Is it important to know your IQ?

[LooF]

If Steve has an IQ of 82, and Peter has an IQ of 120, and Peter sleeps with Ruth once a day for 28 days, losing 1.5 IQ points every time he sleeps with Ruth, but Steve joins Genius Forums and makes one post every 3 days for a total of 32 days, with every post increasing his IQ by 2 points, who will have the highest IQ exactly 9 months after the first time Peter sleeps with Ruth without using birth control?

using my extremely high IQ i know for a fact that it was Ruth having the highest IQ at this point.

the 1.5 IQ that Peter lost every time he slept with Ruth was absorbed within Ruth. Ruth maliciously planned this course of event by not using birth control pills.

i also deduce that her being able to plan this will place her original IQ at around 120.

also she undoubtedly will, with all her power, attempt to have steve's IQ reduced as well. I know this for a fact. Believe me, I have a high IQ.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Believe it or not, but intelligence is commonly defined as just that ability.

Well, yes. Intelligence is ability but what I said was that I can't see how the specific ability to solve logic exercises denotes intelligence.

What I tried to say was that the exercises are designed to measure certain abilities (logic, abstracting, association) which are considered to be associated with the term 'intelligence'. It all depends on the quality and versatility of the test material to prevent one is only measuring the ability to solve that specific type of test.

I mean, swell if you do know how many floogs are flogs but it is kind of ridiculous for those who know floogs and flogs to think of themselves as mentally superior.

I don't mean to knock it because, maybe if I had scored 160 instead of 88, I would be bragging. But I don't think so.

I wonder if you ever saw a serious test though, not just some online quickie. But I have to agree with you that tests are very limited compared to the many different ways intelligence works through people in real life. But this can be said of all testing of all the more complex abilities.

Athletic ability is athletic ability. It has nothing to do with intelligence.

Yes, but the key here is that someone who is considered a genius wielding some ability doesn't become that just by accident. Most examples I know of have sacrificed an important part of their life, if not all of it, pushed their limits to the extreme and had an all consuming passion to come on top, to be the best. I guess it's a form of pure masculinity in most cases.

Idealism is part of genius.

Agreed. The bar is set at such towering height.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

B,

I've observed some who know their IQ is high, and it makes them lazy and unambitious. They don't 'have' to strive for anything, now that they know why some things come so easy to them.

Wouldn't it be more obvious to assume that certain things indeed come easy to them (at least in a knowledge driven society) and that this by itself might make them more lazy and unambitious. When they'd find out at some point it's related to having a 'high IQ', the striving or lack of striving would not be directly affected by it, perhaps only forming some relief of anxiety they might have about the situation. They might even learn more about the phenomenon this way through literature or contact with others like them and start understanding the shadow sides of their ability.

[DHodges]

Yes, but the key here is that someone who is considered a genius wielding some ability doesn't become that just by accident. Most examples I know of have sacrificed an important part of their life, if not all of it, pushed their limits to the extreme and had an all consuming passion to come on top, to be the best. I guess it's a form of pure masculinity in most cases.

Is that masculinity, or is it just egotism?

As you said, the drive is often not a drive for excellence itself, so much as a drive to be better than other people.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

DHodges,

As you said, the drive is often not a drive for excellence itself, so much as a drive to be better than other people.

Well I didn't mean to say that exactly. How would you define the term 'excellence' while not using the concept of superiority or at least the state of being distinguished of others in some significant way?

The ego can and will jump on any bandwagon that can provide the significance it craves, but since the road toward excellence is often very hard and humbling I doubt that it would be already a relevant factor in the first stages.

[DHodges]

I have a feeling this is one of those topics that I can't talk about openly and honestly without sounding like a total asshole.

So be it.

Well I didn't mean to say that exactly. How would you define the term 'excellence' while not using the concept of superiority or at least the state of being distinguished of others in some significant way?

The very concept of 'excelling' is, by definition, excelling relative to some standard - usually, relative to people around you. But I think this is a very poor standard, for several reasons.

First, it assumes that what people generally do is relevant, and that what people do is generally good enough. But you may be the man with poor eyesight, in the land of the blind.

There are a variety of things that most people are bad at. Being relatively good at those things means nothing. You can be above average, and still suck. A mediocre juggler is way above the average population in juggling ability. Other jugglers will know him to be mediocre.

For myself, I'm a pretty decent guitar player. But if I was comparing myself only to other people that have been playing guitar for twenty-five years, it might be a different story; I might be average, or worse. But to someone who doesn't play, or has been playing for six months or a year, my skills might seem very impressive.

There's also the possibility that the people around you are a poor sample. For instance, in high school, I was one of the smartest people in the school. I didn't need to study. The situation was quite different when I went to college, and didn't get that high school spoon-feeding of knowledge. I had to learn how to study.

This is probably most relevant here, in talking about seeking after truth. Most people are not really interested. Being interested at all probably puts you above average. So what?

If there is such a thing as enlightenment (as a distinct state of being), then what matters is the absolute fact of whether you have achieved it (or are seeking after it) or not. It doesn't matter what anyone else does. It's not enough to be relatively enlightened.

I think it's good to keep in mind, even if you are the 'best' by some standard or other, you're still just another human; just another monkey. At most, you be thought highly of by other monkeys. It's highly unlikely that you will ever be known off this little speck of dust, or when this century is over.

It all comes down to puffing yourself up because "Stupid people think I'm cool."


Thirdly, people are very bad at comparing themselves to other people. It's pretty easy to compare two other people to each other, but comparing yourself is very difficult. The current issue of Scientific American "Mind" has an article about that topic. They did a comparison between self-esteem, and how good looking people thought they were. There was a significant correlation. But it wasn't clear what caused what, so they got in an independant panel to judge how good looking the people actually were. They found no corrrelation between how good looking people thought they were, and how good looking other people thought they were.

So it's pretty easy to fool yourself, one way or the other.

The ego can and will jump on any bandwagon that can provide the significance it craves, but since the road toward excellence is often very hard and humbling I doubt that it would be already a relevant factor in the first stages.

This highlights the danger in feeding the ego. Doing it for ego rewards is not going to work anyway.

Is there any reason to compare yourself to other people, other than to feed your ego?

[Rhett]

.

If Steve has an IQ of 82, and Peter has an IQ of 120, and Peter sleeps with Ruth once a day for 28 days, losing 1.5 IQ points every time he sleeps with Ruth, but Steve joins Genius Forums and makes one post every 3 days for a total of 32 days, with every post increasing his IQ by 2 points, who will have the highest IQ exactly 9 months after the first time Peter sleeps with Ruth without using birth control?

Peter would lose 42 points of intelligence after the month of sex with Ruth, slipping himself below Steve regardless of Steve's developments (Steve will rocket ahead).

However, in the absence of further information the reader cannot make a certain conclusion as to "who will have a higher IQ exactly 9 months after the first time Peter sleeps with Ruth without using birth control", because no data is given as to the use of birth control.

.

[catsndogs]

Yeah, some detail, zero substance.

What can you expect with a topic with no relevence..serious discussion?

waffler.

If you find the topic question to be so trite, a mirror concept of this trite topic would be...

Does labeling a person harm them, irrespective of whether the label is complementary or not?

[catsndogs]

Not to speak for everyone catsndogs but, I don't think anyone here gives a rat's ass what you have to say.

packrat mentality.

[catsndogs]

The minds of people with high IQs are very similar to those minds belonging to really attractive people - extremely shallow and self possessed.

Sue

Really a pretty good assessment, perhaps what is missing would be three dots ....

The minds of people with high IQs are very similar to those minds belonging to really attractive people - extremely shallow and self possessed....Sue

....when it comes to letting others lead.

---------------------------------------

I don't get the significance of three dots. Personally, I always detested the three dot thing. Such a ploy.

Unless, you mean that the three dots are part of a missing square. In that case, I cannot comprehend. My IQ is too low.

Faizi

I should have been more complementary, it's a great assessment. The three dots were meant for one to pause at the end of Sue's quote because it is strong, then I just added an ending that I thought gave the quote more specificity, I wanted both parts to be separate but read as one because I find it to be very accurate.

[Blair]

Well aren't you just full of insights?

Again, noone gives a rat's ass, go and play at the mall or something.

[LooF]

prince

are you so sure of yourself?

judging so fast may not be good for you

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The very concept of 'excelling' is, by definition, excelling relative to some standard - usually, relative to people around you. But I think this is a very poor standard, for several reasons.

The excelling that we were talking about is the excelling of individual people, not? So the context is formed by other people or what they do or think, it can't be avoided.

Lets make an important distinction: someone can be seen from a distance as excelling in some activity, even to the point of being genius in the field. This is not the mindset of the one who does the excelling, who might not be occupied with the whole issue - he might not be self-consciously busy with excelling compared to others. So the standard is set here from the outside, the observer.

There's another standard however that would be set by the genius in question; his whole value-system would derive from that. Everything would be judged and valued according to this high standard, including the things people say or do in his environment. All what is deemed worthy he will pursue and what's deemed rubbish he will avoid.

First, it assumes that what people generally do is relevant, and that what people do is generally good enough. But you may be the man with poor eyesight, in the land of the blind.

No, its relevance comes from the standard that this excelling person just raised. Even poor eyesight would be a miracle in the land of the blind, but mostly for the one just opening his never used eyes! One cannot open their eyes without realizing at the same time that blindness was the old standard maintained by those around. A standard now suddenly seen as inferior and useless.

There's also the possibility that the people around you are a poor sample.

That's true. But to the excelling individual that might always seem the case. Unless he on purpose would avoid a better or tougher environment which he knows is in reach, to maintain his own bubble. Here the ego indeed took over. I've seen this happening a lot.

I think it's good to keep in mind, even if you are the 'best' by some standard or other, you're still just another human; just another monkey.

If we'd be superman by birth, there was no challenge to excel in anything really.

It all comes down to puffing yourself up because "Stupid people think I'm cool."

I never got the impression that for example legendary sportsmen had such thoughts at all.

Thirdly, people are very bad at comparing themselves to other people.

Often the label of genius is attached to someone by other people, many times posthumous. But the real genius has grown out of every possible label or comparison. He acts and others try to describe.

Is there any reason to compare yourself to other people, other than to feed your ego?

Valuing has value, not?

[williamashley]

Is a smart person who knows their IQ less smart than if they didn't know their IQ, and is a less smart person who doesn't know their IQ a bit smarter for not knowing their IQ?

The nature of IQ.

IQ is a measurement of capacity to adapt to a set of standards.

IQ test vary therefor the standard of IQ is varying from test to test.

Only 1 real type of IQ exists and anyone living measures 1.
Those dead introduce redundancy but we can say 0.

The general idea that the more you know the more adaptable you are, but one must question in a feedback system where all our biomass is being used, are we reallly learning or mearly reconfiguring our knowledge?

Were we dumber before or are we getting smarter? We have been alive the whole time so who is to say.

When you introduce idea like SAT's and the like or membership in MENSA if that is what floats your boat or enables you to acheive what you would like to acheive then definately.

If life is nothing more then mesurement and membership, or the idea of interpretation and action, then life ain't complex.


Shakes 8 ball,

sorry, try again.

[Unidian]

I agree with most skeptical comments about IQ. I do know my own IQ and I used to take considerable pride in it, but I got over it. I know people with higher IQs who are essentially idiots. In the same vein, I also know people with lower IQs who are quite substantial thinkers. Ultimately, I also realized that pride itself is usually a rather foolish emotion. For these and other reasons, I no longer have much interest in IQ.