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

Post Reply New Topic

Absolutely not. I seriously doubt if anyone has even come remotely close to the limits of human reasoning and thinking but we haven't figured out yet how to make the next step which is to define ways in which we can study consciousness. Most scientists now agree this realm is not something that is actually inside our brain which is why a neural basis has eluded researchers for decades. It is generally supposed that consciousness is more like something we acheive or something occuring at the quantum level in spaces between neuronal nodes. Some researchers believe (as I do) that we all already contain all possible knowledge at birth but just don't know how to access it.
There is a significant amount of research being done in this area and I have posted links in the past but I can't remember in what threads. A goggle search is pretty fruitful.

That's interesting. Plato had Socrates argue for something similar in the Meno, although he claimed it was because we had already gained all knowledge from our past lives.

isn't true intelligence and originality about mental-reverse engineering?


all good humans need to pull themselves apart. it's a state of desonstruction.
if you haven't gleaned that by your deathbed...well....then the journey's been a true wasteof time.

I've never taken an IQ test, and I don't test well in general anyway. My nephew got a 160 when he was a child, on an official test which only went that high. He's now a Junior in high school, and is currently touring many Ivy League schools which are offering him scholarships. To be honest, I always feel a little intimidated talking to him. But we get along great. I keep wondering what kind of great, successful professional he might turn into. As for me, I've written a couple of full-scale operas, but I can't even pass a year of college. My best gifts simply don't register on tests.

As much as they try to develop 'culturally fair' IQ tests (tests in which are not biased or prone to award a higher orlower score depending on your background), the reality is that these tests seem unable to account for autistics such as us who through neurological diffferences see the picture oftentimes differently to others, discovering patterns that would seem illogical and/or unheard of to the 'normal' individual. Case in point was an IQ test I had taken a few years ago: My verbal score was brilliant but my non-verbal was apparently poor due to my dismal performance on picture associations (WISC) where you were asked to match a series of 6 pictures into pairs. For each group of 6 pictures I was able to link all into pairs based upon what I perceived as quite significant differences or similarities. Weschler's IQ test disagreed with me, however, and through narrow-mindedness bases its answers on typical responses by non-AS members of society. Nonetheless, I have just performed the WAIS a week or so ago and am curious to know my results which, if similar to previously, should hover somewhere above 140.

Richard Feynman, one of the ten greatest physicists of the 20th century I.Q. tested at 125. The title of this thread suggests that he was not a genius. I reject that implication root and branch.

ruveyn

Absolutely! For example, Stephen Hawking's "Brief History of Time" explained theories in physics that I really didn't get before readig his book. Somebody who rants "you're too stupid to get what I'm talking about" isn't quite as smart as all that if he can't figure out a way to convey the idea, perhaps in a simplified form.

Well, my father scored 160 on the IQ test the military issued when he joined years back. They made him take it again because they thought he cheated, and he got 1 wrong, so technically my father is a genius, and according to him I should be somewhere in the 150 range. I am extremely talented at detailed visualizations and using logic and reasoning simultaneously with actions. Multi-tasker, I guess. People don't generally frustrate me, I enjoy teaching, but I can grow to despise classes at school, because I understand the damn concept and they grade me lower than I should get. I mean, the whole freaking idea is for the child to understand it, and the grades are a reflection of that understanding. What the heck is a teacher doing passing out lower than accurate grades when a student understands it! The school system needs to be changed.

There is a level of intelligence at which the person doesn't need to know the answers to the questions; they can figure them out. Kris is like that, apparently he got accused of cheating because he got a perfect score on a test that was supposed to be impossible to get a perfect score on, one of those you'd-have-to-be-an-expert-in-everything tests. He was able to figure out the questions, so it didn't matter that he didn't already know all of the material. At that level, test scores become completely meaningless.
He frequently says that he has no common sense, but has the intelligence to fake it.



I'm good at taking tests, but not to that level.

Well, I don't meet the 155 IQ requirement either, though my last official test was close. ONLINE tests CAN vary. I have generally tested worse on those, but STILL generally high. I ALSO took the ASVAB and they misgraded it 5 years above my age. I STILL tested very well. I mean, as a highschool sophomore, I tested better at electronics, physics, etc.... than 99% of COLLEGE sophomores! Military recruiters from every branch started calling me like crazy to get me to sign up! SERIOUSLY! The ASVAB(Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) is probably put on a central database for the millitary.

As for RECOGNIZED official IQ tests, I think only psychiatrists and psychologists are allowed to give them out.

But you're right! One first strong desire I had was MUSICAL! I even started writing some music that could have been nice. AS lack of funds delayed things until I lost interest, I never realized the full potential. MAYBE I had latent talent!! !! ! Likewise, the expression of genius may be limited by circumstance and desire. IQ is supposed to try and measure the latent ability, NOT the expression of that ability.

This makes good sense. I think one of the huge limitations of IQ tests is the people who write them. For every question, they have decided that a smart person will answer that question a specific way and a person who answers in a different way is not as smart. That aspect has been picked apart by people condemning IQ tests of yore as culturally biased. But like you say, it really isn't possible to make a completely unbiased test. Your example of the picture groupings is such an excellent example of that. How particular pictures should be sorted into pairs is completely subjective, yet they treat those questions as objective- as though all smart people will sort the same way and the only possible source of diversity in answers is being less smart.

I don't want to know my IQ. Well, not yet, anyway.

Something tells me that I'd be horrible if I found out my IQ. If I found out I was a genius or at least way above average, I'd be a douchebag and not work hard enough. If I found out I was under average, I'd be a whiny douche and be really self depricating.

I want to make my achievments and THEN see what my IQ is.

Yes

I have a high IQ, 143, but I'm not a genius in anyway other than my (improving) ability to memorise endless piles of medical facts. I'm slowly working my way through a 60, 000 definition dictionary, I think knowing a good bit of the detail going into med school will give me an edge. And it's kind of nice being able to recognise all the mental quirks of my friends makes me feel a little more normal

well my iq is only 136, but people seem to think im more intellegent because of aspie traits, and because I speak in a formal way that they find threatening

I'm the super test taker type. I scored genius on all the childhood IQ tests they gave me to assign me to the TAG(Talented and Gifted) program we have in my state, but I have never taken an adult IQ test. I have a GED with honors in the state of Oregon, which itself is considered to be a recognition of me being in the top 5% of academic performers graduating from an Oregon high school. For anybody not familiar with the GED system, they have graduating seniors across the state take the test and in order to receive a GED certificate your own score must place you in the 50th percentile (top 50%). So out of all the seniors that graduated high school when I was fifteen in the state of Oregon and took the GED to set the baseline, when I was sixteen I performed better than a minimum of ninety five percent of them.

The problem I have with IQ tests is they encourage the view that intelligence is about knowing things. They encourage the view that discounts athletic feats as a form of intelligence. Exceptional performance of a task and the understanding demonstrated by consistent performance is intelligence. If the task is reciting the characteristics of a phylum or the characteristics of how to properly stop a line drive and get the ball on base before the runner gets there, they are both demonstrations of the intelligence that person has.

The advocates of the tests claim that modern tests use verbal and spatial testing models that people of any field of expertise who are intelligent should perform well on, but the tests are still not broad enough in coverage to include the infinite forms intelligence takes. Spatial, linguistic, mathematic, and memory are the classic four pillars of intelligence. How do you test my spatial understanding of spaces you don't know exist? How do you test my linguistic ability in a language you don't speak? How to you test my calculating prowess in equations you don't have access to? How do you test my memory of things you don't have record of?

Why do we care about some number vaguely related to how much somebody knows about how to process information of a certain kind when we could just test them on the actual tasks we want to know their competency at? Why test the potential new hires IQ when you can just give them a trial assignment and see how they perform at the thing they will actually be performing?

You are too stupid to understand translates as I am too lazy to explain this to you. You must teach others things before you know them your self. It is student who teaches master more so than it is ever master who teaches student. The mastery comes of the openness to growing. That which you name you have power over, the student is the provider of zeal which inspires a seeker of truths to acts as mediator between zeal and performance. The master brings the student in contact with the knowledge they require to be sustained, and through this the master takes power through the naming and understands. Thus is the great integrity followed.

Information freely given and information freely taken are the tools of the eternal, stimuli:reaction repeated to infinity is The All. All things exist only as information, therefor the only permanent aspect of reality is information about reality. Life is Suffering. Suffering is the attachment to the Transient. The Cessation of Suffering can be Achieved. The Path to the Cessation of Suffering is Eightfold. Follow the precepts and seek out information and you will be fulfilled. Be integral to reality and you will be the tool of God's Will.

If your IQ score is not going up, you are dying. If you are living, your IQ score is going up. What hubris to think anything more is asked of all life but to live and not die as best able. What folly to ask how full your life is and thereby empty it. What ruin awaits those who fill the eyes and not the inner gut.