One of the problems is that there are many IQ tests all of which purport to measure this immutable thing. In the seventh grade I was given a school IQ test. Although confidential, I managed to sneak a peek at the results and found I had an IQ of 125. Two years later the school gave another test to everyone. When I checked that one I was listed as over thirty points higher. I’m sure my thinking ability hadn’t changed. Rather, the stupid tests (maybe not the tests, but rather the interpreters) have very little correlation with each other and don’t take into consideration the emotional state, physical health, and motivations of the subject.
Occam
You are not saying that every child can become a physicist given the right stimulus, are you? I really hope you are not…Oh, hell no! But they can rise to the highest level of success their mental capacity will allow. There aren't many Feynmans out there and IMO it's a combo of genetics, drive, and encouragement to be on his level, or Sagan, or Dawkins, or Tyson. Cap't Jack
But they can rise to the highest level of success their mental capacity will allow.Which they do. As the psychologist Linda Gottfredson once said, “Life is an IQ test."
Lois, did you try that I.Q. test? It's very flattering, but it's hard to believe to believe I'm 20 points smarter than I was as a young man. Heck, by that test I'm smarter than Feynman. Still, I do lurk around this forum a lot, maybe I.Q., like homosexuality, is catching.Maybe. But Feynman might have been modest enough to not give his actual IQ. In addition there are different IQ tests and scoring that would give different numbers. Heres a chart. You can see it better on the Wikipedia article on IQ, which has good information about assessing IQ. Incidentally, online tests are only a mere indication of how you might do on a real IQ test given and interpreted by an expert. You shouldn't read too much into them. Get a real test if you want to know what your IQ is. IQ scores can differ to some degree for the same individual on different IQ tests (age 12–13 years). (IQ score table data and pupil pseudonyms adapted from description of KABC-II norming study cited in Kaufman 2009. Pupil KABC-II WISC-III WJ-III Asher 90 95 111 Brianna 125 110 105 Colin. 100 93 101 Danica 116 127 118 Elpha. 93 105 93 Fritz 106 105 105 Georgi 95 100 90 Hector 112 113 103 Imelda 104 96 97 Jose. 101 99 86 Keoku 81 78 75 Leo 116 124 102
Which they do. As the psychologist Linda Gottfredson once said, “Life is an IQ test."Agreed. And as Lois is pointing out, there are several different tests used to determine appitude besides the standard IQ test. learning changes as you age but as I said a lot depends on personal motivation as well. You can be a lazy genius too! Cap't Jack
WARNING: Completely OT!
lazy geniusSounds like the name of a band... :lol: Take care, Derek
Are you thinkin’ what I’m thinkin’? Guys, if we could just get the musicians on this site together… Lazy Genius, CDs, live performances at CFI events, concerts, t shirts: merchandising, merchandising! We could make a mint! Derek, you’re a well, genius!
Cap’t Jack
IQ scores can differ to some degree for the same individual on different IQ tests (age 12–13 years). (IQ score table data and pupil pseudonyms adapted from description of KABC-II norming study cited in Kaufman 2009. Pupil KABC-II WISC-III WJ-III Asher 90 95 111 Brianna 125 110 105 ...So much about the objectivity of IQ tests. And the question arises if something is measured at all. We all have length, even if it is not measured. And when it is measured it can be more or less precise. But with those figures it should be clear that there is not just something there, called IQ, waiting to be measured. No wonder people sometimes say that an IQ test tests only one thing: how well somebody did doing the IQ test. Surely there is more to say about it, but this comparison of IQs as done a few postings before is useless, unscientific babble.
George:
One can predict quite accurately the future socioeconomic status of person based on his IQ and the number stays basically the same throughout his life. How much we read or what education we receive has nothing to do with it.That is very much due to the fact, as Lawler points, cultural background much more than and "natural intelligence." If you are born in a culturally succesful group chances are you will be successful youself. While not statically valid, I will give one example, from my personal experience, of how wrong misleading IQ tests can be. When I was in Jr. High there was the guy in Special Ed. because he too dumb according to the IQ tests to do normal schoolwork. Before I went into the service I went to work at a railroad foundry, and he was working there. When I was discharged I went back to work there, and I ran into him again. At this point he was about thirty and the youngest Dept. Superintendent in the history of the plant. When the plant closed 15 years later he was one of the handful of employees the company took with them. Guess the IQ test missed something.
That is very much due to the fact, as Lawler points, cultural background much more than and "natural intelligence." If you are born in a culturally succesful group chances are you will be successful youself.Except that this theory doesn't explain why reared-apart identical twins score almost identically on IQ tests. But I get it, IQ is not genetically based because it can't, and homosexuality is because it must. I have read enough liberal nonsense to know how it goes. Your naivety and deliberate self-deception are worse than the racism and ignorance of those on the right.
George:
Perhaps you should read Lawler"s book before posting a criticism.
But they can rise to the highest level of success their mental capacity will allow.Which they do. As the psychologist Linda Gottfredson once said, “Life is an IQ test." I have to say I find this quote ridiculous. If life is an IQ test, where is the answer key? Are we living in some designed universe where all people have a certain teleology that can then be held up to individual's life outcomes and measure its greater or lesser success? Are we really all striving for the same thing?
Are we really all striving for the same thing?No. People with an IQ of 80 strive to get hammered over the weekend while watching football, while people with an IQ of 160 strive to explain quantum electrodynamics.
George: Perhaps you should read Lawler"s book before posting a criticism.I think I would rather read the Bible backwards while lying on a bed of nails, drinking Coors Light and eating Hershey's Pot of Gold.
I have to say I find this quote ridiculous. If life is an IQ test, where is the answer key? Are we living in some designed universe where all people have a certain teleology that can then be held up to individual’s life outcomes and measure its greater or lesser success? Are we really all striving for the same thing?I believe that George's comment was meant as a metaphor about life and not a literal statement. And in a sense we ARE striving for the same thing; see Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the revised version and as to design relating to mental capacity see natural selection. Cap't Jack
George: Perhaps you should read Lawler"s book before posting a criticism.I think I would rather read the Bible backwards while lying on a bed of nails, drinking Coors Light and eating Hershey's Pot of Gold. Now your "fundamentalism" is coming out. :lol:
Known geniuses ahow up as geniuses on I Q tests, so, though flawed, they are valid at testing something. There will always be anomalies. Sometimes persistence and hard work make up for a less than ideal IQ. The tests don’t test for everything, just native intelligence. I think theyre useful and valid in most cases.
L.
A comment and an anecdote:
- A while ago, a USC psychologist did years of factor analysis and came up with fourteen separate and distinct kinds of intelligence. So one could be very bright in one area and a dunce in another.
Many years ago when I was planning to change jobs, I wanted to prepare so I applied at about six or seven other companies that had areas and needs similar to the job I was looking for. I learned all the questions the interviewers asked, and if I had messed up, I wrote it down then went home and worked on a good answer. During those times I was asked to take IQ tests five times. Three were of one brand, and two of another. I remembered any questions I wasn’t able to answer then worked them out at home.
When I applied to the company I wanted to work for they went through the interview process and asked the same questions. Then they sent me to a psychological testing firm who gave me the first test (twelve minute time). Since I already knew all the answers I finished it in eight minutes. This boggled the mind of the psychologist who then gave me the second test.
I didn’t know what the results were, but I was hired. I worked for a very bright young chemist who later became the CEO, but his about-to-retire old fud boss was not too bright. His comment after reading a paper I wrote was, “Well, just because your IQ is higher that 98% of the Fortune 500 CEOs, it isn’t the only thing you’ll need here.”
My IQ is no where near that level, but repetition certainly does help. :lol: And I got a lot more respect from upper management than one would expect.
Occam
I suspect that the I.Q.s of some of the most honorable, most decent people I have ever met don’t make it into the triple digits
A comment and an anecdote: 1. A while ago, a USC psychologist did years of factor analysis and came up with fourteen separate and distinct kinds of intelligence. So one could be very bright in one area and a dunce in another. Many years ago when I was planning to change jobs, I wanted to prepare so I applied at about six or seven other companies that had areas and needs similar to the job I was looking for. I learned all the questions the interviewers asked, and if I had messed up, I wrote it down then went home and worked on a good answer. During those times I was asked to take IQ tests five times. Three were of one brand, and two of another. I remembered any questions I wasn't able to answer then worked them out at home. When I applied to the company I wanted to work for they went through the interview process and asked the same questions. Then they sent me to a psychological testing firm who gave me the first test (twelve minute time). Since I already knew all the answers I finished it in eight minutes. This boggled the mind of the psychologist who then gave me the second test. I didn't know what the results were, but I was hired. I worked for a very bright young chemist who later became the CEO, but his about-to-retire old fud boss was not too bright. His comment after reading a paper I wrote was, "Well, just because your IQ is higher that 98% of the Fortune 500 CEOs, it isn't the only thing you'll need here." My IQ is no where near that level, but repetition certainly does help. :lol: And I got a lot more respect from upper management than one would expect. :) OccamI suspect ypur IQ really was higher than 98% of the CEOs. I've met quite a few CEOs and they didn't come across as that bright. They are competitive and often aggressive but not necessarily bright, and competitiveness, aggression and ruthlessness makes up for their ordinary intellects, at least in the minds of the people who hire them.. They make a lot of logical errors but they are seldom called on them at that level. But they do get their inflated salaries and bonuses even when they've shown gross incompetence and created disasters. Its not intellect that gets them CEO jobs and protects them through their incompetence, it's the flawed system. Lois