Intelligence Gap?

Off Topic
141

Main difference is that DW put in the work, effort and time to actually get stronger and better.

I see this kid roughing it out later in life complaining about how the world hates him, and how its not his fault he lost his job at wal mart.

[quote]malonetd wrote:
You know, this thread sort of reminds me of Diesel Weasel only instead of lifting it’s about intelligence. It’s almost the same situation.

Here’s a guy who thinks he way smarter than he probably is.
DW thought he wa stronger than he really was.

He tries to back up his intelligence with long sentences and unnecessary words, yet makes several spelling mistakes and grammatical errors.
DW tried to back up his strength with impressive lifting videos, yet most had shortened range of motion and horrible form.

Several people have replied tactfully, and some not so tactfully, to the OP and explained what’s wrong with his way of thinking and he took offense.
Several people replied tactfully, and some not so tactfully, to DW and explained what was wrong with his lifts and DW took offense.

It’s almost eerie.[/quote]

142

[quote]Irish Daza wrote:
First off…no one here knows their numerical IQ absolutely.
[/quote]

Correct, in the sense that statistically speaking, if you score highly on one IQ test, you are likely to score lower on a retest. If you score low initially, you are likely to score a little higher the next time. This is called reversion to the mean. IQ tests are designed to have very little variability between tests.

If they are properly constructed, they conform, more or less, to a normal curve. There is inter-test variability to be sure, but properly designed tests have little intra-test variability.

Have you taken an IQ test? I don’t mean one online. IQ tests are not all “verbal reasoning.” There are spatial and mathematical reasoning components.
The ultimate goal is to measure ‘g,’ or general intelligence, rather than some specific indicator.

IQ isn’t really “potential.” A score generally represents something akin to ‘processing power.’ If the theory behind IQ testing is correct, there’s probably nothing we can do to increase intelligence, without some sort of chemical assistance. Your IQ is your IQ. Yes, what you choose to do with it is another matter.

I don’t know what that even means.

[quote]
Ps. Mensa uses the Catwell 3 test (or at least it did when I took it, and 138 was a “genius pass”)[/quote]

148 on the Cattell is not a “genius” level score. No offense, that’s just the truth. The Cattell is what a lot of celebrities take, because it is significantly inflated over the Stanford-Binet without being overly so. As a result, celebrity gossip websites get endless mileage out of saying that Sharon Stone has a “higher IQ than Einstein,” despite the fact they are comparing two different scales. A 148 on the Cattell corresponds to a 132 on the Stanford-Binet. Not a poor score, of course… definitely in the ‘gifted’ range. Not genius range, however.

143

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Irish Daza wrote:
First off…no one here knows their numerical IQ absolutely.

Correct, in the sense that statistically speaking, if you score highly on one IQ test, you are likely to score lower on a retest. If you score low initially, you are likely to score a little higher the next time. This is called reversion to the mean. IQ tests are designed to have very little variability between tests.

There are literally hundreds of IQ tests and your score can vary vastly from test to test.

If they are properly constructed, they conform, more or less, to a normal curve. There is inter-test variability to be sure, but properly designed tests have little intra-test variability.

Mainly they are verbal reasoning tests. These test verbal reasoning IQ and as someone mentioned, we now recognise at least seven types of IQ.

Have you taken an IQ test? I don’t mean one online. IQ tests are not all “verbal reasoning.” There are spatial and mathematical reasoning components.
The ultimate goal is to measure ‘g,’ or general intelligence, rather than some specific indicator.

Additionally, IQ score is a potential…if you do fuck all with it…you are worse than fuck all.

IQ isn’t really “potential.” A score generally represents something akin to ‘processing power.’ If the theory behind IQ testing is correct, there’s probably nothing we can do to increase intelligence, without some sort of chemical assistance. Your IQ is your IQ. Yes, what you choose to do with it is another matter.

Incidentally…most responses to this thread could be rated on various different intelligence quotients. They wouldn’t score very high on any of them.

I don’t know what that even means.

Ps. Mensa uses the Catwell 3 test (or at least it did when I took it, and 138 was a “genius pass”)

148 on the Cattell is not a “genius” level score. No offense, that’s just the truth. The Cattell is what a lot of celebrities take, because it is significantly inflated over the Stanford-Binet without being overly so. As a result, celebrity gossip websites get endless mileage out of saying that Sharon Stone has a “higher IQ than Einstein,” despite the fact they are comparing two different scales. A 148 on the Cattell corresponds to a 132 on the Stanford-Binet. Not a poor score, of course… definitely in the ‘gifted’ range. Not genius range, however.[/quote]

Isn’t genius range roughly 140+ on the Stanford-Binet scale?

144

It’s so cliche to talk about IQ, it makes me noxious.

who the **** uses IQ? what do you use it for? and how do you get tested?

And I think there needs to be a distinction made between ignorance and intelligence. For example, stupidity is a descriptor of intelligence, not ignorance. So, while someone may be ignorannt (e.g. in highschool), it doesn’t mean he or she is stupid.

But I do believe that one who is truly intelligent would not be so ignorant as to think he/she is above and beyond others. Maybe you are associating with the wrong people if you feel this way.

It’s like they say:
If you win too much, you are playing against the wrong people.

145

[quote]Contach wrote:
And I think there needs to be a distinction made between ignorance and intelligence. For example, stupidity is a descriptor of intelligence, not ignorance. So, while someone may be ignorannt (e.g. in highschool), it doesn’t mean he or she is stupid.
[/quote]

I saw that episode of King of the Hill, too. That was awesome when the guy dressed up like a pig…

146

My friend’s son once said, " To bad there isn’t a mirror for stupid. Ugly people know they’re ugly, but stupid people …"

It was one of the smartest things I ever heard.

147


Anyone else tired of people complaining about good genetics? One guy gets hypertrophy too fast, and now this guy is far too intelligent to converse with the common folk. What’s next?

“Someone help! I’m too good at multiple sports and I don’t know which one I should go pro.”

The only time I’ve ever “dumbed down” was on a date with a ditsy girl (sue me). People make friends out of common interests, whether that is sports, chess, or what-have-you. The intelligence gap should sort itself out unless you’re being a complete poser and douchebag by trying to merge into another group of which you clearly shouldn’t be a part. Trust me, those people aren’t that clever socially and tend to appear as the odd man out.

Another point

You cannot possibly be as intelligent as you think you are because of your vanity to display your superior intellect. As we all know, trolls are hermits in nature and hide under bridges and other unseen areas.

148

I’d like to buy Nephorm a beer.

149

I don’t remember exactly where I heard this, or what scale they were using, but I found it interesting as we’re on the subject of IQs.

For reference I believe they were considering a score of Genius at 180.

There is virtually no perceivable difference between those scoring ~140 and those scoring ~160/165. They were referencing success in physics with nobel prize winners and their various IQs. I’ll have to dig it up. It was pretty interesting, and obviously more in-depth than the shortsighted info I just gave.

Anyway, that prompted me to remember that. Carry on.

150

[quote]Res Judicata wrote:

This is true. People seem to settle in strata based at least in part on IQ. I’m an attorney in a big firm in New York. It’s a fairly selective group in terms of IQ. There’s a very noticeable difference when dealing with support staff. And I really have to tune things down when I’m dealing with “normal” people. [/quote]

I certainly don’t feel too terribly intelligent when I think about what I make on an hourly basis compared to a secretary with seniority…

Also – I hope you don’t treat them that way. Not everyone can be in the top 2%, but just about everyone can comprehend when they are being treated condescendingly.

151

[quote]GaMeOvEr305 wrote:
I’d like to buy Nephorm a beer.[/quote]

I agree. Nephorm, come down to Georgetown sometime to cash in on a beer…

152

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Res Judicata wrote:

This is true. People seem to settle in strata based at least in part on IQ. I’m an attorney in a big firm in New York. It’s a fairly selective group in terms of IQ. There’s a very noticeable difference when dealing with support staff. And I really have to tune things down when I’m dealing with “normal” people.

I certainly don’t feel too terribly intelligent when I think about what I make on an hourly basis compared to a secretary with seniority…

Also – I hope you don’t treat them that way. Not everyone can be in the top 2%, but just about everyone can comprehend when they are being treated condescendingly.[/quote]

I truly think people like this are a little too “unintelligent” to notice that someone is peeing in their coffee on a daily basis due to their overwhelming intelligence level that they have to “tune down”. There is a huge difference between knowing you are smarter than average…and acting like you are well above most you come in contact with in social settings.

Most people can figure out pretty quickly when they are being patronized or spoken down to even if they aren’t lawyers or doctors.

153

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
GaMeOvEr305 wrote:
I’d like to buy Nephorm a beer.

I agree. Nephorm, come down to Georgetown sometime to cash in on a beer…[/quote]

I’m down for the beer. Let me know where and when.

154

[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Res Judicata wrote:

This is true. People seem to settle in strata based at least in part on IQ. I’m an attorney in a big firm in New York. It’s a fairly selective group in terms of IQ. There’s a very noticeable difference when dealing with support staff. And I really have to tune things down when I’m dealing with “normal” people.

I certainly don’t feel too terribly intelligent when I think about what I make on an hourly basis compared to a secretary with seniority…

Also – I hope you don’t treat them that way. Not everyone can be in the top 2%, but just about everyone can comprehend when they are being treated condescendingly.

I truly think people like this are a little too “unintelligent” to notice that someone is peeing in their coffee on a daily basis due to their overwhelming intelligence level that they have to “tune down”. There is a huge difference between knowing you are smarter than average…and acting like you are well above most you come in contact with in social settings.

Most people can figure out pretty quickly when they are being patronized or spoken down to even if they aren’t lawyers or doctors.[/quote]

I don’t know this guy, or need to, to know that he is just a dick for all intents and purposes. And I don’t have to be one of his group of intelligence elite to know the proper word to use. The correct one is infact, dick.

To Res Judicata; Saying you have to talk down to support staff because they aren’t on par with you is by far and large the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. Perhaps you are too intelligent for the golden rule? Treat others as you would like to be treated.

The secretary who forwards your calls, the maid who empties your trash, the guy who parks your car, and the girl who makes your coffee wherever you get it are just as much people as you, and are equally important. You would think with your supreme intellect you would understand that.

155

[quote]KombatAthlete wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Irish Daza wrote:

Isn’t genius range roughly 140+ on the Stanford-Binet scale?
[/quote]

I tried one of them there Stanford-Binet’s. No thanks, never again. The water was way too cold and made me feel kinda gay but ever-so-clean.

156

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Coming from you, that means so much. You must be the last person on this site whose opinion carries any sort of value. [/quote]

Value is not an inherent quality. It is assigned subjectively by individuals. As I assign no value to people like you, so you do the same to me. The net sum is zero.

157

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Coming from you, that means so much. You must be the last person on this site whose opinion carries any sort of value.

Value is not an inherent quality. It is assigned subjectively by individuals. As I assign no value to people like you, so you do the same to me. The net sum is zero.
[/quote]

That was brilliant. I mean, the way you just threw words up on screen in an attempt to make some sort of come back…breathtaking. How do you do it? Here I was expecting you to at least attempt to stay on topic and you simply went left. What deflection. What grace. What style.

I bet when you pressed “submit” your heart was racing just a little, wasn’t it? You spent several minutes trying to come up with something and BOOM, there it was…crap as basic as “I’m rubber and you’re glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you”. Dear GOD is our future in trouble or what?

Let’s try this again, “Nominal”, but this time, let’s use some sort of method that allows you to actually present a point instead of make yet another retarded remark that probably passes for a debate at whatever community college you are currently attending.

What was your point that caused you to respond in the first place? Can you put that into sentences or will you need an electronic “Speak&Spell” for assistance?

Dumbass bitch.

158

[quote]nephorm wrote:
I imagine that as you grow older, you’ll find that the gap between you and your peers will diminish significantly. By training for a profession, you’ll start to filter people out (one way or the other).

By being exposed to people older than you who have much more experience. You are sheltered from that, to a certain extent. You’ll also find, as you get older, that people have things that they invest their time and energies into; dedication can outshine aptitude.

Of course, a lot of it is dependent upon how far away from the mean you are. In high school, where you are mixed in with what is a more representative sample of the population, small differences may appear great.[/quote]

This sums up about all you need to know about the subject. Great post. (should I expect otherwise?)

159

I’m much more impressed by someone who does all they can with what they have than I am with someone who’s clearly intelligent, but intellectually lazy and undisciplined.

160

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
<<>>[/quote]

Value IS an inherent quality and failure to assign it subjectively is a sure indicator of stupidity, arrogance or both.