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

Post Reply New Topic

my iq is 160

212 in high school, probably 50 now...

Just took a free test online (Seems to better than most of the ones I've seen free online, so I'm assuming it's results are at least somewhat accurate). According to that I got a score of 144, though I imagine if I were actually trying it probably would have been a bit higher. Still in top 1% anyway...

If you look closely at tests for intelligence when some answers are interpretive or litteral a variable inteligence may appear. I can be genius in some things and idiot in others based on brain functions. So with this thought i started to look at actual quesations used by mensa or iq and found a few differences that I hope others see that can change tests to the better. Now that i said this my past intel tests said i am 147 but first attempt and i call it attempt, how to answer and fill out test answer sheet was not done in way I could understand so it said i was less the 100 once they reschedualed me and few other odds and explained better, different results... that was in the 60s, pre pc.
Once online became part of life i dug and found a lot but only get explanations from writers of test and as different answers as doctors. That is to say all the tests i took put my IQ in a range depending on type of question and how asked. Some it was obvious others not. so my upper end on one test was 175 and average about 145.. that might be believable most. So just take tests to find what needs help and maybe find comfort in what you may be genius in but bottom line is how you feel. The autism group of tests though for other things showed me why i was very strong artisitcally and into science and why my aspies was harder to identify. So you just may be genius in some things just as many may be and absolute stones in other areas. In essence tests MIGHT show strengths or weaknesses but only if lucky do you get a rational result that is you.
So think positive, we are all genius and all tests are good for a laugh or dart targets.

Sometimes, genius is nothing more then pointing out what should or to you is plain that improves anything. Applied common sense.

I have never been professionally tested, but I have taken several online tests and I score anywhere from 129 to 146. Also, I was reading at a graduate level in college in the first grade so I sometimes wonder what I would've scored back when the result would've been more accurate(IQ is mental age over chronological age so being mentally 45 when you're 30 is much less impressive than when your're mentally 15 at 10.)

I was a state MENSA member for the two years after high school.
I don't think there's even an objective measure of intelligence, let alone a way to quantify it.
There were people at our meetings who one would think were mentally-handicapped if not insane, based on their behavior.

Ive been professionally tested many times with a wide range of results. When I was younger they were all in the 165-180 range, they've dropped off a bit over time.
There is a bit of a bias that works to the advantage of a little professor type, smart beyond whats expected at such a young age, that evens out a bit over time,
There is no "good" test for autistics - NT's may be able to understand and test NT's, but most dont understand autism to any significance, which means they have no chance of accurately testing us..
Heck, we have problems switching topics quickly, yet thats exactly what those sorts of tests do - usually along with noisy fluorescent lights, and often at times we're at our worst... And yet we still outperform NT's.
IQ tests in general are nothing more than a crude diagnostic indicator.
And in the end, exceptional IQ scores mean very little in the social world and workplace.

Lets see if your able to question what you have allready learned:-

1) The person who invented the IQ Test told people not to use it for measuring.
2) How would one weigh a plane without scales to find out it's weight?
3) If I told you that chemotherapy was not needed to treat cancer what would you say?

To me a true genius would be able to question what they have already learned or been told.

Edit:- Added virus also.


Edit2:- funny feel like I am re-inventing something here :/



On Dr. Rife wiki page... & I did not know about that before starting. Looking up virus after She said it.

Edit3:- http://www.curemanual.com/2009/06/the-a ... macapagal/

Last edited by TechnoDog on 24 Mar 2012, 10:34 am, edited 3 times in total.

Cancer is caused by cells replicating independently of what the body needs. Cells are frequently "going rogue" here and there throughout the body but they are destroyed by immune system cells. Cancerous tumours happen when the rogue cell replication outpaces the body's ability to destroy the over-replicating cells. Whether a cell is using aerobic or anaerobic respiration depends on whether or not it has used up the oxygen in the cell. Vigorous exercise can temporarily use up the oxygen in some muscle cells and they will switch over to anaerobic respiration for a bit. Later they switch back. It's not pathological so long as oxygen does come back. If the oxygen doesn't come back, death happens.





There are more bacteria in your body than your own cells but they are not roaming free throughout the body affecting cells (unless you have septicemia, in which case go to the hospital). They are contained in those parts of the body that are continuous with the outside world, namely the tube that runs from mouth to anus. (Akso skin and parts continous with skin like nostrils) Most of them are in the intestine. There they stay unless pooped out or if there is a tear in the intestine. Bacteria don't change the respiratory enviroments of the cells they come in contact with in the mouth intestines and other cells in this "tube". They are supposed to be there.



I don't know what you mean by this. It sounds like you are mixing together bacterial cell respiration with human cell respiration.



I'm all for finding alternatives to chemotherapy, which is indeed very damaging.



You are misunderstanding the interactions between human cells and bacterial cells.



I'm all in favor of sorting out deprivation of oxygen problems. But that is because human cells need a steady supply of oxygen (although some can switch for a short time to anaerobic respiration). It has nothing to do with bacteria.



Wrong



I say you don't have a firm understanding of human biology or how bacteria interact with the human body.



I agree. And in all likelihood it will be a true genius who finds a cancer treatment that is both safer and more effective than chemotherapy. But that true genius will have a firm grounding in human biology and will work from that knowledge. After all, Einstein needed a firm understanding of math and physics before he could make his breakthroughs. Geniuses who revolutionize fields of human knowledge and culture first give themselves a firm understanding of the current knowledge in that field.

Research don't just yap out junk.......


& I don't mean bacteria cause the cell to change...... Other way round.

http://everythingheated.typepad.com/blo ... erapy.html

The link you provided doesn't mention bacteria because bacteria aren't relevent to the treatment. According to the link, it is to be used as a complement to (not replacement for) chemotherapy. The heat is intended to make the cancer cells more susceptible to the chemo while simultaneously increasing blood flow (as heat does) to bring immune system cells. That all sounds good. If I had cancer I'd give heat treatment a try alongside chemo- as advised by the link. No mention of bacteria.

Last edited by Janissy on 24 Mar 2012, 7:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

But your missing the point arn't you.

And (bateria is my part of a add on)....

Does this involve Chemotherapy.

Or just radiation?

It involves neither. Sunbathing provides vitamin D. It's actually advised as a preventive measure, not curative measure.

Your point seems to be that geniuses think outside the box, going beyond current human understanding with radical new understanding. "This is better than chemo" being your example. But it's not a good example because those who think outside the box must first know what is inside the box so that they know what is relevent. They need a jumping-off point. All I am seeing is that you misunderstood what oncologists are doing to either shorten chemo or make it more effective. Nobody wants chemo because it really is destructive. Finding ways to shorten it or make it more effective are definately good- and that is what this therapy aims to do.

Nobody has yet found a way to make chemo entirely obsolete (and these researchers know that). The people who do will have a very thorough understanding of cancer. If it turns out to be a traditional remedy doled out by medicine men rather than oncologists, it will be because those medicine men are working from thousands of years of accumulated observations and not just making stuff up.

Well, sometimes you don't need chemotherapy. An encapsulated tumor, or a very small one, can just be surgically removed because there's very little chance it's had time to metastasize. And you could use radiation treatment on its own--which granted is damaging too, but easier to focus especially with techniques like implanted radiation sources. There are other treatments, like hormonal treatment--for, I think thyroid cancer, correct me if that's wrong. And supportive treatment like group therapy for cancer patients, and antidepressants to combat the effect of cancer and cancer treatment on your mood and energy levels, and relexation/meditation/prayer to help with stress. Not to mention all the stuff nutritionists are thinking up to keep your appetite high and keep you from suffering malnutrition.

I'm no doctor, but I know chemo isn't the only way to treat cancer. There are definitely cancers where chemotherapy is the best option, though. Fast-growing ones, where the chemotherapy can easily disrupt the cells that are dividing, mostly. And ones where the cancer has been sending new cells through the lymphatic system and planting itself elsewhere than the original tumor, so you can use chemotherapy to reach all those little bits you can't see yet.

The trouble with cancer treatment is that it's just so hard to target cancer cells without targeting healthy cells too. They're not that different from healthy cells; they just have the "divide" switch set permanently on, and have lost the ability to undergo apoptosis. It's a DNA damage thing for the most part. Lots of cancer treatment is aimed at fast-growing cells in general, and of course that catches your stomach lining and your hair follicles and your immune system, too. Newer research is looking into manipulating the immune system into targeting and killing cancer cells--but that's really hard, because like I said before it's just difficult to tell them apart from regular cells. Once you're diagnosed with cancer it's already figured out how to evade your immune system. If we could "teach" it to think of the cancer as an invader, that would be cool. Gene therapy is one of the ideas they're working on now--basically, you take a random virus, remove its genetic bits, add some of the cancer cells' bits, and inject it into the person, so the immune system sees the virus, identifies the cancer cells as "virus", and starts making antibodies. Easier said than done naturally. And probably makes you vulnerable to autoimmune diseases. But pretty cool concept.

Most people here are forgetting that a high iq is still more desirable than a lower one. A high iq individual might not suceed, due to external and internal factors, but they have a much higher potential in sucess in a wide range of fields, while someone with a low iq is likely to have a narrower range of potential. There are statistical correlations between high iq and sucess (f.ex the bosses in the working-field will probably have a higher iq than their lower ranked peers). And also while iq cannot be with certainty viewed as an accurate measurement of intelligence, that is completely irrelevant to society as it has been accepted as means of probing for competence and promising performance. So whether we like it or not iq in the end of the day is important and useful.

Well designed iq tests give a rough but fairly accurate representation of ones problem solving ability, depth and complexity of understanding.