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

Post Reply New Topic

My mother carried me for an extra 30 days, I think that is a reason I got so smartified.

:O

you may be onto something.

How much did you weigh btw?

10lbs 11 oz

and 80% was brain!

OUCH! your poor mother!

These tests are always biased. What the creator of a test subjectively perceives as "intelligent" is no indicator of true intelligence, it only indicates what kind of thinking he personally values.

Who said the test's creator was intelligent enough to judge intelligence in the first place? Did he just decide it himself? Or was it his buddies? Who decided whether or not his buddies were equipped to judge?

I generally receive positive results in these tests but I don't lend them any credibility at all. You can't measure intelligence objectively, it's simply not possible.

If I was as intelligent as an IQ test would suggest, then I wouldn't be be dumb enough to spend my time on the internet, arguing about the value of IQ tests.

lolz

That bothers me too. I did a little rant about it earlier in the thread. They decide that the answer they would choose to test questions is the correct answer and anyone who answers differently is less intelligent. I saw this with great horror when I was allowed to see test questions my daughter got wrong. She had a perfectly good rationale for why she chose the answer she did, but it was not the rationale of whoever wrote the test and thus was wrong and thus her score went down. Once she explained her rationale, the neurologist (who went over questions with us, but was not the official tester) said that she could see how that was a reasonable answer but nevertheless could not be scored as "correct".

There will be validity in the middle (perhaps) but stratospheric geniuses who really, truly think outside the box will perhaps choose answers that are "wrong" according to test creators but which have a very good rationale once they explain it. Not that my daughter is any such type, but it made me see how true brilliance and innovative thinking would be scored "wrong".

IQ is rather meaningless - everyone has talents and capacities to some degree - some people's mental 'tool belt' is bigger and more diverse than others. Arguments form authority hold little water, anyhow. What's more interesting is the person's intent in bringing the subject of IQ up in the first place.

The IQ test was designed to test children who were behind or needed assistance with their schoolwork. It measures the academic cognitive abilities of a person and nothing more.

Based on that alone, the IQ test should not be used as a test of intelligence because intelligence is not quantifiable by any standards or tests we have today.

It's a yardstick to show off by, I'd guess.

Yeah. I think we ought to be bragging about the things we worked for--you know, that skill or achievement that you reached because you figured out something that was hard for you, and kept up the effort, and accomplished your goal. Those are things you can brag about. Not in the "I'm better than you" way, but the "wow, look at what I did, rejoice with me!" way. You know, like how when a little kid brings you a picture they drew, all happy about what they did, so you can be happy about it too.

IQ score is something you get after... what, a half-day's worth of testing? That's not a lot of effort at all. I'm a good deal more impressed when someone shows me the top grade they got in a calculus class than if they brag about an IQ of 145. The calculus class took actual effort, not just the genetic luck of the draw and the ability to sit and take an IQ test for a few hours.

I got tested about 6 months ago as a link in my diagnosis. I didn't know at that time it was an IQ test but I scored 130 which I'm quite pleased with.

I don't remember the actual number they gave me on my IQ test (it was at least 30 years ago), but I was suddenly being asked to join Mensa shortly thereafter. I felt honored and went to one meeting, but they were a bunch of stuffed shirts, looking down on me like I didn't belong there. Needless to say I felt very uncomfortable and never went back again.

My FSIQ is only like 130, which might be enough to get into Mensa, but that's about it. However, everyone who knows seems to think I have an IQ of like 187 or something, I'm really not that smart.

I've wondered about the reasoning behind the arbitrary gradients the psychometricians assign to differing intellectual performances.

"Gifted is 2 standard deviations above the norm of 100 IQ, superior is right under that, and bright to normal under this."

The funny thing is I've found that people really fall, hook line and sinker for this stuff. It seems to be the ones that "have it" and this knowledge satisfies an inner need. For one, it can be an ego boost to atypical folk. As I've mentioned in my post in this thread about Feynman's and Crick's IQ to be out the gifted range; you can find a multitude of posts out there about this "incredible discrepancy."

Feynman stated in his own humorous way, that what's even more unusual about this winning of the Noble prize, is I did it with an IQ of 125.

As I've always said, the human mind is more modular than we really know, and this metric alone isn't the all defining moment.

It does mean something, as it correlates with that something, but it's not wholly complete.

I find it odd that the High IQ'd tend to fall into this, and quickly bite on it.