Higher IQ's

[Just thinking]

What can one expect of a person (or people) that has/have an IQ of say over 300?

Are such IQ's possible? Does the IQ scale break down at that level rendering it meaningless? Could an alien race have such IQ's? Is there even an upper limit?

Thoughts?

[tsg]

I think the biggest argument against the accuracy of IQ tests is that mine said I was a genius.

[drkitten]

What can one expect of a person (or people) that has an IQ of say over 300?

Are such IQ's possible? Does the IQ scale break down at that level rendering it meaningless? Could an alien race have such IQ's? Is there even an upper limit?

Thoughts?

Yes. IQ is a terrible way to measure "intelligence," and it gets worse as one gets further and further away from the norm. I believe that most modern IQ tests do not permit a score that high, simply because answering every question "right" will still not give you a scaled score of 300, but it would be easy enough to devise a longer test.

The more serious problem is that of test reliability. We've got a pretty good handle on the measurement of "IQ" in the normal region. For example, all tests come with an implicit margin of error; if we test your IQ today at 104, that really means (on a typical test) that your IQ is probably in the range of 101-107. (Or more formally, that if we test you again tomorrow, you will probably score in that range, and you will tend to continue to score in that range.) The margin of error is typically around 3 points for "average" scores, but can be much, much higher for "gifted" scores. I've read reports suggesting a margin of error of 50 or more points for high scores -- if you score a 170 today, that means that tomorrow you might score anywhere from 120 to 220.

In addition to problems with re-testing, there are equally problems with comparing scores across tests. Again, inter-test correspondence is goodfor average scores (if your IQ is 104 on one test, it's probably about 104 on another, since any test that can't achieve that is rejected out of hand) but drops dramatically away from the average -- you might score an average of 170 on one test, and an average of 140 on another.

So the quick answer is that yes, such scores are possible. Just meaningless.

[Ladewig]

What can one expect of a person (or people) that has/have an IQ of say over 300?

Are such IQ's possible? Does the IQ scale break down at that level rendering it meaningless? Could an alien race have such IQ's? Is there even an upper limit?

Thoughts?

Most IQ tests have 100 as a mean and have a standard deviation close to 15. That means an IQ of 300 is 200 points above the mean and is over 13 standard deviations above the mean.

[Raphael]

What about 13 standard deviations below the mean. Hi my IQ is -100, wanna contribute to my '08 campaign.

[drkitten]

Most IQ tests have 100 as a mean and have a standard deviation close to 15. That means an IQ of 300 is 200 points above the mean and is over 13 standard deviations above the mean.

As I believe I pointed out upthread, IQ distribution does not even approximate normality that far from the mean.

Talking about "13 standard deviations above the mean" is meaningless.

[Just thinking]

Goods points, but my real question is, accepting that such an IQ is real (300), just what might a person of that ability accomplish? And then, is such an IQ possible -- not to score on a test, but in real life? Can intelligence go to such extremes?

[FireGarden]

I may be wrong, but this is the way I see it...

Everybody takes the standard test -- mean 100, SD 15

Those that score above 115 (at a guess), take another test -- mean 130, SD 15 (Mensa administers a variety of tests)

The population for the second test are also assumed to be distributed about the mean in a normal fashion. Which isn't how IQ will be distributed for real -- it's an approximation.

Eventually, the population for the tests is so small you may as well sort out the candidates through one-on-one mental-test knockout tournaments.

Compare with chess.
There is no test that will tell the difference between Kasparov/Karpov/Topolov/Anand/etc in which I too will score. Any test which can tell them apart is too tough for me.

And yet there are reliable tests (chess games) which measure chess abilities. If you round out to nearest 100, the ratings on chess servers give a fair idea of ability. To the extent where, if the ratings differ by a few hundred, then you could guess the winner even if the players have never faced each other before.

[drkitten]

Goods points, but my real question is, accepting that such an IQ is real (300), just what might a person of that ability accomplish?

That's the point. Such an IQ is not real, because it is not well-defined.

You're asking the equivalent of "suppose someone were super-strong? how much could they lift?" -- first tell me what "super-strong" means, and I'll answer the question. But you'll probably find that your definition of "super-strong" inherently includes the answer.

IQ is defined by accomplishment. Accomplishment is not defined by IQ.

[FireGarden]

And then, is such an IQ possible -- not to score on a test, but in real life? Can intelligence go to such extremes?

Intelligence as we know it relies a lot on experience. It takes 10 years to be an expert in most things worth being an expert in. It takes that long to see enough examples. Improving education so that the most instructive examples are seen early on will reap easier returns than increasing the rate at which you absorb infomation.

To stick with chess....
How smart would you have to be in order to play your first ever game of chess, sitting opposite the world champ, and beat him?

Answer: probably an IQ of zero is required. Only a computer could manage it.

I don't find the following sci-fi scenario believable.
Vulcans land in America. They need cash. One of them decides to play pool for money. "It's a simple game -- A Vulcan child could manage it!"

Not if they merely have more of the same kind of intelligence we have. To get good at pool requires experience for all humans -- no matter how smart they are.

Therefore,
Improvements in education will out perform improvements in IQ. We probably won't see people so enormously smart as Vulcans.

(I suppose genetic engineering might change that...)

[drkitten]

Intelligence as we know it relies a lot on experience.

You've kind of stepped in a patch of --- well, of IQ debate.

The relationship between IQ and experience is not well-understood (and tends to get swept under the table). The statement that "It takes 10 years to be an expert in most things worth being an expert in" is of course true, but it's also a long-term average over many, many people.

As a predictive theory, it breaks down in two ways. First, you can spend much longer than ten years not becoming an expert if you don't see enough "interesting" cases -- not all experience is created equal. (To continue the chess example earlier, I will learn chess a lot faster if I play a game a day for ten years with Topolov than if I play a game a day with [a different] novice.) That's why education works in the first place, by providing "instructive examples" (your phrase, in fact).

Second, not everyone draws the same lessons (or the same amount of lessons) from a given set of experience. One suggestion for what IQ "really" means is the ability to see patterns from fewer examples, so you learn faster. Another suggestion is that it means better pattern recall, so you can tap into more patterns. Another suggestion is.... well, this is where the stuff starts piling up.

But a fairly common prediction (albeit not well-tested, for obvious reasons) is that a person with higher IQ takes less time to achieve "expertise" than a person with lower IQ.


I don't find the following sci-fi scenario believable.
Vulcans land in America. They need cash. One of them decides to play pool for money. "It's a simple game -- A Vulcan child could manage it!"

Not if they merely have more of the same kind of intelligence we have.

Depends. According to some IQ theories, they will be able to watch a single game and extract all the "experience" they need. According to others, they will simply be able to remember that single game really really well....

[Meffy]

I find FireGarden's Vulcans in a pool hall idea intriguing.

"Fascinating. We have correctly predicted every impact, every motion of cue stick and balls, yet still we have lost most of our currency and the deed to our spacecraft to a person who claims to be a casual recreational player only. Perhaps we should attempt to use our superior knowledge of probabilities to win back our losses at this 'poker' of which we have heard..."

"Yeah, good idea. Y'know, I'm a beginner at poker myself. What say we play a few friendly hands, hm?"

[bjb]

Everyone knows a Vulcan can control your actions, especially if you are a woman. They'd win the pool game by making you miss your shots.

Don't forget that IQ is defined as *quotient* of your mental age (whatever that is) and your chronological age. Suppose you are six years old. You are given a test that a 3 year old should be able to pass, then one that a 4 year old should pass, etc. You keep taking harder and harder tests until you fail.

Suppose you pass the 7 year old test but not the 8. Your IQ is 7/6, or 117. But if you pass the 12 year old test, your IQ is 200. I believe the test went up to 18 years of age so in theory, you could have an IQ of 300. But if you waited until you were 9 years old to take the test, the best you could do was 200.

It is clear that these tests are not really designed for kids with very, very high IQ's, and they probably don't work so well with kids who have low IQ's either.

[drkitten]

Don't forget that IQ is defined as *quotient* of your mental age (whatever that is) and your chronological age.

Not any more. The underlying theory has changed radically, while the terminology remains the same. Part of the problem is that this formulation really only works for developing children (Binet's area of focus), but much IQ testing is now done in the context of young adults or even mature adults.

That's part of why the recent focus has just been on distributions.

What does it mean for an adult to have an IQ of 120? He's 30 years old, but as "bright" as someone who's 36? There's not typically much difference in IQ in developed adults (until you see genuine loss in the geriatric end, but let's not go there yet). So instead, we'll define IQ 100 as "average" and define the population standard deviation as 15. So someone with an IQ of 120 is 1.33 standard deviations above the norm, somewhere near the 90th percentile. That makes more sense....

[Meffy]

I have redeclared my IQ from the improbably high figures that tests have shown to a nice even "three." I arrived at this estimate based on the stupidity I've exhibited through the years.

IQ != smarts.

[drkitten]

IQ != smarts.

Yup.

[FireGarden]

Dr Kitten,
Maybe the problem is that I simply haven't met any amazingly clever people who weren't schooled in some way. I've met musicians who can't read music, but play well. However... they're educated in music -- just not book-educated.

Most of my own competance is based on centuries-worth of other people's experience rather than my own innate ability to think. (Even that ability itself must be trained to an extent by my education.)

Second, not everyone draws the same lessons (or the same amount of lessons) from a given set of experience.

I can add another suggestion to the pile: The order in which you learn things can be important. So experience is not necessarily a set, but a list. (or, more likely, something in between)

But a fairly common prediction (albeit not well-tested, for obvious reasons) is that a person with higher IQ takes less time to achieve "expertise" than a person with lower IQ.

Paraphrase of a quote I heard: "Treat IQ as a measurement of intelligence in the same way as a footrace is a measurement of speed."

Of course, different races will have different winners. Some people I could beat in a footrace, but couldn't beat in a swimming race.

Similarly,
I don't believe in a one-size-fits-all education system. It should be tailored to the to the needs of the student. In fact, that's one use of IQ tests -- EG: the 12+ in Britain.

Depends. According to some IQ theories, they will be able to watch a single game and extract all the "experience" they need. According to others, they will simply be able to remember that single game really really well....

I incline to the latter opinion!
I reckon Vulcans would have to have a different type of intelligence to ours. But I'm not an expert.

[Ladewig]

Talking about "13 standard deviations above the mean" is meaningless.

I firmly agree.

As I believe I pointed out upthread, IQ distribution does not even approximate normality that far from the mean.

Yes, but you never mentioned how ridiculously far from the mean a score of 300 is. Even in the most normal of distributions, 13 st. devs. above the mean is pretty hard to find.

[drkitten]

Yes, but you never mentioned how ridiculously far from the mean a score of 300 is. Even in the most normal of distributions, 13 st. devs. above the mean is pretty hard to find.

Well, that's part of the problem. Actually, high IQ scores are found much more commonly than the normal distribution would suggest. I found a table at this site (http://sweb.uky.edu/~jcscov0/ratioiq.htm) -- I can't validate the numbers offhand, but they ("Sare's Findings") look plausible.

According to the table, for example, an IQ of 150 "should" appear (assuming a normal distribution) about once in every 1,140 people. The actual rarity appears to be something like 1/286, or nearly four times too many. At the upper "end," a score of 210 should not appear (expected rarity 1 in 278 billion, world population is not even a tenth of that), but of course Marilyn vos Savant has a documented score of over 220. In fact, Sare's distribution predicts (in contrast to the normal distribution) that there are at least 100 IQ 210+ people in the United States today (of whom Marilyn is presumably one).

[infornography]

It stands to reason that in order to be an expert on vulcan intelligence, one would have to have experience with vulcans. ;-)

[FireGarden]

I find FireGarden's Vulcans in a pool hall idea intriguing.
Not my idea, btw. An episode of Enterprise (but you probably didn't watch it :D)


Pool (or at least snooker) involves strategy too. What kind of brain can calculate the consequences of every decision?

snooker robot project at Bristol University (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/cue_sports/42773)

Last I heard, it lost to Steve Davis. But I'm sure its maths was perfect. I wonder how it played against non-pros. Can't find any info.

[CapelDodger]

... (until you see genuine loss in the geriatric end, but let's not go there yet).
That's easy for you to say. For some of us, the only other available option was even less attractive.

[CapelDodger]

When I play pool my conscious role is to plan the game and the individual breaks. No plan survives first contact with reality, of course, and it's my conscious job to keep up with developments.

Once I've chosen the shot, I make sure of my stance and bridge, visualise the shot and then I let my unconscious mind actually make it happen (or not). There's a cluster of many neural circuits in my head that couldn't tell a sine from a raging elephant, but they form a good working model of the limited physics involved. This has been honed over many years by the pleasure/pain payback which is initiated by my conscious brain.

If you have to work out where to hit the object ball, using sines and other Vulcan-oriented concepts, you'll never be any good.

This is what lies behind "Practice makes perfect". As Greg Norman(?) once retorted to a spectator, "Yeah, and the more I practice the luckier I get". IQ can't measure that aspect of intelligence, the ability of a brain to perfect a skill. Not just in games or trades but also social skills.

Most of human life is too complicated for anyone to think their way through in detail, whatever their IQ. There are important aspects of a brain's ability which simply can't be measured by IQ.

[CapelDodger]

Pool (or at least snooker) involves strategy too.
Hey, don't knock pool (we play 8-ball). It arguably involves more strategy, since the table is more crowded, doubles are easier, and players don't share object balls (except the black, of course). In pool, making your opponents task harder is always in the mix.

What kind of brain can calculate the consequences of every decision?

snooker robot project at Bristol University (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/cue_sports/42773)

Last I heard, it lost to Steve Davis. But I'm sure its maths was perfect. I wonder how it played against non-pros. Can't find any info.
Steve Davis will have reacted to the robot as to any other new player on the scene (and he's seen a good few). He'll have distilled the robot's strengths and weaknesses, not by deep analysis of every shot and choice of shot but by experience and analogy. From that he can plan a strategy that he has the skills to implement. The robot has no such inititative.

Kasparov did the same kind of job on Deep Blue.

[hodgy]

I don't like IQ tests - I think that someone who does lots of IQ tests would get better at them. Real intelligence is being able to cope with unencountered problems.

[Art Vandelay]

I think the biggest argument against the accuracy of IQ tests is that mine said I was a genius.Replace "I" with Marilyn, and I'd agree. BTW, they've stopped giving out scores that high, so she will remain the "person with the highest IQ".

Has anyone won a pool game without the player ever having a turn? It seems like it should be possible.

[Just thinking]

Has anyone won a pool game without the player ever having a turn? It seems like it should be possible.

I believe in 8-Ball if one sinks the 8 ball from a properly set up rack on the break without scratching, they win.

I do recall doing that at least once.

[empeake]

I'm not a fan of IQ tests, particularly since I discovered in one test that there were two possible correct answers to the the same question (of which, of course, only one would be considered correct by the testers).

Personally, I find Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences to hold up quite well in the real world.

[FireGarden]

Hey, don't knock pool

My apologies! It was argumentative sleight of hand. I had to bridge the gap between the Enterprise episode and Bristol Uni :) I suppose I should have spent more time looking for a pool-playing robot!

Neither of pool/snooker is particularly my game.

I don't like IQ tests - I think that someone who does lots of IQ tests would get better at them.

I've often thought that a good IQ test would be to ask people what their hobby is and then see how good they are at it. High intelligence should be correlated with a high ability to achieve your own goals -- represented by getting better at whatever it is you enjoy.

My hobby is playing guitar. But I've probably (hah! certainly) spent more time watching TV than playing guitar. Which is probably a clear sign that I'm less intelligent than Steve Vai and Martin Taylor!

[The Painter]

Is there a pattern here?

IQ Scores from Every Country


1. Hong Kong - 107
2. Korea, South - 106
3. Japan - 105
3. Korea, North - 105
5. Taiwan - 104
6. Austria - 102
6. Germany - 102
6. Italy - 102
6. Netherlands - 102
10. Luxembourg - 101
10. Sweden - 101
10. Switzerland - 101
13. Belgium - 100
13. China - 100
13. New Zealand - 100
13. Singapore - 100
13. United Kingdom - 100
18. Hungary - 99
18. Poland - 99
18. Spain - 99
21. France - 98
21. Australia - 98
21. Denmark - 98
21. Iceland - 98
21. Mongolia - 98
21. Norway - 98
21. United States - 98
28. Canada - 97
28. Czech Republic - 97
28. Estonia - 97
28. Finland - 97
28. Latvia - 97
28. Lithuania - 97
34. Argentina - 96
34. Belarus - 96
34. Russia - 96
34. Slovakia - 96
34. Ukraine - 96
34. Uruguay - 96
44. Vietnam - 96
41. Malta - 95
41. Moldova - 95
41. Portugal - 95
41. Slovenia - 95
45. Israel - 94
45. Romania - 94
47. Armenia - 93
47. Chile - 93
47. Bulgaria - 93
47. Georgia - 93
47. Ireland - 93
47. Kazakhstan - 93
47. Macedonia - 93
47. Yugoslavia - 93
55. Brunei - 92
55. Cyprus - 92
55. Greece - 92
55. Malaysia - 92
59. Costa Rica - 91
59. Thailand - 91
61. Albania - 90
61. Croatia - 90
61. Peru - 90
61. Turkey - 90
65. Cambodia - 89
65. Indonesia - 89
65. Suriname - 89
65. Laos - 89
69. Colombia - 88
69. Venezuela - 88
71. Azerbaijan - 87
71. Brazil - 87
71. Iraq - 87
71. Jordan - 87
71. Kyrgyzstan - 87
71. Mexico - 87
71. Samoa (Western) - 87
71. Syria - 87
71. Tajikistan - 87
71. Tonga - 87
71. Turkmenistan - 87
71. Uzbekistan - 87
83. Burma (Myanmar) - 86
83. Philippines - 86
83. Lebanon - 86
86. Bolivia - 85
86. Cuba - 85
86. Morocco - 85
86. Paraguay - 85
90. Algeria - 84
90. Dominican Republic - 84
90. El Salvador - 84
90. Guyana - 84
90. Honduras - 84
90. Iran - 84
90. Kiribati - 84
90. Libya - 84
90. Marshall Islands - 84
90. Micronesia - 84
90. Nicaragua - 84
90. Panama - 84
90. Papua New Guinea - 84
90. Puerto Rico - 84
90. Solomon Islands - 84
90. Tunisia - 84
90. Vanuatu - 84
107. Afghanistan - 83
107. Bahrain - 83
107. Belize - 83
107. Egypt - 83
107. Kuwait - 83
107. Oman - 83
107. Saudi Arabia - 83
107. United Arab Emirates - 83
107. Yemen - 83
116. Bangladesh - 81
116. India - 81
116. Maldives - 81
116. Mauritius - 81
116. Pakistan - 81
116. Seychelles - 81
116. Sri Lanka - 81
123. Ecuador - 80
123. Trinidad & Tobago - 80
125. Comoros - 79
125. Guatemala - 79
125. Madagascar - 79
128. Barbados - 78
128. Bahamas - 78
128. Bhutan - 78
128. Cape Verde - 78
128. Nepal - 78
128. Qatar - 78
134. Zambia - 77
135. Antigua & Barbuda - 75
135. Grenada - 75
135. Dominica - 75
135. St. Kitts & Nevis - 75
135. St. Lucia - 75
135. St.Vincent/Grenadines - 75
141. Congo (Braz) - 73
141. Mauritania - 73
141. Uganda - 73
144. Botswana - 72
144. Chad - 72
144. Haiti - 72
144. Jamaica - 72
144. Kenya - 72
144. Lesotho - 72
144. Mosambique - 72
144. Namibia - 72
144. South Africa - 72
144. Swaziland - 72
144. Sudan - 72
144. Tanzania - 72
156. Côte d'Ivoire - 71
156. Ghana - 71
156. Malawi - 71
159. Burundi - 70
159. Cameroon - 70
159. Rwanda - 70
162. Angola - 69
162. Benin - 69
162. Togo - 69
165. Central African Rep. - 68
165. Djibouti - 68
165. Eritrea - 68
165. Mali - 68
165. Somalia - 68
170. Niger - 67
170. Nigeria - 67
172. Burkina Faso - 66
172. Gabon - 66
172. Zimbabwe - 66
175. Congo (Zaire) - 65
176. Gambia - 64
176. Liberia - 64
176. Senegal - 64
176. Sierra Leone - 64
180. Ethiopia - 63
180. Guinea - 63
180. Guinea-Bissau - 63
183. Sao Tome/Principe - 59
183. Equatorial Guinea - 59

[Ladewig]

Is there a pattern here?

IQ Scores from Every Country


Is there a pattern? Perhaps. It depends on the source of this information and the methodology used to collect it.

[Just thinking]

Although the above may be quite valid (number-wise), it seems unrealistic to give an IQ average to the US. Being made up of immigrants (many illegal and from countries with lower than 100 IQ's) the average will be clearly pulled down -- not reflecting the accomplishments achieved. The same seems to be happening to Canada too, due to its immigration policies? I am surprised at Israel.

[empeake]

Is there a pattern here?
I see a general geographical pattern, but nothing more. I'm curious about the source of this data, how the IQ scores were determined, and the scale used. On this last point, it has been widely assumed that a score of 100 represents the average IQ. Using this assumption, this list shows that most of the world's population is below average, something impossible.

If it weren't for the fact that the first five countries are from the Far East, I would have thought the list was concocted by a white supremacist group to support the return of slavery (perhaps it's the work of an Asian supremacist group :eek: )

[FireGarden]

There are more qualified people on this board, but a quick google search turns up the same data. (It would have been nice if The Painter had given a link)

IQ and the Wealth of Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations)

For most of the 185 nations, no reliable studies are available. In those cases, the authors have used an estimated value by taking averages of the IQs of surrounding nations.

[...] For People's Republic of China, the authors used a figure of 109.4 for Shanghai and adjusted it down by an arbitrary 6 points because they believed the average across China's rural areas was probably less than that in Shanghai. Another figure from a study done in Beijing was not adjusted downwards. Those two studies formed the resultant score for China (PRC).

In many cases, the IQ of a country is estimated by averaging the IQs of "neighboring countries" that are not actually neighbors of the country in question. For example, Kyrgyzstan's IQ is estimated by averaging the IQs of Iran and Turkey, neither of which is close to Kyrgyzstan – China, which is a neighbor, is not counted as such by Lynn and Vanhanen. Such arbitrary selections of "neighbors" raise additional questions as to the objectivity of the IQ estimates.

according to the wiki article on Kyrgyzstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan) there may be some Turkic ethnicity, but also some Mongol ethnicity.

Searching the page for "Iran" yeilds nothing, neither does searching for "persia". But I haven't actually read it all. (ETA: the table where they list population comes up with what looks like greek and cyrllic alphabets??? CIA Fact Book (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kg.html) gives "Kyrgyz 64.9%, Uzbek 13.8%, Russian 12.5%, Dungan 1.1%, Ukrainian 1%, Uygur 1%, other 5.7% (1999 census)")


IQ and the Wealth of Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations)

The book's results were not peer-reviewed.

A review of the book in Contemporary Psychology (49 (4). pp389-395. Barnett, Susan M.; Williams, Wendy) stated: "In sum, we see an edifice built on layer upon layer of arbitrary assumptions and selective data manipulation. The data on which the entire book is based are of questionably validity and are used in ways that cannot be justified."


[...]

Whetzel and McDaniel (in press) conclude that the book's "results regarding the relationship between IQ, democracy and economic freedom are robust". Moreover, they address "criticisms concerning the measurement of IQ in purportedly low IQ countries", finding that by setting "all IQ scores below 90 to equal 90, the relationship between IQ and wealth of nations remained strong and actually increased in magnitude." On this question they conclude that their findings "argue against claims made by some that inaccuracies in IQ estimation of low IQ countries invalidate conclusions about the relationship between IQ and national wealth."


Emphasis mine.
paraphrase: "Hey, if you make up the data in different ways, then you can get even better results!"

There's also a line later in the article "iodine-deficient individuals score an average of 13.5 points lower in IQ tests."

[FireGarden]

On this last point, it has been widely assumed that a score of 100 represents the average IQ.

The mean for any IQ test is an arbitrary choice. In this case, it was chosen that the UK would have an IQ of 100 and all other numbers would be scaled to that.

Using this assumption, this list shows that most of the world's population is below average, something impossible.

Easily possible. The normal distribution is an assumption.

1,1,1,1, 10000000000000

Is not a sample from a normal distribution. Most values are below the mean.

However,
What the data does suggest is that a lot of Africans have (mild) mental retardation. "One common criterion for diagnosis of mental retardation is a tested intelligence quotient (IQ) of 70 or below."[wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation)]

Average for Equatorial Guinea is given as 59.
This not something that would be difficult to prove if it was real. [ETA: or so it appears to me]

[hammegk]

... High intelligence should be correlated with a high ability to achieve your own goals -- represented by getting better at whatever it is you enjoy.
And it's a damn shame no such correlation has ever been found ... unless you have a study you'd care to cite. :)

Ability to achieve one's goals -- follow tasks to completion come what may -- is a character trait that actually can offset lack of IQ.

[FireGarden]

hammegk,
I was clearly just giving an opinion, hence the phrase "I've often thought that..." Therefore: I can provide no studies.

I still think it's a reasonable expectation. Intelligent people are successful. There is a 0.5 correlation between IQ and school grades. (wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Practical_validity))

Of course, doing well at school isn't necessarily achieving your own goals. But why would achieving your own goals be less likely to be correlated? I would have thought the reverse.

School does make most things a lot easier to learn. As I've already said, I think education plays a big part in becoming competent. And I would regard a good teacher as another way to offset lack of IQ in a student. But IQ is still correlated to school grades.

If IQ measures something intrinsic to a person, wouldn't its effects be more manifest in personal endeavours?

[T'ai Chi]

What can one expect of a person (or people) that has/have an IQ of say over 300?


Don't know.

But if people think they are distributed as a bell curve, one can calculate the probability of seeing such a score, and then maybe use the probability of that rare event to estimate some type of time frame to see that event.

[Peter@Beoworld]

Although the above may be quite valid (number-wise), it seems unrealistic to give an IQ average to the US. Being made up of immigrants (many illegal and from countries with lower than 100 IQ's) the average will be clearly pulled down -- not reflecting the accomplishments achieved. The same seems to be happening to Canada too, due to its immigration policies? I am surprised at Israel.


I love this response! The US also attracts some of the most intelligent scientists and academics from around the world who come to the well funded institutions. Do you want to exclude them as well?! I would have thought the sign of an intelligent population was an enlightened view towards immigration, and is possibly the reason for the success of the US who welcomed immigrants when a growing nation. I seem to remember that some of the immigrants didn't turn out to be too bad!

[empeake]

Easily possible. The normal distribution is an assumption.

1,1,1,1, 10000000000000

Is not a sample from a normal distribution. Most values are below the mean.
Of course, the range in IQ is not so extreme.

My misunderstanding was about "100 = average person". I believed it was worldwide, not knowing that in this case it represented the UK average. The values make more sense now, but the methodology seems questionable.

[slingblade]

Dr Kitten,
Maybe the problem is that I simply haven't met any amazingly clever people who weren't schooled in some way. I've met musicians who can't read music, but play well. However... they're educated in music -- just not book-educated.

Anecdote:

I knew a boy who had never played an instrument before, but when given a small electronic keyboard for his 6th Christmas, sat down and began playing carols. First with one finger, and then after about twenty or thirty minutes, chords and all, harmony and melody. He could play back anything he heard. He didn't want lessons, however. When he was eleven, someone very kindly paid for him to take lessons. At the third one, he told the teacher he didn't like to come back, as he saw no point in learning scales.

She tried to talk him into staying, and at one point played for him a good bit of Bach's toccata and fuge in D minor to show him what he might learn. He watched her, then took her place and played it back to her. Then he thanked her for the lessons, said he still didn't see the point, and left.

Later, however, he realized the need to know more than he did, and took a notation class at the local college so he could write down his own compositions. He can play any instrument he picks up--taught himself the guitar and drums among others. He also sings.

Shall I introduce you? :D

[Just thinking]

I love this response! The US also attracts some of the most intelligent scientists and academics from around the world who come to the well funded institutions. Do you want to exclude them as well?! I would have thought the sign of an intelligent population was an enlightened view towards immigration, and is possibly the reason for the success of the US who welcomed immigrants when a growing nation. I seem to remember that some of the immigrants didn't turn out to be too bad!

You love my response yet you seemed to have not read it too well.

Over the last 35 or so years the immigration into the US has changed considerably -- from mainly legal to mainly illegal -- from mainly Euro-centered to non-European. Hey, I'm just looking at the numbers, taking them at face value and trying to make sense. Can you explain how it is that the US and Canada (two highly advanced industrialized and leading nations) have below 100 IQ's as a whole ignoring the recent strong influx of immigration from sub 100 regions? Then look at Japan.

[Aepervius]

Is there a pattern here?

IQ Scores from Every Country


1. Hong Kong - 107 183. Sao Tome/Principe - 59
183. Equatorial Guinea - 59


Shortned the above.

Even not taking into account that IQ might not even measure anything important...

The problem from most IQ test I saw until now is that they are culturally biased (and even sometimes genderly if overly basing on certain type of geometry test). Heck presenting an IQ test to somebody having done school but near average/below intelligence might yield an IQ score way above one from somebody not akin to such test and never went in school but which might be brighter than the aforementionned person. And do not get me started on test based on language. Somebody handling a latin based language might have problem on anglo saxon language and vice versa. Bottom line is that test are tailored to a population. Most those I saw up to now were mostly tailored for an anglosaxon population having gone to school.

Now onto the specific case below a lot of data is missing :
* how many people from each country were tested ?
* what was the content of the test ? how was the cultural bias avoided ?
* what was the education of all sampling ? Was there the same proportion of schooled/unschooled people in all country ?
* what was the social provenance of all testee ? Were the proportion high/medium/low class respected ?


Reading the wiki article it was NOT.


The number of participants in each study was usually limited, often numbering under a few hundred. The exceptions to this were the United States and Japan, for which studies using more than several thousand participants are available.

Studies that were averaged together often used different methods of IQ testing, different scales for IQ values and/or were done decades apart. IQ in children is different although correlated with IQ later in life and many of the studies tested only young children.


IMO it looks more like a statistical salade to try to "proove" something.

[FireGarden]

I knew a boy who had never played an instrument before, but when given a small electronic keyboard for his 6th Christmas, sat down and began playing carols.

Aha! Playing carols he had previously heard? So he didn't invent music itself! :D

Still
That's impressive. I've seen intelligent children that struggle to play just a melody.

As an anecdote, I assume it's not documented in any way. How well did he play? How musical were the people who say he played the chords/harmony and all? (How strange was the harmony?) Since he had never played an instrument before, I assume no-one in his immediate family was a musician (or they locked their instrument away in the attic!). I assume the gift was given by family.

Later, however, he realized the need to know more than he did, and took a notation class at the local college so he could write down his own compositions.

Well,
I got him beat!
I didn't need lessons to work out music notation! :)

At least, not face to face lessons. I learnt most of what I know from books. By the time I went to a teacher I already knew a few of Sor's instructional pieces.

But I'm still more of a guitarist than a musician. After more than 10 years.

Shall I introduce you? :D

Only if his talent is contagious! :)

[empeake]

Can you explain how it is that the US and Canada (two highly advanced industrialized and leading nations) have below 100 IQ's as a whole ignoring the recent strong influx of immigration from sub 100 regions?

Considering how pervasive Sylvia Browne, Miss Cleo, John Edward, ID, Creationism, conspiracy theories, Christian fundamentalism, UFO's, alien abductions, New Age, psychic healing, touch therapies, and other forms of woo are among full-blooded Americans, this influx of "subpar" immigrants might have actually raised the average. :p

[slingblade]

As an anecdote, I assume it's not documented in any way. How well did he play? How musical were the people who say he played the chords/harmony and all? (How strange was the harmony?) Since he had never played an instrument before, I assume no-one in his immediate family was a musician (or they locked their instrument away in the attic!). I assume the gift was given by family.

:D My son. No, we aren't particularly musical, though we all love music.
He played darned well, considering he knew nothing about finger placement other than what he may have seen on TV or movies. The harmonies were correct. He just seemed to already know which key made what note.

He played carols first, because it was Christmas. He spent the day alternating between playing stuff he was listening to on my stereo, and making up his own stuff.

No, not really documented. He was asked at 7 to appear on a local kid's cartoon show, but we never received a tape of the episode, and the one the studio made was taped over....sigh.

And no, he didn't invent music, but he also didn't invent the piano, either.:D


Well,
I got him beat!
I didn't need lessons to work out music notation! :)

Neener, neener. ;)

Only if his talent is contagious! :)

I don't think so...I haven't come down with it. :(

[Just thinking]

Considering how pervasive Sylvia Browne, Miss Cleo, John Edward, ID, Creationism, conspiracy theories, Christian fundamentalism, UFO's, alien abductions, New Age, psychic healing, touch therapies, and other forms of woo are among full-blooded Americans, this influx of "subpar" immigrants might have actually raised the average. :p

Ok, I'll take that as a no-can-do.

[Peter@Beoworld]

I would suggest that most illegal immigrants are probably not amongst those tested. But I do understand your point. However the US still rates pretty highly and it comes as little surprise to me to see the Tiger economies at the top of the list.
What it does probably show is that the tests suit the developed or rapidly developing world rather better than the poorer nations. I wonder how well most of us would survive in some of the poorer and more oppressed countries who seem to have populations with apparently low average IQs. Maybe showing oneself to have a sceptical or very enquiring mind is less good for one's health in those situations.

[hammegk]

Shall I introduce you? :D
Question. Is the child high IQ, or just gifted with musical talent?

[Raphael]

Question. Is the child high IQ, or just gifted with musical talent?

Is seeing, remembering and manipulating the relationships of numbers more indicative of intelligence than the equivalent activity with musical notes? I only ask since your statement "just musical talent" seems to minimize said ability.

[Nicholas Turnbull]

I.Q. is, in my view, not really an adequate means of determining the intelligence of an individual. Indeed, it is a poor metric, as for one the "artificial" nature of the tests in question will undoubtedly cause an effect in the manner in which the person completes the examination. This may be adverse, due to the environment of a test being perceived as "stressful", or indeed the reduced number of variables necessary to answer the questions from may in fact increase the measured ability for logical reasoning, as may in some individuals the act of being analysed (along the lines of the Hawthorne effect). Thus, even neglecting the statistical points, there are clearly serious flaws with the assignment of a statistical benchmark from standardised test questions for the purposes of determining intelligence. Thus, an individual purported to have an I. Q. of 300 would, in my opinion, not necessarily have to be at all "gifted", not only due to the issues outlined regarding I. Q. testing but also because raw mental computation is nothing without education - a largely unmeasurable variable. And, after all, intelligence is nothing without information and method, just as a mill is of no value without grist to grind. It would be grossly incorrect to assume a person with little intellectual training necessarily lacks "intelligence", via an erroneous conflation of knowledge and ability, and thus I believe I. Q. scores may be safely discarded as a measure of determining the potential skills of an individual. (This is proven amply, in echoing of sentiments posted above, by the fact that I have received a disparate series of I. Q. scores from different tests I have undergone.)

Nicholas Turnbull

[Just thinking]

I would suggest that most illegal immigrants are probably not amongst those tested.

They do however place a good number of their offspring into our school systems, which probably do test them. I'm not trying to be racists or anit-immigration, but this is a topic that easily can instigate such accusations when one tries to be straightforward and objective.

But I do understand your point. However the US still rates pretty highly and it comes as little surprise to me to see the Tiger economies at the top of the list.

Thank you -- and I yours. No doubt many would not be so quick to be so PC if those numbers represented, say weight, age or height. One would then have no issue seeing how a population could become skewed by an influx of numbers nearer a particular value than what may have once been a mean.

What it does probably show is that the tests suit the developed or rapidly developing world rather better than the poorer nations. I wonder how well most of us would survive in some of the poorer and more oppressed countries who seem to have populations with apparently low average IQs. Maybe showing oneself to have a sceptical or very enquiring mind is less good for one's health in those situations.

As for the Tiger economoies, I have no definitive answer, except perhpas that like here, nations are run by politicians, who are either in power by overtaking a former regeme or more culturally influenced than intellectually.

I too would probably not do well in some underdeveloped country, running around trying to show how things worked logically rather than mystically. ;)

[hammegk]

Is seeing, remembering and manipulating the relationships of numbers more indicative of intelligence than the equivalent activity with musical notes?
That would be a facit of IQ as usual tests after infancy would estimate.


I only ask since your statement "just musical talent" seems to minimize said ability.
Sorry, that was not my intent. My point is that IQ can be estimated more rigorously than musical ability.

[SirPhilip]

Just to add in this for curiosities sake, If you haven't already heard of him yet. Gregory Smith, a wonderkid, scored past 200 apparently. He's extremely well-read, but also, according to his messages at least, rather naive.

http://www.gregoryrsmith.com/biography.html

[FireGarden]

:D My son. No, we aren't particularly musical, though we all love music.

Congratulations!
You have a musically gifted son.

Even to pick out melodies on his own at age six is impressive. And if what he added to that sounded good enough to you, then that's even more impressive -- even if it wasn't the perfectly correct harmony.

Is seeing, remembering and manipulating the relationships of numbers more indicative of intelligence than the equivalent activity with musical notes?

Is the correlation between musical ability and IQ all that bad? I don't think so. Correlation would indicate that there is some non-task-specific ability being tested.

It has to be said that visual processing is given much more priority over aural processing in IQ tests. (At least the ones I've taken). At a young age I could rotate/reflect pictures in my mind, but could I recognise a melody played backwards? (I'd still have trouble now). Take a melody in a major key, flatten the third to make it minor... That's enough to make the melody more challenging to recognise for a lot of people (if the third appears early on).

Would IQ league tables remain the same if aural processing was measured rather than visual?



Just thinking,
On America's "bad" showing....
Don't worry! If you look at the error bars, you might find that America's score overlaps with UK's -- or even China's.

Oh wait.
We haven't been given the error bars. Strange that. What with all the estimating and averaging and re-adjusting for Flynn effect etc.

[FireGarden]

Akrit Jaswal- The 7-Year-Old Surgeon (http://www.five.tv/programmes/extraordinarypeople/sevenyosurgeon/)

at three, he was reciting Shakespeare. At seven, dressed in surgical garb that swamped his tiny frame, the precocious youngster performed his first surgical operation [to separate the fused fingers of a girl a year older than him], declaring, "Today, I am very much happy to have an opportunity to serve the poor community."

[...] But Akrit did begin to treat some of the hordes who gathered on his doorstep.. He consulted his textbooks, discussed the cases with established doctors and prescribed medicine for more than a thousand people - including a man suffering from a brain disorder.

[...] He taught students ten years his senior and became India’s youngest-ever Indian university student.

He is tested while in Britain.
His IQ scores as a young child were treated as genuine. But his scores as a 12-year old, in Britain, weren't as impressive.

His achievements are still there (and quite possibly there is more to come.)

One of the things the researchers who met him said was that maybe he wasn't being contradicted enough. This could well lead to him being less able to assess himself objectively.

[The Painter]

What can one expect of a person (or people) that has/have an IQ of say over 300?



I found this on the web;

In conclusion, the finding is that Jesus Christ's IQ measured 300, although higher estimates exist.

I don't know, but wouldn't you think it would be higher? I mean son of God and everything. He should know everything in the universe. Shouldn't it be infinity?

[Godmode]

I've taken 4 "official" IQ tests. My range is apparently 165-181. That's a pretty big range, which convinces me these tests aren't all that accurate. Online IQ tests are completely useless.

IMO the only thing an IQ test will tell you is how good you are at taking the test on that particular day.

[FireGarden]

I don't know, but wouldn't you think it would be higher? I mean son of God and everything. He should know everything in the universe. Shouldn't it be infinity?

or zero.

If you already know everything, then what is there to think about?


Again,
You don't link to your source. We have to google. I think that's rude.

I found highest IQ ever recorded (http://www.angelfire.com/ut/JesusChrist1/iq.html)

If they want to give Jesus a high IQ (using a kind of mental age over actual age system), then they should look in the Quran, where it says he preached even when in his cradle. (OK, they can look in the infancy Gospel of Thomas -- the (original?) source of the story)

Translation by NJ Dawood

[19:29] [in response to Yahoos that don't believe in the Virgin Birth] [Mary] made a sign to them, pointing to the child. But they replied: "How can we speak with a babe in the cradle?"

Whereupon he spoke and said: "I am the servant of God. He has given me the book and ordained me a prophet...."

Preaching like an adult while aged less than one.
He had an IQ > 1800

[The Painter]

Again,
You don't link to your source. We have to google. I think that's rude.


Get over yourself.

[Just thinking]

... I don't know, but wouldn't you think it would be higher? I mean son of God and everything. He should know everything in the universe. Shouldn't it be infinity?

Well, if that's true, we can certainly find evidence of some far outreaching knowledge that no-one else knew or could possibly have known, right?

Like, stating that the Earth orbits the sun.

The size and composition of the Sun, stars and planets.

The speed of sound.

Equations of kinetics and thermodynamics.

The idea of viruses and bacteria.

Theories of gravity.

Theories of electricity and magnetism.

The distance to the stars.

New avenues of medicine.

Proper hygene.

More insect resistant plant pollination.

So -- which of the above (or similar) can we look for and find?

[Just thinking]

... I found highest IQ ever recorded (http://www.angelfire.com/ut/JesusChrist1/iq.html) ...

What a bunch of malarkey (http://www.freewebcentral.com/hidden/framedictionaries.htm).

Get a load of one argument used (from above link) to try and explain how Galileo paled in comparrison ...

For example, many consider Galileo smart (although he struggled with his own ideas), yet figuratively if he was around today, he might be put into grade school (any modern 12 year old knows a helicopter doesn't look like his illustration).

So, where are Jesus's helicopter plans? Where are any of his ideas or theories on flight in general?

Pure bunk.

And then they give us the all too common Psychic's Out ... Surely Christ could make a board longer, and in today's world could make a computer dance, but Christ is not about showing-off. Christ is primarily about working within the human scale of capabilities, including using those human abilities to leverage profound heavenly powers.

There you go ... super high IQ without ever having to prove it.

[FireGarden]

Get over yourself.

Oh, thanks for the advice.


Links aren't important for trivial matters, but they are when you want to put data into a discussion. Maybe you just don't know how to cut and paste a link.

So what...
Make claims and rely on others to provide the source. It doesn't make me look bad.

[FireGarden]

For example, many consider Galileo smart (although he struggled with his own ideas),

Yeah,
Smart people never do that! :confused:

Like I'm smarter than Newton because I know Newton was wrong. Not!

[CapelDodger]

Did Galileo design a helicopter? Wasn't that Da Vinci?

[CapelDodger]

... including using those human abilities to leverage profound heavenly powers.
What the frell is that supposed to mean? When I hear the word "leverage" outside it's proper context (mechanics or finance), I reach for my revolver. Management-speak has infiltrated theology (if that term's appropriate in this case). No surprises there, then.

[Meffy]

Preaching like an adult while aged less than one.
He had an IQ > 1800
It's True. How about the fish that prophesied in Hebrew?

[Art Vandelay]

Did Galileo design a helicopter? Wasn't that Da Vinci?Well, if he didn't design a helicopter, that just shows even more how unintelligent he was!

What the frell is that supposed to mean? When I hear the word "leverage" outside it's proper context (mechanics or finance), I reach for my revolver. I feel kinda similar about people who misspell "its".
;)

[Apollyon]

fwiw, my theory about IQ is that everyone is born with equally intelligent talent of one form or another.

It's just that low IQ people have a problem figuring out what their particular talent is.

[The Painter]

Links aren't important for trivial matters, but they are when you want to put data into a discussion. Maybe you just don't know how to cut and paste a link.

The Jesus IQ was just for fun. You couldn’t possibly think it’s a real number. Could you???

Here’s something else just for fun;

famous people (http://www.aceviper.net/aceviper_net/ace_intelligence/aceviper_famous_people_iq_list/aceviper_famous_people_iq_list.html)

Look a link!!!!! Just so you don’t get your panties in a bunch

Oh, and anyone who puts too much credence in IQ’s automatically loses 35 IQ points.

[Wudang]

As regards the range - Alice Heim developed a range of IQ tests to measure narrower bands of IQ precisely because the standard tests didn't perform well outside the mid-range. It's not a subject I'm curtent with but when I read it 20 years ago, her book "intelligence and personality" worth reading, especially as it agreed with me that some well-known tests did indeed have more than one correct answer. So I guess I was smarter than the guys who put those tests together?
Mine has been measured as 128 to 168 which is quite a range. Sadly the highest score came from a pretty poor test. Which you guessed anyway?

[Beerina]

Is seeing, remembering and manipulating the relationships of numbers more indicative of intelligence than the equivalent activity with musical notes? I only ask since your statement "just musical talent" seems to minimize said ability.

IIRC, supposedly the only two true prodigy types are mathematical and musical. This suggests a relationship.

[Beerina]

or zero.

If you already know everything, then what is there to think about?

Or do, for that matter. You know what the results of any action would be. And if omnipotence is thrown in, there literally is nothing to do, as the difference between potential and actual evaporates as academic.


I found highest IQ ever recorded (http://www.angelfire.com/ut/JesusChrist1/iq.html)

If they want to give Jesus a high IQ (using a kind of mental age over actual age system), then they should look in the Quran, where it says he preached even when in his cradle. (OK, they can look in the infancy Gospel of Thomas -- the (original?) source of the story)

If you're talking fictional characters, I can think of any number who exceed this. Certain mutated children in various sci-fi stories had not just wisdom of the ages, but brains like Einstein on steroids. And then there's "Q", the omnipotent character who estimated his IQ was 2000.


Preaching like an adult while aged less than one.
He had an IQ > 1800

Yes, but given he was God, that is not surprising. However, he'd have had to alter his physiology so he was actually capable of speaking, which might count as "cheating" in this aspect. Although in Islam, I don't believe he was god, but a fully mortal, mere prophet. But that cannot be as, again, he'd have had to have "cheated", even if the cheating was caused by God.

And if we're using old-fashioned "score divided by age" to arrive at 1800, Q's IQ of 2000 is mighty impressive, given he's billions of years old.

[Just thinking]

Or do, for that matter. You know what the results of any action would be. And if omnipotence is thrown in, there literally is nothing to do, as the difference between potential and actual evaporates as academic.

You might want to read what I had to say on this exact topic (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1348007#post1348007) a while back.

[SirPhilip]

Well, if he didn't design a helicopter, that just shows even more how unintelligent he was! I'm skeptical about using a helicopter as an example of high IQ. :) Have you actually flown a helicopter before: most are a noisy, inherently unstable bastard of an egg-beater, wonkavator and a vehicle that veers to one side as soon as you take your hands/feet off the controls; the turbine ones cost upwards of $500/hr to run and don't get me started on the vibration levels..

[Forty-Two]

I was hesitant to mention this on this board, since a lot of people would probably tell me I'd wasted my time and my money, but yesterday my husband and I took the Mensa admission test. For us, it was a matter of "put up or shut up." We're both very intelligent people, but after so many years of thinking and saying, "Psh, I could get into Mensa, no problem!", I realized that I really wanted to back up that statement with the facts. They're having a two-for-one testing special this month, so if nothing else, we spent a little money and an hour doing brain teasers and having a nice outing.

I'd never taken an IQ test before (other than the ones online, which don't count for anything), and the proctor told us that the Mensa admissions test would not be able to give us an IQ score, due to legal restrictions (apparently, issuing an IQ score could be considered practicing psychology without a license).

It was an eye-opening experience - I felt very comfortable with the math and the verbal sections, but the abstract sections struck me as culturally biased. For some questions you would have needed to be exposed to certain facts earlier in order for you to give the correct answer. There were several sections that dealt with seeing relationships between pictures of items, and I wondered how many smart people might not have been able to identify one picture as representing a spark plug. Or a power plant. Or whether there were some intelligent people who'd never been taught that whales are mammals, or that pandas live in China. To me, those things aren't self-evident; you'd have to be pretty uneducated not to ever have been exposed to those facts, but it's possible for someone to be a genius and not know.

All in all, I'm glad I took the test. I won't get the results back for awhile, but I'm confident that my score was high enough (I got a perfect score on my SATs way back when; I know how to test well). But having seen what's actually tested has lowered my opinion of IQ tests overall.

[69dodge]

I got a perfect score on my SATs way back when; I know how to test well1600?!

That is very impressive. I wouldn't dismiss it as "know[ing] how to test well".

I am of the firm opinion, by the way, that no one should be considered at all intelligent who is unable to recognize a spark plug.

:D

[CapelDodger]

Well, if he didn't design a helicopter, that just shows even more how unintelligent he was!

I feel kinda similar about people who misspell "its".
;)
Damn. I blame the drink. :o

[CapelDodger]

I am of the firm opinion, by the way, that no one should be considered at all intelligent who is unable to recognize a spark plug.

:D
How would you feel about someone who can't tell a hoe from a mattock?

(pun opportunity)

[CapelDodger]

I'm skeptical about using a helicopter as an example of high IQ. :) Have you actually flown a helicopter before: most are a noisy, inherently unstable bastard of an egg-beater, wonkavator and a vehicle that veers to one side as soon as you take your hands/feet off the controls; the turbine ones cost upwards of $500/hr to run and don't get me started on the vibration levels..
Inherently unstable yes, but if you want something to pluck you from the cold embrace of the North Sea or med-evac you from a battlefield a balloon won't do the job adequately.

The idea of flight by screwing yourself into the atmosphere strikes me as highly intelligent back in the 15thCE. Seeing the analogy between the carpenter's screw, which draws itself into the wood, and drawing oneself into the air is the sort of criterion I'd judge intelligence by.

eta : I wonder, did anybody ever try putting a marine screw in front of a ship rather than behind (which is the obvious choice when Newton is a dominant influence on thinking)?

[Art Vandelay]

1600?!

That is very impressive. I wouldn't dismiss it as "know[ing] how to test well".I would. At least for the Math part; there's nothing on there that requires a spectacular amount of ability.

[Ladewig]

I would. At least for the Math part; there's nothing on there that requires a spectacular amount of ability.

And yet, less than one percent of the students who take the test score 800 on math. Whether the test is measuring mathematical knowledge or is measuring test-taking skills, a score of 800 is rare enough that some type of spectacular ability is required.

[SirPhilip]

Inherently unstable yes, but if you want something to pluck you from the cold embrace of the North Sea or med-evac you from a battlefield a balloon won't do the job adequately. See the fusion thread, although nobody has touched on the implications for aircraft yet (and if one crashed, everything within 5 miles sure would be plucked from the cold embrace of the North Sea...).


The idea of flight by screwing yourself into the atmosphere strikes me as highly intelligent back in the 15thCE. Seeing the analogy between the carpenter's screw, which draws itself into the wood, and drawing oneself into the air is the sort of criterion I'd judge intelligence by. Nah, that's good cannibus and the right mindset. :p

[FireGarden]

Look a link!!!!! Just so you don’t get your panties in a bunch

Thanks.
Sorry if I overstepped the mark. People posting things that are almost certainly cut-and-paste but then not giving a source (Like your first post -- which I thought was intended as serious) is just one of my pet peeves.

Rant over. :)

And then there's "Q", the omnipotent character who estimated his IQ was 2000.

From Star Trek?
And is his estimate in relation to others of the Q-continuum, or against humanity?

Here's a question for those with really accurate computers.... (Or able to estimate)

Assuming a literal Normal distribution for the IQ of insects, an insect with an IQ comparible to human would be one in how many?

Has there been one in history? :D

[Just thinking]

And yet, less than one percent of the students who take the test score 800 on math. Whether the test is measuring mathematical knowledge or is measuring test-taking skills, a score of 800 is rare enough that some type of spectacular ability is required.

Let's not overlook that these are high school students taking these tests. While I will not say that many of these students don't have the smarts to do each and every problem correctly, there are other variables that come into play.

1) Time pressure.

2) Exposure -- I have taught Taking SAT prep classes and worked through each problem with little effort, but I had already graduated college with a degree in physics. I admit they are not that hard, but it was repeated exposure to them that gave me an edge as to how to handle them. Can all high school students be so prepared or experienced?

3) Nervousness.

4) Simple mistakes (they happen to all of us).

[Just thinking]

Assuming a literal Normal distribution for the IQ of insects, an insect with an IQ comparible to human would be one in how many?

Has there been one in history? :D

Taking your suggestion somewhat seriously, one can immediately see that it is not a problem of statistical distribution that prevents such an insect from occuring, but one of simple physical limitations (brain size). So it would seem there is a limit to insect IQ -- but what of humans? It would seem that some similar limitation should apply. And if so, what would that be? And is it possible for there to exist higher levels of intelligence beyond the rare high IQ individual?

[drkitten]

Taking your suggestion somewhat seriously, one can immediately see that it is not a problem of statistical distribution that prevents such an insect from occuring, but one of simple physical limitations (brain size). So it would seem there is a limit to insect IQ -- but what of humans? It would seem that some similar limitation should apply.

And, of course, it does.

We've got an estimate of number of neurons and the number of synapses in the human brain, and we can get a rough idea of the variance on that. We can make rough guesses about the degree to which the firing of synapses is quantized, and thus the degree of representational fineness of which the human brain is capable. (If nothing else, neurotransmitters are mostly chemical, and you can't have 2/3 of a serotonin molecule.) Our friends Shannon and Nyquist will then give us a firm upper bound on the maximum amount of information that the average human brain can store (and a measure of variance). (This, of course, assumes the materialist brain=mind hypothesis.)

Of course, this theoretical maximum is way beyond any reasonable measure of human intelligence, but it's an example of an easily derived limitation of the human brain.

[69dodge]

A different way of looking things: The finite state control of a universal Turing machine doesn't have to be very big. A human brain surely is big enough. So, if we have enough scrap paper to help us remember stuff, we can do anything, albeit possibly slowly.

[Nucular]

Interesting thread. I went over to the MENSA site (http://www.mensa.org.uk/mensa/joining.html) for further information, and received the startling revelation that

1 in 50 people have an IQ in the top 2%

They really are boffins, aren't they.

[Just thinking]

1 in 50 people have an IQ in the top 2%

Shows how much I know ... I always thought it was 2 out of 100.

[Meffy]

The shocking thing is that fully half of public school students have below average grades.
[sentiment attributed to Eisenhower but if he ever did say it, he might've been making a wry joke]

[I less than three logic]

The shocking thing is that fully half of public school students have below average grades.
[sentiment attributed to Eisenhower but if he ever did say it, he might've been making a wry joke]
Reminds of something George Carlin said on state. "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." :)

[Dcdrac]

I think the biggest argument against the accuracy of IQ tests is that mine said I was a genius.

Same here.

MENSA what a waste of space.

[hammegk]

Would y'all be equally proud to state you didn't make the cut? And there are the 1%'ers too, as well as other groups.

Then there's always that correlation between super-high IQs & super-extreme nuttiness to contend with... :D

[Dcdrac]

When i was a customers officer many moons ago, i had the misfortune to do joint work with an inland revenue inspector, he was an arrogant so and so and would boast about his membership of mensa, now this superior being consistantly missed blindlingly obvious tax dodges whilst he could complete the Times crossword very quickly he was utterl usesless at spotting fraud.

[Art Vandelay]

Taking your suggestion somewhat seriously, one can immediately see that it is not a problem of statistical distribution that prevents such an insect from occuring, but one of simple physical limitations (brain size). So it would seem there is a limit to insect IQ -- but what of humans? It would seem that some similar limitation should apply. And if so, what would that be? And is it possible for there to exist higher levels of intelligence beyond the rare high IQ individual?If we define IQ in terms of the normal curve, then, assuming a continuous distribution, the theoretical maximum IQ must be infinite, even if intelligence is finite.

A different way of looking things: The finite state control of a universal Turing machine doesn't have to be very big. A human brain surely is big enough. So, if we have enough scrap paper to help us remember stuff, we can do anything, albeit possibly slowly.Anything coputable.

1 in 50 people have an IQ in the top 2% Actually, it's more than that. There are several different tests that you can take, and you can take themas many timesasyou want. So it's probably more like 5% that are eligible.

[69dodge]

Anything co[m]putable.Yes, quite right. But that's really all one could hope for.

[joller]

I never took an official MENSA test, although i was forced to do a prelim one (by my religion teacher in high school) and he told me I could potentially qualify. I didn't do that, because I don't like the elitist nature of it.

I'm really good at solving tests and studying (i.e. I topped my geographic region - Oceania in an important work related certification recently, and got really high scores in other test), but I'm only average (about 1400) in chess, although I really try my best, which really frustrates me.