IQ- Intelligence quotient, or meaningless number?

Savia · Post by **Savia** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 10:14 am

What is your opinion on the intelligence quotient (IQ)? What do you think it reflects about a person- their intelligence, or their ability to do IQ tests? Tested IQ values can change throughout a person's life; is this a flaw of the test, or can someone genuinely improve or worsen their ability to think?

Secondly, what do you think about IQ as a measure of a person- important, or not? And what about IQ-exclusive societies, like MENSA?

Have any of you had 'proper' IQ tests (not internet quizzes) done? If you don't mind sharing, what were the results, and do you feel that they were fair?

I have a well-formed and detailed opinion about all this, but I would prefer to see what everyone else thinks about it first

A few facts about IQ:

- IQ is measured as a ratio of your 'mental age' to your 'physical age', times 100. Although therefore this means that the mean value should be ~100, it is steadily rising and is now ~105.

- As mentioned above, someone's measured IQ can change during their lifetime.

- Someone with IQ below ~85 is often seriously disadvantaged in many ways; some testers also view IQs of ~140+ to be a disability of sorts for purposes of communication and interaction with other human beings.

- The terms 'moron', 'idiot' and others originated as technical terms for persons with IQs in certain ranges.

Mr Pilkington · Post by **Mr Pilkington** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 10:29 am

IQ is unbelievably important. Not so much the number, but the intellect at hand and how it is used. There is an enormous difference between being smart, and using those smarts. As do I feel it is easier for people of similar intellects to bond, much like backgrounds and interests.

As for Mensa, I feel that groups like that are arrogant (yes I am aware of the hypocrisy at hand) fools who waste their talents on simple pissing contests of the mind. And you can quote me on that! If they spent less time hiding for the public, munching brownies and edible-oil products, and spent more time pondering useful things the world would be a much better place.

And yes I have taken a real IQ test, but I will divulge the results. I find it much more amusing to listen to others try to guess the approximate number.

MrScribble · Post by **MrScribble** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 10:42 am

I (Scribble the great) have an IQ one point below Gifted.

The test was taken at age 13 though. I got alot dumber. 8)

post-it · Post by **post-it** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 10:45 am

I'm thinking its a fraud because mine was above 170 and I know I'm not that smart!

The last test that all the teachers had to take was one on experiances in life.
( now, wait a minute!!!! . . at 44 I'm going to know more than a College Grad! )

The test before that was on History - which was my Major ( unfair test! ) 190 IQ

of all these test's which they made me take I see no set rules or standards
and as such, I see no value in them!

Savia · Post by **Savia** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 10:56 am

A true test is done by a psychiatrist, IIRC. They aren't knowledge-based- the idea is two identical people, one who has been to university and someone else who has lived in the middle of a jungle on their own should be able to get the same score. It doesn't work out that way, but it's supposed to be a measure of how 'powerful' your thinking ability is. A lot of clever people might have average brains, and know how to work them well; others with high IQ might not be 'goo thinkers' and would have problems. Hence, post-it, it's unlikely that those results are accurate. For one thing, anything above 170 is almost impossible to measure.

Mr. Pilkington: it was actually your posted opinions on IQ in a few places that spurred me on to actually posting this topic in the first place; I'm glad you're around to reply to it. I'm not even going to try to guess your score, though

I don't entirely agree with you on the MENSA issue. Although it is true that the organisation's members spend a lot of their time involved in mind games and Star Trek conventions (:P), and that they have arrogance issues, they also help parents with intelligent offspring to cope with the problems assosciated with that- social as well as academic ones.

Mr Pilkington · Post by **Mr Pilkington** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 11:01 am

Savia wrote:....and Star Trek conventions (:P)

There is nothing wrong with that.

Savia · Post by **Savia** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 11:03 am

Mr Pilkington wrote:
Savia wrote:....and Star Trek conventions (:P)
There is nothing wrong with that.

Just pointing out the fulfilment of a cliche. My mother used to run the Star Trek Fan Club Lending Library

)v(ajin Koji · Post by **)v(ajin Koji** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 11:18 am

hey Savia did u do the "National IQ" on bbc1 (hosted by Anne Robinson and Phillip Skofield)?

I'm sure its rigged!

post-it · Post by **post-it** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 11:18 am

8) I don't know how they deturmanded it to be anything higher 100 8)

T_T . . . ^^ I'd be happy with a 77, I'm tired of alway's pinging the bell curve!
( it started overseas and continues over here - but as to why . . . ~_~ I give! )

hehe, just once I'd like to take one of these test's and have my score be 0

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 11:51 am

Very simple.

I've taken some IQ tests, and realized that all they measure is capacity for logical thought, and problem-solving.

While important, this is not the only way of thinking. And, having a high IQ (meaning, being stellarly logical) is not the only way to be a genius, nor a measure of a person's creative potential.

In other words, I find it pretty flat. It's good for figuring out a certain type of capacity, but it's incapable of measuring the many others.

Supposedly, my IQ is a point below genius. Which proves that, as my old literature teacher said - "You're either incredibly lazy or a genius". In other words, it proves nothing conclusive. I tend to lean towards "incredibly lazy".

Now, the thing about "over 145 being a sort of disability" - ironically true. Maybe not in all cases, but ironically true. Knowledge is a deadly friend. Or just not a real friend at all.