About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Sunday, December 9, 2007 - 3:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It'd be nice if this poll was accompanied by a link to some site that gave reliable, objective IQ tests.  I took two tests near the top of my google search results and got scores that differed by 18 points.  As I expected, the more modest-looking site gave me the lower score and had a test that felt more genuine (?); it was at http://www.highiqsociety.org/iq_tests/

The other was at http://iqtest.com, which prompted me at the end of the test for my e-mail address (to send me the score), and $10 for an iq profile with graphs or something.  They'll send you the score for free, but the prompt was annoying.

does anyone know of a better site?


Post 1

Sunday, December 9, 2007 - 5:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wear size 13 shoes, extra wide.

Post 2

Sunday, December 9, 2007 - 5:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,
You don't think much of IQ tests, do you? 

I voted "don't know."  I tested at 114 a dozen years ago, but I'm sure it's gone down since then.   


Post 3

Sunday, December 9, 2007 - 5:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I see a point in educators using them on young children, Teresa. In a public context such as this, comparing scores among adults is as relevant as how high up on the fence I can piss.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Sunday, December 9, 2007 - 6:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
IQ tests gauge deductive reasoning, for the most part. They measure people's facility to deduce the "one right answer" to a question having just a single answer.

But there is a lot more to intelligence that deductive reasoning. Many problems have far more than one solution.

Creativity -- which requires thinking outside the boxes that lead to "one right answer" -- can't be measured well on traditional IQ tests.

An open-ended creativity question:

How many uses can you think of for a brick?

Pause for a moment and think about it before proceeding....






Done?

Deductively oriented thinkers will think of the brick as a brick -- as a building block -- and quickly run out of things to construct with it.

However, the more inductively oriented thinkers will think of a brick "outside the box" of its traditional use as a building material. They'll instead think of a brick in terms of its attributes -- weight, size, hardness, thickness, color, opacity, composition, etc. -- and they will find countless more creative uses for a brick.

Deductive ability is not the only measure of "intelligence." IQ tests, then, can't begin to scope out the true breadth and productive potential of the human mind.



Post 5

Sunday, December 9, 2007 - 9:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Intelligence tests capture the ability to perform pattern recognition quickly. In some people, it captures a pretty good proxy for intellectual ability, in others it completely misses the mark.

Jim


Post 6

Sunday, December 9, 2007 - 9:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Despite the superficial name of the web site, the classic IQ test they offer seems to be genuine. Be prepared to spend some time on it, though.

Classic IQ Test

A compilation of many IQ test is given in:

Uncommonly Difficult IQ Tests

I took the Omni test in 1985 and it got wide recognition. (not my results ... the test itself)    :-)

Sam


Post 7

Monday, December 10, 2007 - 7:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Knowing that when I wear prophylactics, they are Trojan Magnums, what can anyone here tell me of my love life?

Post 8

Monday, December 10, 2007 - 8:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
prophylactics : Trojan Magnums :: love life : orgy

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Monday, December 10, 2007 - 8:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I simply don't believe that 2 (up to now) posters on this forum have IQ's less than 100. I think that those who said they have such low IQ's oppose IQ tests as a matter of principle and wish to discredit the tests by this means rather than engage in a reasoned discussion. Statistically they are outliers or, bluntly, "out-and-out liars."

I haven't yet seen a discussion on IQ where there haven't been objections that "IQ tests only measure a very narrow part of intelligence as we know it" but we never hear that "the triathlon only measures a small portion of one's athletic ability — shucks, they might not be able even to bowl 100."

IQ tests measure the problem-solving ability of the type of questions that are posed in the tests — nothing more, nothing less. There's no inherent social agenda of judging a person as a person. A person can be proud of being able to perform well on these tests just as one may be proud of being able to complete a marathon, however, there seems to be political correctness involved in denigrating and belittling IQ tests.

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 12/10, 9:16am)


Post 10

Monday, December 10, 2007 - 12:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
there seems to be political correctness involved in denigrating and belittling IQ tests.


Is calling to question the objectivity of an IQ test as a true measure of intelligence just simple political correctness Sam? Or is it reasonable skepticism, an inquiry into whether these tests truly gauge an individual's intelligence? You can't get a group of scientists together in one room and have them all agree on an objective definition of general intelligence let alone a test that can measure such a thing. It is unfortunately a vague concept, with many different contexts to it. Intelligence measured by the ability to create wealth? To make a work of art? To solve complicated math problems? There is no one definition for intelligence to neatly put something into a box called "general intelligence". If anything it is an oversimplification of the concept, or rather a concept without context.

I'm wondering if there seems to be this denial of rational scientific inquiry that holds once traditional views of science up to objective scrutiny for the sake of perpetuating something only out of tradition.


(Edited by John Armaos on 12/10, 12:57pm)


Post 11

Monday, December 10, 2007 - 1:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     As a followup to Bidinotto's response, staying relevent to this thread...

I've a brick's IQ.

     Am I mentally versatile, or what?

LLAP
J:D

PS: IQ measurements have their place, as primitive as they still are, in indicating expectations re academic or even 'field' work. But, 'one-upmanship' certainly isn't it...any more than criteria for some social club-joining. Besides, all depends on which tests one regards as meaningful...and whether they're still relevent if taken a decade (or more?) ago.

(Edited by John Dailey on 12/10, 1:08pm)


Post 12

Monday, December 10, 2007 - 3:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John:

Just my ruminations:

I think that there should be an almost exact parallel between determining intelligence and determining athletic ability, but there has never been a propelling social force to try to define and predict athleticism as there has been to define and predict intelligence. Both suffer from the same kind of fuzziness because of their many facets. The motivation for intelligence testing came from the perceived need to predict academic performance and thus to direct students into appropriate educational streams. There is no comparable controversy about athleticism as there is about intelligence, but neither has any relevance as to the worthiness of a person. Political correctness assumes that there is such a judgment on intelligence.

Perhaps it's because it is normal for physical ability to decline with age whereas mental ability remains more or less intact until old age.

Sam


Post 13

Monday, December 10, 2007 - 4:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam,

Please don't think that the fact I voted "less than 100" implies that I lied about my shoe size.

I voted so that I would not continue to be prompted to answer the poll. I voted the way I did for the reasons I gave above. Anyone who wishes can guess my IQ based upon the content of my posts on this list.

Were I to compare myself to Teresa, who fears she may have an IQ below 114, I would ask her how many relatively happy and well-adjusted children she thinks I have.

Ted



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Monday, December 10, 2007 - 5:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted should have children.  Lots and lots of them. <g>

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Monday, December 10, 2007 - 7:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The Happiness of Objectivists

It would be hard to do, but I would like to see a poll that locates people on a three axis graph, with the axes being defined as (x) happiness, (y) satisfaction and (z) contentment. Happiness would be one's general subjective joyfulness. Satisfaction would be a measure of how many of one's external goals one has attained. And contentment would be a measure of how little one is bothered by external irritants. I consider myself generally able to be happy, while not necessarily being very satisfied or content, because I can enjoy myself under even generally unfavorable circumstances. (Given a book and a safe place to sleep I am as snug as a bug in a rug.) Yet I see many conventional people who live in comfort and wealth who are miserable. My only anecdotal experience with IQ is that is often negatively correlated with happiness. I do enjoy the stimulus of intelligent conversation. But I prefer being surrounded with earnestly happy people enjoying themselves to anything else.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/11, 4:08pm)


Post 16

Monday, December 10, 2007 - 8:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam Erica: I simply don't believe that 2 (up to now) posters on this forum have IQ's less than 100. I think that those who said they have such low IQ's oppose IQ tests as a matter of principle and wish to discredit the tests by this means rather than engage in a reasoned discussion. Statistically they are outliers or, bluntly, "out-and-out liars."
No, Sam. The "outliers" are those who answered 131+.  As I write this and ignoring the "don't knows", it is 22/28, or 78.6% of responses. In the general population only about 2% score that high. About 82.2% of the general population is 100 +/- 19.

IQ           Description % of Population
130+       Very superior 2.2%
120-129  Superior 6.7%
110-119  High average 16.1%
90-109    Average 50%
80-89      Low average 16.1%
70-79      Borderline 6.7%
< 70        Extremely low 2.2%



Post 17

Monday, December 10, 2007 - 9:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin:

But we're not sampling the general population. We're sampling a population that has an academic interest in highly sophisticated concepts.

(I'm obsessed with the 9I6 Test, which I find very challenging. It'll be quite a while before I complete it, but I'm making progress.)


Post 18

Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 5:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam Erica: But we're not sampling the general population. We're sampling a population that has an academic interest in highly sophisticated concepts.
That's why I put outliers in quotes. I was still surprised at how high the poll numbers were. It would be interesting to see IQ statistics on particular groups of people. A brief Google search led to these assertions:
-average IQ of doctors graduating from medical school today is 120
-average IQ of a physics PhD student is about 130 
These numbers may not be accurate, but assume they are. Are you still not surprised by the poll numbers -- 80% at 131+?


Post 19

Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 5:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
General Intelligence:
Intelligence: The ability to discover courses of action (course of action = plan) that achieve goals. For each extra goal achievable in a given context, the more generally intelligent one is vs another. For each extra context one can achieve more goals in, the more generally intelligent.

And which goals do we care about? Generally we care about increasing the richness and duration of our lives and our children's lives.

IQ measures some kinds of pattern matching. I'm sure I've taken that test with the same questions in the past, which surely helped my score. No question about it that I'm within the top 2% in pattern matching/mathematic/science ability (referring to my educational history and career). I don't think Objectivists that post and vote on RoR are simply a random sample of the US population. Not surprised if the vote was significantly "skewed" vs the US population (even after adjusting for a person's tendency to vote higher than their actual IQ).

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.