Are there any true geniuses here? (IQ over 155)

Post Reply New Topic

We are the public in republic. It's up to us to decide.

This has probably been posted already, but I'd like to inform you all that even the creator of the first IQ test has said that it is not an accurate measure of intelligence.

IQ tests don't mean squat.

Read Danial Tammet's new book for more details in this.

They are a fairly good predictor of how well one might perform in school. Maybe.

ruveyn

I did OK in school - in school, reading and scoring well in tests is enough. Or used to be, back in the days when I did it. It's only in university - or was then - that talking, listening and getting along with people is critical. I had no idea of how to do that, and I dodn't stick arond long enough to learn.

Joined Mensa once, with a score about 165 - went to two meetings and then stopped. There wasn't anyone there I could get along with. That was back around 1970 or so, I think.

Back to the original question - yes, my life has been wasted. And, largely, it still is - diagnosis or no diagnosis, there's no place for me here.

Not really, however this is closer to the mark. 'IQ' tests are designed to detect deficiencies relative to your baseline. They are poor at detecting abilities beyond obvious and they certainly can't detect genius. It is organisations like Mensa that has used them inappropriately.

The majority if people 150+ are not genius, because they haven't found a use for their intellect and lack the real curiosity and drive of a genius.

A genius could have an IQ of 130.

Richard Feynman tested out at 125.

ruveyn

^ touche, ruveyn.
and that about sums it up.

Beautiful, all until the part where you think you could sound like a crackpot. I love it. Yea, I finally did put that link on there.

Anyway, I was kinda like ephemerella. I've been stalked before. But I was fortunate enough that it wasn't bad. I was also raped more than once, but only once was I awake for it. It was in military. It was some of my naivety that got me into the situation, but I could have gotten out if I were civilian. Even in court, probably one of the reasons why my rape charge stuck on my testimony alone, I believe, firmly, so help me God, that my rapist didn't have ill intentions and that he had no idea what wrong he was doing until court. I also believe the military enabled that behavior, and the military tied my hands down for him because of all their strict enforcement of rules (the Article 15 can get anyone anytime anywhere) or better said, because Article 15s can be dished out with no real reason, it's a political game which me, the Aspie female in a male dominated world, is going to lose. So, I feel more raped by the military than the rapist, and i didn't need to get raped by him to make me feel that way. Well, at least I get 40% Veteran disability out of the deal. If that's the least they could do, I'll almost get over it. I still want to do something to make things better for women in the military in the future. Anyway, my naivety didn't make me feel the way I feel about it. The fact that I didn't stand up and fight for what I believed in did. The fact that I was afraid to be me, to show myself, and afraid to lose made me lose in the end. Which brings me to....

Another awesome post. You and Millie should get together and write a book.

Thank you both for opening my eyes. I need to copy and paste these and save them in my hard drive for future reference.

thank you tantybi.
there are a few of us around - autistics in various guises who acknowledge autism can be difficult but also acknowledge the key to freedom is to stop buying into the crap. to stop looking outwards in order to fit in and to start fitting inwards with self. the external world then becomes a servant to the internal research, the special interests, the glory of discoveries and creativity. yes, the external world is also the source of too much stimulation, too much input and this is why we need to learn how to manage these issues with kindness and tenderness towards ourselves. simple tricks - earplugs, ipod, sunglasses, hat, diaphragmatic breathing.
these are small tricks that work and bring me a bit of peace out in the world.

there is nothing wrong with us after all. NOTHING at all.

i know that there is a lot about autism that makes my life difficult. i am not good at listening. I cannot listen sometmes without a meltdown. i am good at talking monologues. people extract themselves from my clutches at times and i must laugh about this otherwise i might just cry.

but the beauty of it lies in its mystery and the capacity to fully live in my self and to experience the full brilliance of the world that others can only try to imagine. Full appreciation of this feeds on itself.

it's taken me half my life to get to this place. i want to feed it and let it flourish for all my years until i die.

it's a marvellous thing

You could be specialised in an area and still not be generally intelligent, given that intelligence loosely means the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience.

Seeing as everyone else is stating it, 144, though I'm sure it could be higher if I just learnt the tests, it's possible.

I bolded part of your quote. Anyway, that might be the problem with IQ tests. Aren't they geared to assume you should have experienced learning certain things at a certain point in your life? They do try to get curriculum in American Public Schools to be pretty consistent, but as a parent of an infant and toddler, they say it's best to let your child learn on his own pace (i.e. walking, talking, potty training, etc.). But when you look at older kids, i.e. 6th grade, now they have to be on everyone's pace. That contradiction kinda goes against intelligence if you ask me. So IQ tests aren't really that intelligent afterall. But I can see how an intelligent person would use the test to find their strengths and weaknesses to learn what they could consider working on at this point in their life. LIke, if they scored high on the vocabulary areas, but low in the math, then maybe they would take some extra time to devote to the learning of math, or decide to find a career that utilizes their strength in words.

No thank you. I monologue too BTW. Not just an Aspie monologue. No I can take it to the extreme. Anyway, I guess I feel what you are saying. Like aspie life is hard. But it shouldn't be disabling nor loathed. Everything in life has its pro's and cons. You are better off to be yourself and learn how to improve your weaknesses while using your strengths than to continuously wish to be or pretend to be something you are not. In my case, I get so much criticism lately from the NT's in my life who claim to love me that I lost confidence in that message. I always knew that to be the case, be me type mentality. But, I started really questioning it as well as myself lately in light of the criticism. So, I really needed to hear someone say the same thing I've been saying, and in a way where they weren't agreeing wtih me or repeating me. Your post truly is an inspiration for me to be the person I set out to be.

Really??? That's the best thing I've read all day! I've been feeling pretty blue about my low IQ lately. It seems as if so many aspies are off the chart.

I was starting to think I was just plain old ret*d.

Feynman! That's awesome. Mines around 125 or so. Everyone I know is above 140. I know its all arbritary but "back in my day" it set the course for my education. Average underachiever.

Also - I have several relatives and such - who resent me because I'm too "dumb and spacey" to deserve the life I have. My brother-in-law is a genius and a PhD but can't hold a job. He can't stand me.

Actually, no, IQ tests are not geared to assume any life experiences. Just the opposite, in fact. Early tests were biased toward experience, which meant that anyone growing up in a different culture would score lower. Today's tests are designed to be as culture and bias-free as possible. They depend on your innate abilities to solve the problems, without any reference to your learning or experience. In reality, they can never be entirely bias free. For instance, unless you have some knowledge of mathematics, you're unlikely to be able to answer some of the number problems. But for the most part, if you're literate and numerate, an IQ test will be fairly accurate in assessing your overall intelligence.

For the record, not only is Feyman's IQ score probably wrong because of the various biases built into the tests at that time, but his status as a genius is determined by others in the field who have judged the importance of his work. IQ doesn't figure into any determination of genius.

I don't see how they can standardize a test between all cultures. It would have to be re-created in every different language with a good translator.

They would still have to assume certain life experiences like you even said with some knowledge of mathematics. Not only math, but language plays an important role. I always mess up analogies because I don't know the definition of some of the words because they always pick ones that are rarely used. Anyone with a brain would realize language is designed to communicate, and where is the intelligence in chosing words people rarely use? If it were to be free of bias to experience, then the entire test would have to be in a universal language (like math) that doesn't need to be taught (like shapes). Even then, there are cognitive developments that continue in most theories to college age, but in my theory, I don't think it ends. I think our brains are constantly developing. Maybe more hardware growing up type development, and then software type with age, but either way, I think the brain is under constant construction. Young children are concrete thinkers, and in theory, are not ready for abstract thought until teen years where the abstract thought is only beginning to form. So, you got that bias there too, and since people learn on their own level, you can't be certain to have a different test for different ages for an accurate description of intelligence. Maybe for developmental purposes to see how you fit with the average person when you approach your milestones, but nobody has totally proven any theories like Erickson to develop the paradigm, so some kind of research like that would probably be useful for that reason. But they aren't using it for that as far as I know.

The other bias IQ has is that it in no way reflects someone's creative powers. Creativity plays a very large role (a bigger role than the ability to memorize a function like addition). In fact, creativity is why many technologies have occured such as the discovery of the earth being round.

For instance, let's take addition and play with that. Okay, one apple plus one apple gives you two apples. Why do we do that? Not too many kids learning this concept would know at first that we do that to measure how many apples we have. I think that's education's flaw by not stating a problem and then showing how to solve it. Well, I mean like the application of the problem to real life like needing to count all the apples to know if we might need more to last us the week. But, let's take addition one step further and get rid of the apple and use a number. Math isn't numbers. Numbers is like our vocabulary. It's just the language we use to describe math. There are many people who don't understand that concept and will say math is numbers. It's not numbers, and it would exist without them. Anyway, so we teach the children to add with numbers and memorize answers so they are not constantly counting on their fingers. Then we make the problems harder by using larger numbers. Then we show them ways to add those numbers easily like writing them down and start with the right side working your way left. Then we stop teaching anything else with addition for a while because we moved on to subtraction. Then we get to a world where we re-introduce addition in different ways such as working with fractions, decimals, irrational numbers, unknown numbers (like x), and other more complicated numbers that even I can't still understand it's total use to life because I never kept up with it all. Like I know a basic idea, but I wouldn't know how to apply calculus to everyday life. Anyway, now we can take addition one step further and learn how to use it in different base systems so one can realize that math isn't always in 10 digits (since we got ten fingers). Then we can add things without numbers, but with symbols or even in binary code. Then we can take these concepts further with even more creativity, and create an MC Escher type picture. Or create a sudoko problem. Or invent the computer. Or the calculator. See what I'm saying? IQ only measures what someone has learned about the function of addition. It no way measures one's ability to create something with that knowledge.

A good way to describe it. It measures one's way to be a puppet of knowledge. That's not intelligence.