What is the true measure of IQ and its significance in today's society?

[Mulder]

^Which IQ-test is the right one then?

You cannot see anyway in which someone who gets lower than you on an IQ-test can be more intelligent than you?

What's the difference between intelligence and knowledge? An IQ-test?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Mulder
^Which IQ-test is the right one then?

You cannot see anyway in which someone who gets lower than you on an IQ-test can be more intelligent than you?

What's the difference between intelligence and knowledge? An IQ-test?

No, it's logically impossible. Unless the test is rigged.

You missed my point that, because intelligence is a dynamic definition most people are not very well versed in, I choose to go with something that can be considered universal, simply that:

Intelligence - An ability that is measured by an IQ test.

It's that simple. For those who are educated in modern concepts of intelligence, I can use other definitions, but for here that's how it goes for me.

Which IQ test is right? There is an official release of IQ test templates. The producer of these scrutinizes other tests to see the correlation. If the correlation is significant enough, namely less than 5% different over a given size X of testers, it's considered to be another accurate IQ test.


That's that.

 

[Mulder]

^OK, measure it by the result of an IQ-test - but then 'intelligence' becomes a pretty meaningless factor of someone's intellectual ability. But then what is someone's 'intellectual ability' measured on? Comes back to knowledge being the only factor that counts for anything.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Mulder
^OK, measure it by the result of an IQ-test - but then 'intelligence' becomes a pretty meaningless factor of someone's intellectual ability. But then what is someone's 'intellectual ability' measured on? Comes back to knowledge being the only factor that counts for anything.

Intellectualism is just ones ability to "think outside the box", for one to "propose new ideas" or just for one to think of things outside of what they're going to wear today.

It's not worth defining properly because it is a useless term. Intellectualism is why we have philosophy daggling around when science already knocked it out.

It's nothing without knowledge. Knowledge is definined as information. If one is knowledgeable on history, one has a large amount (in comparison to others) of information in their brain on this subject.

Knowledge thus can easily be tested. Just provide a lengthy well rounded exam on the area you wish to test knowledge on.

Those two terms aren't argued too much. They're much simpler than intelligence, that's why I use a layman's term here.

 

[Meninger]

Where does our concept of intelligence come from? For what do we value the phenomenon of intelligence. Simply because of people such as einstein, mozart, Newton etc... This is "intelligence" or the root of "intelligence." And in this sense IQ scores do not always correlate with "intelligence" and neither is it that the genetic traits that correspond with a high IQ is the dinstinguishing gift behind those who are phenomenologically talented in the areas of science. Of course, a person with a high IQ score is intelligent, but I could care less the only bragging right being that one has scored high on a IQ test.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

That's why outside of my peers educated in neuroscience I simply define intelligence level as the score one gets on an IQ test.

It's to dynamic and specifically materialistic for most to understand.

In fact, the conclusion to intelligence in neuroscience is that it doesn't really exist as much as one wants to believe it does.

We are only electrochemical. And we can certainly claim that thinking goes on in the brain. So that specifies a lot of where to look.

Beyond that we find that to say we're intelligent is to say chemicals and electricity completely incapsulate whatever we call intelligence.

 

[jammieg]

I have this suspicion that many of the great minds of history had understanding of a few things far beyond the practical side of understanding a small word like "complex", they extending this understanding into uncharted territories of knowledge to come up with Calculus-curved line concept, or legendary and unique music, or the application of time and efficiency to the universe. I know it's overly simplictic, but just what if it was Einstein's obsession with practical applications of time to his life that lead him to an understanding of time and that applied to the universe lead to SR and GR... What if understanding a thing didn't have a limit except for how practical it could be applied to one's life and that practicality determined how far one might take that particular concept...Sorry I've got a cold and a fever and the only cure is MoRE CowBelL!

Oh ya... If I remember this correctly Einstein's brain had a very few neuron's that were exceptionally grown, or interconnected. Maybe it was those neurons that housed the concepts and usuage of time.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Mmm. Einstien's brain proved to have nothing out of the ordinary.

 

[jammieg]

Initial findings were a typical brain, however:

"...A portion of the brain that governs mathematical ability and spatial reasoning--two key ingredients to the sort of thinking Einstein did best--was significantly larger than average and may also have had more interconnections among its cells, which could have allowed them to work together more effectively."-
Time report June 28th 1999, by MICHAEL D. LEMONICK

http://www.time.com/time/classroom/
psych/unit3_article3.html

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by jammieg
Initial findings were a typical brain, however:

"...A portion of the brain that governs mathematical ability and spatial reasoning--two key ingredients to the sort of thinking Einstein did best--was significantly larger than average and may also have had more interconnections among its cells, which could have allowed them to work together more effectively."-
Time report June 28th 1999, by MICHAEL D. LEMONICK

http://www.time.com/time/classroom/
psych/unit3_article3.html

I see. Well it certainly makes sense. I would not have expected his brain to me normally. As we've seen neural connections really defined the "power" of a given part of the brain.

 

[jammieg]

Ya it does makes sense, but the real question that remains is was he born like this or nurture? Or a bit of both? It gets complicated, but if they find an the real answer to that question it could be a greater discovery than SR.
For instance, give toys to mice and their neurons will grow, but in Einstein's case we don't know if he was born with an abnormal brain like an idiotsavant who learned to cope extraordinarily well, or developed it.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Jammie - To propose that anything that could have happened to Einstein in his youth could make his brain so significantly change size/shape is really quite a claim.

It was surely genetics and pre-birth ideals.

 

[jammieg]

Is it? I'm not so sure it is that wild,
I mean there are lots of reports of increased synaptic complexity and growth due to even a simple thing like viewing more art increasing nerve growth in the eye. And the rats! There must be volumes of data on rat's brains growing when given more toys, but it's next to impossible to be sure if he was born this way or developed this or both. If it could be proven that he solely developed brain complexity and growth, environment would be central to intelligence.
My guess is it was a bit of both, but more environment and an abnormality or two that should have debilitized him, but he adapted well, maybe it was even an abnormality that pushed him toward brain growth in a specific area...

 

[LogicalAtheist]

I think one would find that there are regular people with no specifically intelligent appearance with larger brain sections.

The fact remains not enough brains are studied to know of there truly is a correlation.

It could have been coincidence that his brain parts were larger. There isn't enough data...

 

[RageSk8]

I failed my iq test

To put in my two cents:

If you have a high IQ, you are smart. If you don't have a high IQ (nor an extremely low IQ), you may be smart, you may not be.

IQ's scores give less and less comparative, usefull information the higher they get.

Who cares really? As statistical tools used for general group comparisons, IQ tests are irrelevant when investigating the potential of a specific individual.