the ordinary person can hear one.

There was once a person who wanted to prove that a genius is made, not born. He took his newly born daughter and gave her many exercises to help her develop the skills that create a genius. And she is then at a very young age the chess world champion (which was her chosen field). And her two other sisters have enjoyed similar renown.  

The same traits that she possessed because of her unique training are remarkable similar to those shown by musical prodigies. These traits included the ability to remember past games no matter how long ago move for move, which is similar to recalling works previously heard. Being able to play chess without even seeing the chess board, only being told as to where the pieces are being moved. There were more talents but I cannot recall them. Thus is can be assumed that most genius's are very similar but have simple chosen different fields to excel in. Thus it can be assumed a person with a massive IQ could very well do well in a creative field.

Its no coincidence that several musicians and composers were on that list from the initial post.

Re: IQ
November 22, 2007, 12:46:26 AM
Quote
Aside from what has already been posted here, an IQ test doesn’t necessarily indicate whether or not someone will produce anything meaningful in life- it is limited by it's inability to test some types of intelligence (i.e. emotional, creative, several others) therefore there will exist a margin of uncertainty for absolute potential- however, the IQ test still helps to put other forms of human intelligence (i.e. spatial, analytic) into context. In sum, the IQ test tests for potential, but it doesn't guarantee that potential will be fulfilled. †


Of course. Nothing can do that.

It isn't binary. It does distinguish what one will be able to do.

Anyone who doubts that:

Go in for your next major surgery under a doctor who scored a 105.

Go ahead, put your money where your mouth is.

shadowmystic

Re: IQ
November 22, 2007, 05:16:35 AM
I only took one 'real' IQ test when I was about 8 and I scored 161.  I wouldn't know if that's accurate now, currently 17.

Re: IQ
November 22, 2007, 05:18:48 AM
Quote

Logical argument is also a test. You may not want to commit the fallacy you did above.

We're talking about differentiating between useless-stupid and useful, and you start talking about how some people with high IQs are fuckups. Yes, we know. But stupid people cause far more damage than a few lab nerds.

The whole point of this argument is thus: when stupider people exist, they pull society down to its level, and destroy those above them if they can. The best solution is to raise the bar by eliminating the lowest.

People under 120 IQ points are generally best at following orders and causing problems for smarter people. There are a handful of exceptions, and anyone except a 4-bit machine would figure that out. You don't define the rule by the exceptions, however. You apply the rule and keep an eye out for exceptions.

I think this whole argument on this forum boils down to two groups: those who want to move ahead to a higher level of society, and those that are afraid so they invent moral reasons, questions about the validity of the IQ test (actually, not in scientific doubt; the IQ test is a powerful diagnostic tool, especially when you're cutting a line between the useful and the horde) and other bullshit. And really it's just bullshit. Say what you mean.

Personally, I've seen how in this era the proliferation of stupid people has made this society fat. It moves slowly. It waddles. Anytime there is need for some decisive action, thousands of slow voices call out in unison with different objections. So nothing changes and the decay goes on.

Do you want decay, or do you want a society that will actually do something that's not hellish? Maybe we should decide that question first.


The problem isn't the proliferation of stupid people, but rather, that stupid people enjoy a level of both personal autonomy and access to political and social power that is unthinkable in healthy societies.  In absolute terms, people have been getting smarter over the last century, at least as measured by IQ testing (keep in mind that the scoring system has been 're-centered' several times to keep the median at 100 - the same test scored a 100 today would have been significantly higher than 100 in say, 1900).

What has changed is not a greater percentage of idiots/mediocrities, but rather, the social position to which idiots and mediocrities can now aspire.  As a practical matter, it makes far more sense to alter our social institutions to put mediocrities in positions where they can do much good, but no harm - digging ditches, harvesting crops, writing code and other activities that are productive, but require no special ability - than it does to eliminate 'stupid people' and put people with high IQ's to work doing things that can be done just as well by serfs.  Any 'solution' that posits holocausting 80% of the human race is an internet fantasy in any event (see also Power, White): you might as well wish for a unicorn in every garage to combat greenhouse gas emissions.