[quote]X-Factor wrote:
I must say IQ is shit…I now people who have Phds and shit, and are just on a whole other level of stupid. I think the greatest intelligence is adaptability and applicability, being able to pick things up quick and understand things…most book smart people know how to do things but don’t know why, they don’t take the time to understand concepts they rather just recite. It’s like learning a multiplication table through memory and not knowing how to mulitply…it’s completely useles…anyways like my dad says “at the end of the day it’s what you can do that matters.”
[/quote]
I agree with your general tone about IQ, but a person’s IQ, or Intelligence Quotient, is an indicator of exactly what you say it isn’t - one’s ability to quickly understand and absorb new concepts and complex problems. Book smarts (knowledge) is something completely different from intelligence (learning potential). But I do agree that it is not an indicator of success as there are far more factors that determine where you go in life. You can drive a Ferrari slower than a Hyundai, but there’s no way a Hyundai can keep up with a Ferrari at top speed.
[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:
X-Factor wrote:
I must say IQ is shit…I now people who have Phds and shit, and are just on a whole other level of stupid. I think the greatest intelligence is adaptability and applicability, being able to pick things up quick and understand things…most book smart people know how to do things but don’t know why, they don’t take the time to understand concepts they rather just recite. It’s like learning a multiplication table through memory and not knowing how to mulitply…it’s completely useles…anyways like my dad says “at the end of the day it’s what you can do that matters.”
I agree with your general tone about IQ, but a person’s IQ, or Intelligence Quotient, is an indicator of exactly what you say it isn’t - one’s ability to quickly understand and absorb new concepts and complex problems. Book smarts (knowledge) is something completely different from intelligence (learning potential). But I do agree that it is not an indicator of success as there are far more factors that determine where you go in life. You can drive a Ferrari slower than a Hyundai, but there’s no way a Hyundai can keep up with a Ferrari at top speed.
DB[/quote]
Learning potential means nothing if you can’t apply that knowledge outside of your own head.
The things that “book smart” people get accused of apply to non-book-smart people as well. I know plenty of people who parrot about what J Lo wore to the Oscars, or what they heard on the news. Critical thinking is indeed rare, but it isn’t the exclusive province of any one group.
By the way, I’m a PhD student in Computational and Neurolinguistics, so I might be a bit biased. However, why is it that when I tell people what I do, they almost always have no idea, and act bewildered, even though they know the words “computer”, “neuro”, and “linguist”?
[quote]X-Factor wrote:
Oh, yea, madonnas IQ is 140…hmm impressive, and leonardo da vincis is 220…wtf? how did they test that shit…it’s prolly rumour or some shit.[/quote]
Madonna’s IQ makes sense - you can’t judge a person’s intelligence by their career choice. She’s fuckin’ rich and as famous as she wants to be.
As for Leonardo… they try to judge the IQ of historical figures by reading a lot of their writing and looking at any resouce about them they can, compare the data to others of the time period, and try to make a judgement about what their IQ would be. Pretty damn innacurate I’m sure, just an exercise in mental masturbation. I’m sure Leonardo doesn’t care what his IQ was.
I was watching the Sopranos the other night (My name is Tony and I’m from NNJ, and thats what we do on Sunday Nights).
Anyway, Tony (Soprano, not me) was talking to his psychiatrist, and he says his cousin got a huge score on this IQ test…and she says that those tests aren’t everything, and that they don’t mean much…
Then she asks if Tony thinks his cousin is smarter than he is.
Tony says “No, but the way you bag on IQ tests makes me think he’s smarter than you.”
[quote]Anthony Roberts wrote:
I was watching the Sopranos the other night (My name is Tony and I’m from NNJ, and thats what we do on Sunday Nights).
Anyway, Tony (Soprano, not me) was talking to his psychiatrist, and he says his cousin got a huge score on this IQ test…and she says that those tests aren’t everything, and that they don’t mean much…
Then she asks if Tony thinks his cousin is smarter than he is.
Tony says “No, but the way you bag on IQ tests makes me think he’s smarter than you.”
I am, by the way, a member of MENSA.
[/quote]
My dad had my IQ tested when I was 5. He was really into psychology at the time. They never told me what my score was. They just told me I was “blessed” (their word). I never asked because it didn’t mean anything to me. It still doesn’t. I skipped kindergarden and was placed in the first grade. My mom had me reading on a 6th grade level by then (by sitting with me and sometimes making me read even though she said I was “lazy”). I thank God for my parents, not whatever my IQ might be.
[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:
X-Factor wrote:
I must say IQ is shit…I now people who have Phds and shit, and are just on a whole other level of stupid. I think the greatest intelligence is adaptability and applicability, being able to pick things up quick and understand things…most book smart people know how to do things but don’t know why, they don’t take the time to understand concepts they rather just recite. It’s like learning a multiplication table through memory and not knowing how to mulitply…it’s completely useles…anyways like my dad says “at the end of the day it’s what you can do that matters.”
I agree with your general tone about IQ, but a person’s IQ, or Intelligence Quotient, is an indicator of exactly what you say it isn’t - one’s ability to quickly understand and absorb new concepts and complex problems. Book smarts (knowledge) is something completely different from intelligence (learning potential). But I do agree that it is not an indicator of success as there are far more factors that determine where you go in life. You can drive a Ferrari slower than a Hyundai, but there’s no way a Hyundai can keep up with a Ferrari at top speed.
DB[/quote]
and still dollarbill, it’s alot more fun going fast in a slow car than going slow in a fast one
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
dollarbill44 wrote:
X-Factor wrote:
I must say IQ is shit…I now people who have Phds and shit, and are just on a whole other level of stupid. I think the greatest intelligence is adaptability and applicability, being able to pick things up quick and understand things…most book smart people know how to do things but don’t know why, they don’t take the time to understand concepts they rather just recite. It’s like learning a multiplication table through memory and not knowing how to mulitply…it’s completely useles…anyways like my dad says “at the end of the day it’s what you can do that matters.”
I agree with your general tone about IQ, but a person’s IQ, or Intelligence Quotient, is an indicator of exactly what you say it isn’t - one’s ability to quickly understand and absorb new concepts and complex problems. Book smarts (knowledge) is something completely different from intelligence (learning potential). But I do agree that it is not an indicator of success as there are far more factors that determine where you go in life. You can drive a Ferrari slower than a Hyundai, but there’s no way a Hyundai can keep up with a Ferrari at top speed.
DB
Learning potential means nothing if you can’t apply that knowledge outside of your own head.
[/quote]
Sure it does, to every person that has the potential. When you have the ability to learn you learn, the usefullness of what you have learned is a different story. IQ tests don’t measure success. The only measure of success is… you know it, success.
[quote]swivel wrote:
dollarbill44 wrote:
X-Factor wrote:
I must say IQ is shit…I now people who have Phds and shit, and are just on a whole other level of stupid. I think the greatest intelligence is adaptability and applicability, being able to pick things up quick and understand things…most book smart people know how to do things but don’t know why, they don’t take the time to understand concepts they rather just recite. It’s like learning a multiplication table through memory and not knowing how to mulitply…it’s completely useles…anyways like my dad says “at the end of the day it’s what you can do that matters.”
I agree with your general tone about IQ, but a person’s IQ, or Intelligence Quotient, is an indicator of exactly what you say it isn’t - one’s ability to quickly understand and absorb new concepts and complex problems. Book smarts (knowledge) is something completely different from intelligence (learning potential). But I do agree that it is not an indicator of success as there are far more factors that determine where you go in life. You can drive a Ferrari slower than a Hyundai, but there’s no way a Hyundai can keep up with a Ferrari at top speed.
DB
and still dollarbill, it’s alot more fun going fast in a slow car than going slow in a fast one ;)[/quote]
Funny that someone just brought up neuro-linguistics. I just read a book on neuro linguistic programming…pretty interesting need I say powerful stuff, if you can apply it. I’m in the same boat as prof, my parents got me to read tonnes, and it was fun shit at the time because I would read the stuff he read when he was 12 and I was 7 (he won some education standardization test in N. Ireland, the first male to do it in years)
Anywho, when I was in grade 6 I was being told I had the reading level and vocab of an average OAC, which I don’t find hard to believe, because reading does wonders, not only that but I would discuss the books I read with people which was brilliant as a form of being able to absorb what you read and reference it. In fact I could almost vertical read at one point…there is a thing called EyeQ that you can get that teachs it…Anyways IQ does’nt measure success, success measures success, and the only way to do that is simple, luck…because luck is when preparation meets opportunity.
Everything is relative. The original IQ scores were based on a bell curve where “100” was in the middle of the curve. I believe that this should be revised. If more and more people are scoring higher than this central mark, simple statistics state the curve should be moved to the right to accomodate the populations correctly.
A true IQ test is administered by a professional (usually a psychologist) under a controlled setting. Most of the latest tests have been refined to exclude envrionmental, education, socio/economic upbringing as a factor. It needs to be adinistered properly because time and even partial answers are taken into consideration.
That being said, if a person (or group)could find a way to measure POTENTIAL, wealth would abound. I’ve known plenty of “gifted” individuals (personally and as students) who wasted or misused their ability. On the other hand there are many individuals out there that would test “normal” (middle of bell curve) that have achieved great things.
[quote]Anthony Roberts wrote:
I was watching the Sopranos the other night (My name is Tony and I’m from NNJ, and thats what we do on Sunday Nights).
Anyway, Tony (Soprano, not me) was talking to his psychiatrist, and he says his cousin got a huge score on this IQ test…and she says that those tests aren’t everything, and that they don’t mean much…
Then she asks if Tony thinks his cousin is smarter than he is.
Tony says “No, but the way you bag on IQ tests makes me think he’s smarter than you.”
I am, by the way, a member of MENSA.
[/quote]
Do you ever go to the R.G.s? My sister holds games nights sometimes, I’ve gone to the western PA r.g. a couple of times and tested once, but they lost the first part of my test, rendering it invalid.
Anyhow, the gatherings were kind of lame. The test proctor was realy freakin hot, but the rest of the women there were just about fugly.
No need to have the IQ enough to realize that you’re in Canada and Ontario specifically and OAC is not a term anyone else is going to understand. In fact, it doesn’t exist anymore…and you shoudl really be more specific.
Why not say your reading level was that of a grade 13 or pre-university level.
