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

[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.

 

[loseyourname]

Coming up with a solution doesn't make up for not realizing what the answer should be..

Anyway, the trick is being able to handle such questions logically and with speed. Those questions actually came from the GRE I'm studying and are one of the more tricky ones, since it's easy to miss to answer in cents or to answer the age for 1990 in the limited time for each question.

Is that a subject GRE? There are more difficult questions, are there not?

 

[Monique]

No, general quantitative. I never said they were difficult, they are tricky.

 

[BlackVision]

For those interested in what the odds of having a certain IQ is.

This chart is for IQ in SD 16.

Odds of 100+ IQ: 1 in 2
Odds of 110+ IQ: 1 in 4
Odds of 120+ IQ: 1 in 10
Odds of 132+ IQ: 1 in 50
Odds of 141+ IQ: 1 in 230
Odds of 150+ IQ: 1 in 1,400
Odds of 160+ IQ: 1 in 15,000
Odds of 170+ IQ: 1 in 250,000
Odds of 180+ IQ: 1 in 5 million
Odds of 190+ IQ: 1 in 150 million
Odds of 200+ IQ: 1 in 5+ billion

In percentage:

Odds of 100+ IQ: 50%
Odds of 110+ IQ: 25%
Odds of 120+ IQ: 10%
Odds of 132+ IQ: 2%
Odds of 141+ IQ: 0.4%
Odds of 150+ IQ: 0.07%
Odds of 160+ IQ: 0.007%
Odds of 170+ IQ: 0.0004%
Odds of 180+ IQ: 0.00002%
Odds of 190+ IQ: 0.0000007%
Odds of 200+ IQ: 0.00000002%


Most people have an IQ in between 1 standard deviation. 84-116. About 70% of people will fall within that range.

 

[KFunk]

So that there's something that can actually be compared in this thread I scored 149 on the WISC-III test 5 years ago when I was 11.

 

[Tasthius]

MY IQ was measured at age 16 on the WAIS-R as 82, full scale. I was a bit below the normal range (90-110), but am still able to function quite well as an adult.

 

[Yggdrasil]

IQ, does anyone REALLY know what it means? All it is for is to make humans fight over something else. What would happen if nobody invented the "IQ test"? That would mean no more Bush jokes! (Which I say is very rude, you should respect your president, unless you are not from America, then it's OK.)

 

[Tigers2B1]

...What would happen if nobody invented the "IQ test"? That would mean no more Bush jokes! (Which I say is very rude, you should respect your president, unless you are not from America, then it's OK.)

I'll take this opportunity to show my lack of a sense of humor ---

Before the present SAT there was a correlation between SAT scores and IQ scores. (The present SAT has been changed and this correlation no longer exists) If George W. Bush's pre-1974 SAT score was a combined 1206, as reported in numerous sites on the internet, then this SAT score converts to an IQ of 129 on the Otis-Gamma IQ test. The Otis test is reported to have a standard deviation of between 15 and 16 which makes the converted score almost two standard deviations above the norm.

http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/Pre1974SAT.html

Those of you who accept the numbers above –– should note that the indicated IQ would be in the top 3% of the population. As stated in the linked material, these correlations were developed using a little more than 400 SAT and Otis IQ test takers.

In addition – the actual correlation for the pre-1994 SAT test to the WAIS is +.80. This is higher than some IQ tests have with each other as shown in the quote below. This quote is concerning the pre-1994 SAT. Note the correlations given --

…In fact, the test was developed by Princeton professor Carl Brigham, who had been one of the Army I.Q. testing team during the first world war. One of its first applications was by Harvard president James Bryant Conant in his establishment of the Harvard national scholarship program. He was looking for a way to find and admit capable students from parts of the U.S. where the university would not otherwise have looked. Newsweek reports: "There was one point about it on which Conant repeatedly demanded reassurance: was it a pure test of intelligence, rather than of the quality of the taker's education? Otherwise he was concerned that bright boys who had been born into modest circumstances and gone to poor schools would be penalized." Only after being convinced that the SAT was a pure intelligence test did Conant implement its use.

Consider the correlations between various standard tests and the WAIS:

WAIS to Stanford Binet = 0.77

WAIS to Raven's = 0.72

WAIS to Otis = 0.78

WAIS to SAT = 0.80

The designers of the SAT benchmarked it against the Otis; the similarity of correlations between the SAT and the WAIS was no accident. It is no wonder that high IQ societies (including Mensa, Intertel, ISPE, and TNS) have accepted the pre-1994 SAT as proof of membership qualification. TNS is presumably going to continue to accept it, with an adjusted score (to compensate for recent tinkering).

Note also that the quote above states that the SAT was actually benchmarked using the Otis IQ test. The Otis test was used in the SAT to IQ conversion above.

Here’s the link -

http://members.cox.net/sidelock/pages/Telicom090299.html

So the question becomes – never mind whether you agree with his politics – the media has given George W. Bush a bad rap where native intelligence is concerned --

 

[selfAdjoint]

Most of the blogs I read never said Bush is low IQ, they said he is intellectually lazy and uninterested in reading and mastering hard stuff. So he doesn't read the papers, or apparently the briefing documents, and relies on personal coaching by Condaleeza Rice and Karen Hughes. He is also mightily stubborn and refuses to change an opinion even when it's been proven wrong. That may not be low IQ behavior, but it sure is dumb.

 

[Njorl]

It was also common, before the 1980's, for wealthy children to pay someone to take the SAT for them. I have never seen anything to indicate he was above average intelligence.

Njorl

 

[Jeebus]

…, and relies on personal coaching by Condaleeza Rice and Karen Hughes.

I wouldn't call Condaleeza Rice that good of a coach by how she was perceived on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night.

 

[Tigers2B1]

It was also common, before the 1980's, for wealthy children to pay someone to take the SAT for them. I have never seen anything to indicate he was above average intelligence.

Njorl

Njorl, I looked but couldn’t find anything related to your assertion that "before the 1980s" the SAT was corrupted by "the wealthy" on the grand scale you seem to claim. You’re joking right? You're joking and you just made that up. OR not joking and made that up. OR you're not joking and didn't make it up. If the last, you got a credible, non-blog, link for that assertion? And if you didn't just then make it up - what does your use of the word "common" mean – 1 in 2? 1 in 5? 1 in 20? And I assume that since "the wealthy" were the ones doing this – and it was "common" – then, "before the 1980s" "the wealthy" must have come close to being a class of immorals. Or maybe the pre-1980 fees were so high that only the wealthy, and not middle class people, could afford the going rate. Amazing stuff!

Also ---- I suppose in the interests of fairness I should add that Bush's pre-1974 SAT score of 1206, after recentered up to today's modest SAT standard, comes out to about 1280.

 

[Tasthius]

Although IQ is a statistically predictive concept, as far as academia is concerned, it is overall a futile concept. Smart people will succeed and dumb ones wont. What is the point of testing?

It's like the argument for better "gifted children" education. Many people proclaim the utter lack of competency of most school systems to adequately provide the proper cirriculum in the correct environment for children with IQ's above 130. They argue that since the majority of people are of average IQ, then it is only natural that school systems wee built to accommodate such individuals. What these people fail to realize is that most gifted children acquire most of their advanced knowledge on their on. I go back to my point. Smart kids will learn even if not given the opportunity for an education at all.

People with high IQ's will succeed in life even if they have been tested or not. Of course this success optimizes statistically at a certain point. It has been theorized that IQ's above about 125 are pretty much worthless for real world success and prestige in business, the arts, or even the sciences. It has further been shown that those people sitting at the right side of the psychometric tail are usually underacheivers.

 

[Njorl]

Njorl, I looked but couldn’t find anything related to your assertion that "before the 1980s" the SAT was corrupted by "the wealthy" on the grand scale you seem to claim. You’re joking right? You're joking and you just made that up. OR not joking and made that up. OR you're not joking and didn't make it up. If the last, you got a credible, non-blog, link for that assertion? And if you didn't just then make it up - what does your use of the word "common" mean – 1 in 2? 1 in 5? 1 in 20? And I assume that since "the wealthy" were the ones doing this – and it was "common" – then, "before the 1980s" "the wealthy" must have come close to being a class of immorals. Or maybe the pre-1980 fees were so high that only the wealthy, and not middle class people, could afford the going rate. Amazing stuff!

Also ---- I suppose in the interests of fairness I should add that Bush's pre-1974 SAT score of 1206, after recentered up to today's modest SAT standard, comes out to about 1280.

I suppose it was so easy then the middle class could afford it too.

Were you alive then? There were no security measures when I took them in '80. There are now. Guess why.

A good friend of mine taught princeton review in the 80's and 90's. He was approached many times by his students. The best offer he got was $5000 to take the LSAT.

I see no reason to think Bush is of better than average intelligence. I find it much more reasonable to believe that he either cheated, or that his records have been alterred or that the "1205" is just some web legend with no basis in fact.

He scored c's in college. At Ivy league schools, you get a "c" for showing up. Every business he ran failed, or was bailed out by huge gifts. His two successes in life, being elected governer and president, were entirely managed by other people with little input from him. Every scrap of analyzable evidence shows mediocrity at best. Occam's razor slices away the "1205 SAT" before it slices away the alternatives.

Njorl

 

[Tigers2B1]

...He scored c's in college. At Ivy league schools, you get a "c" for showing up. Every business he ran failed, or was bailed out by huge gifts. His two successes in life, being elected governer and president, were entirely managed by other people with little input from him. Every scrap of analyzable evidence shows mediocrity at best. Occam's razor slices away the "1205 SAT" before it slices away the alternatives.

Njorl

Well, I don't know what you think Occam's razor is doing here Njorl - but to be honest, you still don’t provide anything as support for your 'pre-1980 wealthy people' cheat on the SAT bare bones conclusion--- other than your repeating that it is so – and your anecdotal story. Is there sometime, anything, out there on the Net that supports that it was 'common' for 'wealthy people' to purchase their SAT scores 'pre-1980?' Anything?? And not to get ahead of ourselves – but after that maybe you can add how you reach the conclusion that Bush must have been one of those 'wealthy' who purchased his SAT score. I mean without concluding simply that because Bush belonged to a certain economic class it follows that he must have cheated ---

Now, I suppose your implication that Bush must have cheated runs like this ---

1. Bush was wealthy pre-1980.
2. *Bush was dumb pre-1980. (your conclusion)
3. *Wealthy people purchased SAT scores before 1980. (your conclusion)
4. Bush could not have made a 1206 on the pre-1980 SAT because he is dumb (conjecture reached from conclusion in number 2)
5. THEREFORE – because Bush being ‘wealthy’ (1) and dumb (2), HENCE - Bush must have purchased his pre-1980 SAT score.

Odd ---

Anyway – it's funny some people mention Bush's Cs and then create unsupported implications that his 1206 must have been purchased - but forget Al Gore's Fs. If you get Cs for just showing – I suppose a fella gets a D for not showing – but how in the heck does a guy get a F?--- must less Gore’s 5 Fs --- I mean, how can you do less than nothing and do it five times ---??

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38dcfe0d392e.htm

…Mr. Gore's high school performance on the college board achievement tests in physics (488 out of 800 —"terrible," St. Albans retired teacher and assistant headmaster John Davis told The Post) and chemistry (519 out of 800 — "He didn't do too well in chemistry," Mr. Davis observed) suggests that Mr. Gore would have trouble with science for the rest of his life. At Harvard and Vanderbilt, Mr. Gore continued bumbling along.
As a Harvard sophomore, scholar Al "earned" a D in Natural Sciences 6 — in a course presciently named "Man's Place in Nature." That was the year he evidently spent more time smoking cannabis than studying its place among other plants within the ecosystem. His senior year, Mr. Gore received a C+ in Natural Sciences 118.

At Vanderbilt divinity school, Mr. Gore took a course in theology and natural science. The assigned readings included the apocalyptic, and widely discredited "Limits to Growth," which formed much of the foundation for "Earth in the Balance." It is said that Mr. Gore failed to hand in his book report on time. Thus, his incomplete grade turned into an F, one of five Fs Mr. Gore received at divinity school, which may well be a worldwide record.

 

[passenger]

A real iq test can't depends on UNLIMITAYED words someone know or even The environment he grows , but i think we don't have any test like this in access , believe or not , The real Geniuses couldn't speak Nicely , even said that Albert einstein couldn't understand The HISTORY