[quote]ahzaz wrote:
Dude… this is all wrong…
im 14, and my IQ is 129 (in accurate, probably higher, test sucked balls)
yet i have crazy ass test (daily shave haha), deeper voice, all that man shit. and im a horny bastard also… Either these results are fucked, or in a genetic freak… i prefere the latter :D[/quote]
This post just screams high IQ.
wow a 14 year old boy is a horny bastard, never saw that coming.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Some of you smarty pants guys could probably explain this better since I had only 2-3 stat courses 25 years ago, but here goes.
If you look at a standard distribution curve for say for brains, you get the good ole bell curve. I’m sure strength is similiar in a pattern. What are the odds to get 1-2 standard deviations to the brainy/smart side on both charts?
I doubt it’s very good. Add in that now people are more sedentary, along with more home computers and I bet it’s harder than ever to find jacked and smart. [/quote]
My problem with that theory is that I don’t think intelligence is a roughly linear, single variable function. That is, I don’t think you could accurately graph “intelligence” on a 2-D bell curve.
There are too many disparate forms of intelligence to accurately measure and reduce down to a single number.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Some of you smarty pants guys could probably explain this better since I had only 2-3 stat courses 25 years ago, but here goes.
If you look at a standard distribution curve for say for brains, you get the good ole bell curve. I’m sure strength is similiar in a pattern. What are the odds to get 1-2 standard deviations to the brainy/smart side on both charts?
I doubt it’s very good. Add in that now people are more sedentary, along with more home computers and I bet it’s harder than ever to find jacked and smart.
My problem with that theory is that I don’t think intelligence is a roughly linear, single variable function. That is, I don’t think you could accurately graph “intelligence” on a 2-D bell curve.
There are too many disparate forms of intelligence to accurately measure and reduce down to a single number.
[/quote]
True, there are a few types of intelligence, but I think the point still works. Some of the smart IQ types that were small and geeky might have some high intelligence in just a few aspects that test well on a standard IQ test, like verbal and math.
I think I remember 7 types of intelligence listed in one article I had read years ago.
But still, high smarts plus high physical ability. I don’t see to many jacked guys out there and I don’t see to many brainy types. so it seems to me that it’s less likely to find someone high in both ways in the general population.
Once I was told that benching 300 pounds was about 1/500 or so adult males. A gifted IQ + that strength level would seem pretty rare.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
If you look at a standard distribution curve for say for brains, you get the good ole bell curve. I’m sure strength is similiar in a pattern. What are the odds to get 1-2 standard deviations to the brainy/smart side on both charts?
I doubt it’s very good. Add in that now people are more sedentary, along with more home computers and I bet it’s harder than ever to find jacked and smart. [/quote]
With a standard distribution approximately 16% of the population will be at least 1 SD above the mean, 2,5% at least two SDs above the mean. IQ doesn’t quite follow a standard distribution and has a fat right tail, but that’s close enough.
If there was no correlation between strength and intelligence and both had standard distributions then about 1 in 400 guys would be at least two SDs to the right of the mean on both. I suspect there’s a negative correlation, though, so it really would be more rare than that.
[quote]DSmolken wrote:
tom63 wrote:
If you look at a standard distribution curve for say for brains, you get the good ole bell curve. I’m sure strength is similiar in a pattern. What are the odds to get 1-2 standard deviations to the brainy/smart side on both charts?
I doubt it’s very good. Add in that now people are more sedentary, along with more home computers and I bet it’s harder than ever to find jacked and smart.
With a standard distribution approximately 16% of the population will be at least 1 SD above the mean, 2,5% at least two SDs above the mean. IQ doesn’t quite follow a standard distribution and has a fat right tail, but that’s close enough.
If there was no correlation between strength and intelligence and both had standard distributions then about 1 in 400 guys would be at least two SDs to the right of the mean on both. I suspect there’s a negative correlation, though, so it really would be more rare than that.[/quote]
Makes sense to me. A psychologist told me I was 2 standard deviations above normal intelligence wise in pre marital counseling. She also told me to work on patience and such, btw.
I just did a 570 deadlift today at 206 pounds. My bench is in the low 300s.
And I was a weenie as a kid. I decided to lift to get big and strong because I had that smart guy thing covered. Now i might just vegetate in front of the computer. In my childhood our parents chased us outside.
It was natural to want to run, lift, do chin ups or whatever when we had no other choices. In fact I didn’t get color tv and cable until I was 14. Then we had only 13 channels, hahaha!
It just made sense to do something like lift. Now things might be different.
And this is why studies are often stupid.
[quote]Yo Momma wrote:
tom63 wrote:
nephorm wrote:
tom63 wrote:
They did. Now I’m 44 with a great career, a beautiful 33 year old wife, good kids, and I’m still jacked. Funny thing is people back then (30+ years ago) asked me what I would do when I was forty. Of course they were dumbass kids of my age.
Useless without pics.
Hahaha! Take my word for it.
Photobucket | The safer way to store your photos
Congratulations on your wedding.
Got any pictures with your clothes off?
[/quote]
Sorry, us powerlifting guys just don’t really care about that stuff, hahahah!
