IQ?

[lisagurl]

" Isn't that the Organization that I couldn't join because I'm gay and, at the time, an atheist? "
----------------
Do not ask do not tell.

[tekla]

Isn't that the Organization that I couldn't join because I'm gay and, at the time, an atheist?  Even though it is a Federally Chartered Organization?

Think its hard to join the scouts being gay or an atheist, try getting elected being one of those, there are a few openly gay members of congress, no senators, and not a single atheist.  I doubt if an open atheist could be elected to congress from the most liberal California districts.

And the point was that people use IQ test as some sort of 'exceptionalism' designation - "look at all of our IQs, see, we are better than the rest of you" - when in real life, it seems to have very little bearing on any realistic assessment of being 'better'.

Or, perhaps sadder, and even worse, its one of those things like 'cool' or 'enlightened' - and when people run around saying that stuff about themselves you just have to kinda doubt it.  If you really are that smart or whatever, why would you ever have to demonstrate it?  Wouldn't most of the people around you come to know that pretty fast?  Do you really have to 'prove i,' isn't everything you do proof of it?

Wouldn't using a criteria like 'success' or 'happiness' or 'accomplishment' all be somewhat better measurements of such things?  In one of those passing statements that come to haunt our lives I was at some meeting in grad school listening to stuff kind of along this line when one of my friends leaned over to me and said "Gee, if all these people are so smart, how come they are so farking miserable?  After all, lots of total idiots have figured out how to be happy?"  I know she meant it as a joke, but there is a real truth there.

I've been very gifted in my life to work with all sorts of very smart people.  From DOE Labs, the DoD, and the entertainment industry.  And I've found that you can be smart in all sorts of different ways.  Some are good with theory, some with practice, some with numbers, some with people, some have vast talents, others have no talent but are awesome at convincing others they have some. It's just not a quantifiable thing. 

[Arch]

Enough. Putsy put it far better than I can:

Not to be a pedant, and I can't find my copies of Feynman, but wasn't Putsy his first wife, the one who died of TB?

"He fixes radios just by thinking about them!!!" I wish SRS were as simple.

[Alyssa M.]

Dammit, I was thinking of "Ofey".

[Arch]

Dammit, I was thinking of "Ofey".

Ah, that explains everything. I had heard of his drawings, but I never knew he painted, too...and I had no idea there were so many nudes!

[BunnyBee]

I agree 100% with Tekla on this. If being able to score well on tests predicted success in the real world, I would rule the Universe..   

High IQ + insecurity about one's perceived intelligence = MENSA member, imo. Isn't it funny how self-consiousness is so often at the root of a superiority complex?

[tekla]

In the end the only thing that matters is figuring out what it is that you want and what makes you happy, and then, finding a way to make it happen.  That's the difference between 'want' and 'have.'  And people who have are a hella lot happier then them that just wants and never have.

[Pica Pica]

I bet I could slap you all aside with the wet end of my massive IQ, if I knew what that number was.

[Pippa]

There are two problems with IQ tests.   Firstly, they have to keep adjusting the test.   If your grandparents were to take today's test, they would end up with an IQ of around 70, they would be classed as retarded.

Secondly. IQ test differ when apply to people of different ethenic groups.  In assessing intelligence, an IQ test should be taken as one among several tests to rate intelligence.

[BunnyBee]

I bet I could slap you all aside with the wet end of my massive IQ, if I knew what that number was.

Lol I don't doubt it.

[Alyssa M.]

In the end the only thing that matters is figuring out what it is that you want and what makes you happy, and then, finding a way to make it happen.  That's the difference between 'want' and 'have.'  And people who have are a hella lot happier then them that just wants and never have.

As screwed up as I am, on that account at least I blow my parents out of the water, even if not on salary, standard of living, or prestige. So thanks for the consolation.

The race issue is a major pot of worms. It's related to the gender issue -- they scale differently according to gender, but it's just a shift, without rescaling the standard deviation. This is part of the reason Larry Summers got in trouble back in 2005 when he was the president of Harvard. In a nutshell, the problem with IQ and Summers' comments is shoddy and uncritical reasoning.

I'm not going to bash any particular organization except based on what it does, and Mensa doesn't seem that much different than a grown up version of a high school physics club, as in, "It's social, sort of, demented and sad, but social, right?" (Oh, John Hughes movies, how I love them!) Who cares? Hey, some people like clubs. If that's how they get their kicks, who am I to judge?

[tekla]

The first use of IQ tests, in the Army during WWI, found that black men scored higher then the white Scotch-Irish of the Appalachian areas, which was so shocking that they had to redesign the test several times.

[BunnyBee]

Mensa doesn't seem that much different than a grown up version of a high school physics club

For me, the diff between Mensa and math club is the exclusion aspect, which is the thing that bugs me about it.

[Mr. Fox]

The first use of IQ tests, in the Army during WWI, found that black men scored higher then the white Scotch-Irish of the Appalachian areas, which was so shocking that they had to redesign the test several times.

All this IQ test tampering reminds me of self-perpetuating standardized testing biased.  People of color score lower on average due to biased questions, which in itself is not that shocking (oh, a bunch of rich white guys wrote a test, and it has bias.  Whoo-ee).  But when developing the new test, they perpetuate this; part of how they (I think the SAT?  Yeah, some details will probably be wrong) do it is by adding unscored at the end of the test to random people.  These are possible questions for future SATS.  Part of how they determine if the question is a good one is if people score similarly on it as they do on the real SAT, so if there's a question that more black people answer right, bam! it's eliminated, because black people are supposed to score lower.  Okay, rant complete.

Now back to the main topic, where I have to agree with everyone who says that IQ tests are bunk.  It tests your ability to solve useless problems and your ability to take tests.  I'm very good at that, so I'm sure I would score high (the gurl.com IQ test said my IQ was 166.  I'm so special.  And I'm so sure it was an accurate measure of intelligence), while other people smarter than me who are bad at tests would not do as well (and some stupid people, like my high school's future valedictorian, would do better).  And I have to say, even if having a higher IQ does mean you earn more money . . . so?  Once I get to the level where I can buy food and clothes and rent, I really don't care.  Money is not a measure of success, either.

[tekla]

And I have to say, even if having a higher IQ does mean you earn more money . . . so?

I haven't looked the charts for a long time, but I seem to remember a distinct curve in the IQ/income deal, income tends to go up corresponding to IQ up to a point, after which it tends to fall off again. Turns out you can be too smart for your own good.

[LynnER]

Old scale IQ tests... I took them almost yearly... the scores fluctuated with in a 10 point range or so, but stayed relatively consistent... I haven't taken one since leaving high school though. I scored high... very high... not extremely high, just very. On standardized tests such as the TASS and SAT I scored extremely high....  Then I learned a very valuable lesson... All those tests are meaningless unless you jump through the same hoops everyone else does. They don't get you better jobs, they don't make life easier.  In fact, I personally believe that the higher you score on such things the more difficult your life becomes. When I was young the scores gave me a "I'm smarter than you are " attitude and worse...  As an adult It just brings me frustration as I watch IDIOTS and IGNORANCE, people who are dumb as bricks running things, managing places, handling money, being president of the US.... Its freaking scary.

What they need is a life aptitude test... if you don't score above a 75% they tie your tubes or give you a vasectomy so you cant have or make kids, you cant get a drivers licenses, get a cell phone, sign contracts for credit cards... and are tasked to low level menial work until you manage to pass the test....   If life were like that, the world would be a better place and IQ and standardized tests would have meaning....

BUT since that isn't reality... the tests don't mean a damned thing, so WHO CARES 

This is the dark goddess signing out....

[Mr. Fox]

And I have to say, even if having a higher IQ does mean you earn more money . . . so?

I haven't looked the charts for a long time, but I seem to remember a distinct curve in the IQ/income deal, income tends to go up corresponding to IQ up to a point, after which it tends to fall off again. Turns out you can be too smart for your own good.

Yeah, I think the man estimated to have the highest IQ ever spent his short adult life at a series of menial jobs.
Post Merge: January 08, 2010, 02:26:55 PM

Isn't that the Organization that I couldn't join because I'm gay and, at the time, an atheist?  Even though it is a Federally Chartered Organization?

Think its hard to join the scouts being gay or an atheist, try getting elected being one of those, there are a few openly gay members of congress, no senators, and not a single atheist.  I doubt if an open atheist could be elected to congress from the most liberal California districts.

I think there is/was recently an atheist in Congress.  Only one, though.

[AmySmiles]

What they need is a life aptitude test... if you don't score above a 75% they tie your tubes or give you a vasectomy so you cant have or make kids, you cant get a drivers licenses, get a cell phone, sign contracts for credit cards... and are tasked to low level menial work until you manage to pass the test....   If life were like that, the world would be a better place and IQ and standardized tests would have meaning....

If those are the penalties, the test would have to be so stupidly easy that 99.99% of people can pass it... in which case, what's the point?  Tests to measure these things are dumb, actions speak louder.

I guess I was among those weeded out by tests in grade school: I was tested for the "gifted program" twice and came just shy of whatever their benchmark IQ score was.  Every teacher I had at that level was confused by this since I severely outperformed most of those kids in all subjects.  Nowadays I'm sure would I score somewhere in the very high levels since everyone I know makes a point of telling me I'm smart when I solve problems very quickly at work.  I don't need some test to confirm or deny that.

[Pica Pica]

Lol I don't doubt it.

I do

[LynnER]

If those are the penalties, the test would have to be so stupidly easy that 99.99% of people can pass it... in which case, what's the point?  Tests to measure these things are dumb, actions speak louder.

Thats the whole point, so 99.9% of the morons running things wont have the opportunity, and so stupid people cant have more stupid kids...

They tested me frequently, but they didn't have a gifted program in my school district till the year after I finished a grade........