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

Post Reply New Topic

Don't be to sure about what? I know my understanding is different from other guy at my school. I can solve problems in ways others don't. It's a hard thing to prove how intelligent a person is. IQ test is helpful if many person take a similar test and compare the reasoning. I've always believed that IQ test should involve an evaluation on the process that lead to the answer. Is it by luck? What are the steps that the person to make the conclusion?

I meant never be sure that you'd really score in the range you expected. I know a lot of people who have loads of similar intellectual skills and scored from slightly low to quite low. Especially autistic people. If I'm in a room full of autistic people, and I'm looking at solely how they think, I cannot predict IQ. At all. In either direction.

I can predict because I've pass something like 5 or more IQ test on the web. They all ranged from 132 to 152 from high school to now. The latest I scored 152 overall. But I don't consider them as real test, that's why I will ask my neurologist to pass one.

I'm uneasy with such explanations. Because they basically take all the people with unexpectedly (to most people) high or low IQ scores, and they explain it away as "but they really have a (higher/lower) IQ than that if they were tested properly". Rather than acknowledging that maybe IQ isn't such a useful concept. It's also a little insulting to people with low IQs, if you think about it. If they have something that most people would call "intelligence", then suddenly "the test was wrong", suggesting that people with "real" low IQs are unintelligent. (I have spent half my life among primarily people with low IQs and I can say that is absolutely not the case. To get a low IQ score, you need to have any of a huge array of sensory, motor, cultural, or cognitive issues. But it doesn't say what most people think it says about all of a person's thinking skills, or at least it doesn't have to say that. But it does have to say that if every time a person with a low IQ shows certain skills, everyone says "Oh, their IQ must be much higher than that.") It's kind of... circular, in a way, although I can't explain it in words very well.

Of course, I genuinely don't know about every possible other person's mind. I know that mine absolutely does not have a fixed cognitive capacity. It is constantly changing and shifting in just about every cognitive area possible. I range from being able to carry on conversations such as these, to having no conceptual thinking, to being in a state where all I can say is that there is awareness of some kind because there is not a whole lot else of anything. I don't think any single one of those is my "true ability", because my true abilities change all the time, you can't just pick out the best or the worst and say "this one is the real one". And that's oversimplifying things to only certain kinds of cognitive skills.

Either IQ tests are flawed, making them generally useless, or they can't predict general stuff, making them generally useless. And if he did score higher on a new test, the old tests would still be flawed.

I'm curious about this one.
What would you say these signs are, and how would one sign be judged as 'higher' or 'lower' than another?

You really bend my mind.

Trash can, meet preconceived ideas.

Starting from scratch.

I would like to correct what one of my dearest friends has said.
The correct statement is
It's possible that the percentage of autistic who are genius is higher than the percentage of people overall who are autistic.
or
It's possible that the percentage of geniuses who are autistic is higher than the percentageof geniuses who are NT.

Indeed, either of those would also communicate my meaning. I'm trying to figure out whether what I said and what you said would all imply each other, because it seems like they should, but statistics is HARD.

Can you do it so fast ? It has taken me literally years to slog my way towards that view.

I would fall into this category.

My IQ is of sufficient quota to be considered the top 2% of the UK population

My maternal Grandfather was in the top 0.5% allegedly

I suppose in all honesty, dropping preconceived ideas isn't easy. Fortunately for me, autism wasn't on my radar until recently so I don't have years of momentum. But every time I think I start to get my brain around it, Anbuend posts something the fries my gray matter.

You wrote "percentage of genius who are autistic" it should be percentage of autistic who are genius. Please read this paper which says that maths cognition and language cognition are different. You may find it interesting since you are a language girl. I am a Maths guy. The paper actually connects us by contrasting (!) us. http://www.princeton.edu/~osherson/papers/Monti9.pdf

The DNA guy Francis Crick scored 115 on a standardized IQ test putting him @ the 85th percentile. Is he not a genius? What is genius btw?

The human mind is more modular than the psychometricians would like to admit. Testing fails at 'creativity' for one.

One of my relatives hit a 155 on the Standford binet ,and he never struck me as a "genius."

Last edited by Mdyar on 14 Mar 2011, 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

A giant limitation of IQ tests (in addition to limitations already discussed) is that they only contain the questions and puzzles that the psychometricians themselves can think up. A truly outside the box creative thinker could have a middlng score because their thoughts are so diofferent from the thoughts (and therefore questions) of a psychometrician. Are psychometricians really the pinnacle of possible human intelligence? Doubtful. But somehow their view of the world (and the questions one should answer about it) got enshrined as the standard.

Word denoting what, highest accolades? Earth-shaking? All-around handy? Incomprehensible, but--? Word used to aggravate me. I felt as rebuke. I never wanted to be a quiz kid: i couldn't help it. How was test-taking not part & parcel of the regimentation around me i so deeply abhorred? If they had rewarded me with freedom it might have meant something. They didn't.

You don't have to be supernaturally endowed to grok that this society is a game or rather, a whole set of interlocking games in which the actual solving of problems, say, nilpertains what the game calls "a good move"... In the pantheon of game-heroes you may scan names that once belonged to some of the luckier contestants. Now they're the wrapper, the advertizing.

In actual fact, on occasion one's contributions will be gladly acknowledged; more often, they're bitterly opposed at first then factions contest them for years. Ultimately it's forgotten even that there was a way to do things otherwise. That's society's last joke on the creative.

If you study game-history you learn of contributions scorned, just as worthy, & maybe you'll cherish names that no one else remembers. Do this for long, you'll begin to forget the solitary bitterness of not being acknowledged. It would be enough, wouldn't it, simply to notice & remember.

This is not in the game. Work at it.