Your IQ?

[Anthony16r]

I scored 147 at a real test made by a psycholog(spelling?).

 

[DJNY]

Try to beat me

 

[ossumguywill]

^LOL :crackup:
IQ meter function? I wish my DMM had that...

 

[cmak]

I scored 147 at a real test made by a psycholog(spelling?).

hahaha oh the irony

Try to beat me

epic picture :crackup:
say, I need to get me one of them smart-o-meters...

lol

peace & thanks
-cmak

 

[StridAst]

I scored 147 at a real test made by a psycholog(spelling?).

Yeah. I laughed too. Hard.

 

[Deleted member 8382]

Since when IQ is related to grammar lol? I have a medium-high IQ but I can't stop making grammar mistakes lol

 

[Zom-B]

I have a high IQ and have partial dyslexia coupled with a bad so-called analog memory. My associative memory is nothing wrong with, but I just cant seem to remember information with no relation to other information, like with topics such as language, history, biology, politics, chemistry, but also network protocols, linux, and my sense of direction. These topics usually contain a high ratio of human-generated ('analog') information, like what john doe did in year #### or something like that. I'm only good at remembering 'associative' information, like certain fields in mathematics, electronics and programming.

I did not lol at that picture. I can understand how some (most?) people would misinterpret that given a certain context, but what I see is just some lousy cameraman shooting a guy who's measuring 155 mA on some unknown (obscured by his head) circuit. This is probably also the reason why I totally and completely hate English humor. In my opinion, that kind of humor is the pinnacle of stupidity.

 

[HIMNL9]

Uhm, what means when the site reply you with an error saying:

"Runtime error #0F7C: application cannot handle 5 digits results." ?

(J/K, LOL ..... the site don't work with my FF setttings )

 

[Deleted member 8382]

@Zom-B: I also have problems with that kind of info. I never remember dates and that kind of "random" data. I mean random, meaning that they are things that happen randomly and not just "facts" that "are true by themselves". That's why I enjoy maths so much and I hate history and that kind of things.

 

[Bandanna]

I scored 132 on the Wechsler and 128 on the Stanford-Binet.
I really support the theory of multiple intelligences though. I have horrible mechanical skills and my kinesthetic ability is definitely no more than average but I know I have very high linguistic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligence.

Theory of multiple intelligences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And research Gardner too if you want to know more. We just finished going over all this in my Psych class.

 

[StridAst]

Hallucynogenyc, I agree with you that bad grammar or spelling doesn't connote lack of intellect. Nor does perfect grammar or spelling prove anything either. However, those with lower intelligence seem to use bad grammar often. This leads people to associate the poor spelling or grammar with low intelligence. Sure it's a bad assumption, however a large number of people will do so subconsciously. Given that, it's easy to find something funny when someone misspells a word online when trying to claim they have a genius level I.Q. Especially considering the ease of using spellcheckers online. The context simply makes it funny. It doesn't mean what he said wasn't true, I just still find it ironic. Largely due to rather misplaced associations.

Bandanna, I agree on the whole concept of multiple intelligences. although I think even that theory, as explained on wikipedia falls drastically short of explaining the true complexity of the human brain. Perhaps one day there will be a simple brain scan to identify overall intellect, or MUCH more useful, identify what intelligence traits you possess. Which would allow for better tailoring education to the individual. Already people are finding that you can see certain brain patterns in certain brain scans that seem to correlate with intelligence. Patterns like the at rest state of the brain, (not sleeping, and not actively processing anything) has areas of the brain that are more widely separated in both distance and function are talking more to each other. They assume this shows better associations in the brain that seem to go hand in hand with higher intelligence scores. Perhaps one day people will be able to look at your brain, and actually check what areas you have the greatest aptitude in. It would be nice to know when starting your life what you are good at. Downside is if there is ever a perfect intelligence test, there will be discrimination based on the results.

 

[Deleted member 8382]

I do believe intelligence is composed by many other things that just logic, but not in the way this theory describes it. As I once read in the Mensa forums, the next thing will be to call "pissing intelligence" the art of "pissing further than others"

 

[StridAst]

the next thing will be to call "pissing intelligence" the art of "pissing further than others"

This, as ANY southern redneck can tell you, is the third most important type of intelligence!!!!! Only beaten out by Drinking intelligence and Whoring intelligence!

 

[Bandanna]

This, as ANY southern redneck can tell you, is the third most important type of intelligence!!!!! Only beaten out by Drinking intelligence and Whoring intelligence!

This just brought a thought to mind. Shouldn't we consider the differences between intelligence and specialization. I've heard intelligence defined as something being culturally biased as in it depends on where you are and what talents that should be used in your particular setting. Hypothetically, if one were to place Mozart or Shakespeare in a modern day automotive repair shop these great minds would likely be rendered completely useless. The same could hold true in a reverse situation as if one were to bring a mechanic to a poetry convention. Assuming that we have a mechanic with a very high IQ, as high as Shakespeare's is thought to be, we can note that they would both be very able to learn each others skills if they were willing, but the reasons for their current ineptitude would be that neither have taken interest, practiced, or specialized in the others particular field of knowledge. Does this mean that Shakespeare is unintelligent because he would not know how to fix a car or would it mean that the mechanic would be unintelligent because he would not be able to write even a four-line verse in iambic pentameter? Or does this mean that both are (hypothetically) equally intelligent but simply had not specialized in the other's particular field of knowledge?
One must also ask though, if the mechanic could maintain as much mental flexibility and creativity as Shakespeare has with language no matter how much literature he studied. What would the difference between specialization in an area of skill be opposed to intelligence?:thinking:

 

[StridAst]

Hmm, interesting thought. Here is one back at you. There have been great minds who have been able to excel in more then one area. The best example that comes to mind is of course Leonardo da Vinci. He excelled at painting, mathematics, sculpting, music he invented quite a few things. His mind didn't just work in one area, but many. If specialization in one area could be used to demonstrate intelligence, then what about broad area specialization? Kind of makes you wonder doesn't it? Everyone will be good at some tasks and poor at others. The very concept that everyone thinks and processes information differently is incontrovertible. Given the complexity of the human brain, and how many different thought patterns are possible. I agree with Hallucynogenyc that grouping it into traits and trying to define it like that isn't going to ever explain it very well. However as you are pointing out, people do think differently, and as such, there can be no universal definition of intelligence. It's not one single thing. However pretty much all standardized I.Q. tests must treat it like the brains aptitude is far more homogeneous then it really is. You can't make a universal test that really measures accurately given the differences between people. However since people desire a way to measure intellect, we will always resort to lumping everyone in together and just giving a "standardized test" regardless of effectiveness.

 

[Bandanna]

Going a little further, this being brought on by the example of Leonardo da Vinci.
But if ever there were a way to analyze the thought process of someone that had specialized in an area such as a Master Gunsmith and then someone that was a Master Blacksmith, Poet, and Engineer, what would their thoughts "sound" like?
If we could analyze the metacognition, the process of thinking about how one thinks, of a variety of people what would their internal thoughts be saying about what and how they comprehend the world around them. I read that Hallucynogenyc realizes that he has a hard time keeping up with dates and sorts of "random" information that can't be related to other things but how do people that can recall that information comprehend the world around them? What do they tell themselves within their own minds to help them recall he information? There is a general rule of thumb to devoting information to long term memory being that you have to repetitively, over a period of time, learn and re-learn the information. Though, different people have different ways of going about learning and obviously some recall information better depending on how they perceive it, whether it be auditory, visually, or kinesthetically. If they were some way to critically analyze a persons exact thought process while learning and then compare it to another individual of another intellectual variety what results would we see? How differently would they try to interpret and comprehend the same types of information? If we were able to record and analyze certain thought processes would it be possible to 'teach' others how to think and learn as well as the greatest minds had thought and learned? Also, how much of a physical role would the development of neurons within a brain play? (Validity of a "Great minds think alike" experiment?)
Sorry, A lot of questions with no indefinite answer I know, but something to chew on none the less.