ramseszerg
Professional
What's the most reliable way I can test my intelligence (IQ as well as other areas)? Willing to spend money.
Most reliable way to test my brain?
- Thread starter ramseszerg
- Start date
Bagumbawalla
G.O.A.T.
borg number one
Legend
Take some well made IQ tests. Some of those will give you quite a workout and will force you to use your brain in ways that it is somewhat unaccustomed to (lots of logic and puzzles).
Here's one you could try out:
http://www.iqtest.com/
Here's one you could try out:
http://www.iqtest.com/
r2473
G.O.A.T.
Send me $1K and I'll tell you.
mtommer
Hall of Fame
And to add, IQ tests have long been admonished for they don't really give a number that actually means anything. It won't determine how successful you'll be, the discoveries you will make (and also the discoveries others who are "lesser" in number make etc.), how to relate to people, get you the house, the girl, the car and the dog.
Mike Bulgakov
G.O.A.T.
I agree with ollinger regarding a properly administered IQ test. Nevertheless, I think mtommer's response raises good points.
Howard Gardner addressed many of the issues regarding the complexity of "intelligence" in his theory of multiple intelligences; his thoughts have been greatly elaborated upon in subsequent years. Gardner also wrote interesting psychological profiles of world leaders past and present.
As a side note, Timothy Leary (of LSD fame) developed one of the first "scientific" methods to develop profiles of people to predict their future behavior. As far as I know, there have been good tests developed to assess intelligence and predict behavior, but no tests sophisticated enough to deal with the complexity of the human mind.
Howard Gardner addressed many of the issues regarding the complexity of "intelligence" in his theory of multiple intelligences; his thoughts have been greatly elaborated upon in subsequent years. Gardner also wrote interesting psychological profiles of world leaders past and present.
As a side note, Timothy Leary (of LSD fame) developed one of the first "scientific" methods to develop profiles of people to predict their future behavior. As far as I know, there have been good tests developed to assess intelligence and predict behavior, but no tests sophisticated enough to deal with the complexity of the human mind.
ramseszerg
Professional
How reliable is the iqtest.com one? I just did it.. How Computational Speed was lower than all the other areas is in line with my academic experiences so far.. Kinda sucks, this means I can be successful at anything I want to do as long as I invest alot of time into it lol
It's kinda a fraud, they make you invest 13 minutes and THEN tell you to pay 10 bucks.
It's kinda a fraud, they make you invest 13 minutes and THEN tell you to pay 10 bucks.
Last edited:
Bud
Bionic Poster
How reliable is the iqtest.com one? I just did it.. How Computational Speed was lower than all the other areas is in line with my academic experiences so far.. Kinda sucks, this means I can be successful at anything I want to do as long as I invest alot of time into it lol
It's kinda a fraud, they make you invest 13 minutes and THEN tell you to pay 10 bucks.
Research what IQ actually is first, then make a decision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient
tenniskid567
Rookie
Go to a tough university, take tough classes, see what kind of grades you get.
The tests mean a lot. They indicate raw intelligence, spatial and analytical abilities. What you are refering to is EQ. IQ is a good way to decide what you should NOT be doing - like becoming a theoretical physicist, or attending MIT. I have seen many people who are miserable in life after either being pushed into something unsuitable by their parents, or mistaking a childhood interest for ability in a field. No, you cannot become Einstein by having a "passion" for physics. If someone says so, ask him/her to shove it.
mtommer
Hall of Fame
It measures intelligence as defined by certain scientific ways of thinking about what constitutes intelligence, and further, what knowledge you contain in relation to a specific cultural emphasis on the importance of that knowledge. So, for example, if you're a society that doesn't appreciate how to cook, then the inability to cook will not be missed until you go to a different society that thinks anyone who doesn't know how to cook is stupid. IQ tests, and even EQ tests, simply measure a few ways that the brain learns and responds. There is still so much we don't even know about how we learn for any test at the present to represent intelligence accurately, if it can even be measured accurately.
There are reasonably reliable IQ tests that can measure your ability to recognize patterns, differences, similarities, verbal, and math abilities.
Obviously, more education you have had the better you are going to score in verbal and math sections.
In Outlier, the author talks about how IQ can matter and NOT matter at the same time. According to him, you need certain IQ to get through decent 4 year college education. And a little higher IQ to get through a competitive graduate school. He also says that any IQ above a certain point won't make much difference in a person's level of success. Also, IQ is not related to a person's creativity and other abilities.
What's probably important is a person's EQ. How a person can control his / her emotions and can logically assess a situation...I think EQ carries more significance.
Obviously, more education you have had the better you are going to score in verbal and math sections.
In Outlier, the author talks about how IQ can matter and NOT matter at the same time. According to him, you need certain IQ to get through decent 4 year college education. And a little higher IQ to get through a competitive graduate school. He also says that any IQ above a certain point won't make much difference in a person's level of success. Also, IQ is not related to a person's creativity and other abilities.
What's probably important is a person's EQ. How a person can control his / her emotions and can logically assess a situation...I think EQ carries more significance.
ramseszerg
Professional
Hm good idea, thanks. If I'm so smart how come I never thought of that.
Wouldn't the compounding factor of effort make the results of this extensive experiment inconclusive?
Do you know the insides of the MIT and theoretical physics world you talked about? I'm curious if you do.
Explain? What would this accomplish?
Isn't that true about anything? A high IQ does not guarantee success, but a low IQ guarantees failure in specific professions. It is highly likely that an IQ score is looked at within the society of the test taker and in a relative way, so your analogy of cooking is not valid at all. A student in the US could use IQ score to guide him in choosing a profession in the US, not to compete in a hunting contest in the Kalahari. And bushmen in the Kalahari would have rituals for young men to find the ones best suited for certain tasks - their way of administering a test.
The flip side is that at the highest ends of certain professions, IQ is always very high. Einstein, Newton, Shakespeare have all had very high measured or estimated IQs.
The problem with IQ tests was that they were being used to discriminate against people who had not had an opportunity to compete in a level playing field. It is known that part of IQ is inherent, and part needs to be developed by exercising the brain. When people had been denied education and jobs and forced to live in poverty and fear, springing an IQ test on them is not the right thing to do. This gave IQ tests a bad name, so everyone moved away from them. I believe that IQ tests should not be used for selection of any kind, just like genetic tests should not be used to deny jobs based on the presence of certain disease-causing genes. But within the context of an individual or a family, it makes sense to realistically evaluate someone's IQ and give them proper advice.
To some extent, though I am associated with neither. I know that the level is so high that most people cannot grasp it. People can understand that they will not be like Federer, but they cannot grasp that some people can solve a math problem in 5 minutes which most others cannot do even if given a lifetime. There is a false notion that "working hard" will achieve anything. It is true in certain professions only.
ramseszerg
Professional
What is the minimum/average IQ of people like that/people in that field? 150/170 ish?
Bagumbawalla
G.O.A.T.
There was an interesting article, here http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammind/, on thought process that IQ tests miss.
borg number one
Legend
Ultra2HolyGrail
Hall of Fame
Street smarts is more important than IQ.
borg number one
Legend
Yes, there is definitely intelligence quotient, and emotional quotient as well. Ultra2HolyGrail, I think you are on to something when you state that "street smarts" are more important than strictly "IQ". I call it being "people smart" and without it, being smart in any one field of study will not translate into life success. I love the old saying, "to be happy is to be wise".
chess9
Hall of Fame
LOL! Probably quite true, mate.
But, we are addicted to tennis, so we have some slight rationale.
-Robert
chess9
Hall of Fame
You mean, a rocket scientist with street smarts is better than one who can program a computer to calculate the trajectory of a rocket?
For the average guy, having wisdom, good judgement, an understanding of human nature, and a nice 'interface' are preferable, yes.
-Robert
chess9
Hall of Fame
One of my very smart friends, a Mensa member with an IQ over 150, seems perfectly normal until you ask her to solve, say, the Sunday Times Crossword puzzle, which she would whip out in 15 minutes. Skills can often be hidden under layers of culture and are often unused. How many jobs require one to solve crossword puzzles? Anyway, I could labor for two hours over the same crossword puzzle and maybe have half of the answers. I could sit there til they bury me and it wouldn't matter a whit!
-Robert
borg number one
Legend
Good point as to the rocket scientist example Chess9, that's funny, but if that programming rocket scientist is such a jerk that no one wants to be around him or her, he or she will never get anything actually accomplished.
You can't be just book smart or street smart. Both qualities are absolutely necessary to be successful in any field out there, except for maybe being a great artist, though one is a solitary figure. (ex. Salvador Dali, or someone like that).
You can't be just book smart or street smart. Both qualities are absolutely necessary to be successful in any field out there, except for maybe being a great artist, though one is a solitary figure. (ex. Salvador Dali, or someone like that).
I believe 140+.
chess9
Hall of Fame
Well, I worked at Bell Labs for a year and I can tell you without reservation that the number of geniuses with minimal social skills is quite high. I was also president of my chess club for two years and the number of socially dysfunctional chess players is also high. The reason I was president is because I was just about the dumbest guy there.
Having said that, the tolerance for asocial geniuses among research organizations (and chess clubs) is quite high because it's known as the price one sometimes pays for genius. Einstein would cut off the sleeves of his dress shirts, by way of example. His office at Princeton looked like a hurricane had blown through.
-Robert
To live on the streets and hustle people, yes.
I am talking about high achievers in science, technology, economics, finance, medicine and such fields.
Asocial is not the same as eccentric. And your examples are not even of eccentricity. Lots of people have chaotic rooms - there is a whole "organizer" industry with consultants to help such people. And so many people go around with cutoff jeans.
Einstein was not asocial at all. He was very friendly and loved conversation. He was also highly aware of political events, probably because of the circumstances he had to flee from. He was aware that his ideas would be used for the atomic bomb. He was quite a humanist. Personally, he had weaknesses for women and abandoned his wife to move in with his cousin.
Newton was asocial. He locked himself up for a year to write the Principia. There is some speculation that he was gay and that he hid it by being asocial.
borg number one
Legend
Great insights Chess9, yes you've seen examples like that first hand. I was thinking about some of my father's peers (PHD's in nuclear physics) in particular, wow, what a strange lot at times!!
Also, by the way, stop being so modest! I'm sure you could hold your own with those folks in many other ways, in that you can do certain things with pure mental ability that they are absolutely incapable of. You just may not be realizing it, but if you really ask them you'll realize that often some folks that are considered "geniuses" in certain fields are quite deficient in many other fields of study.
Many high achievers tend to be quite "specialized". Folks have strengths AND weaknesses. Many extremely smart people tend to be extremely strong in either qualitative fields or quantitative fields. The world requires high achievers in all possible fields, from the entire spectrum of pursuits, from architecture, art, and writing to finance, physics, medicine and engineering.
So, going back to your "rocket scientist" example, not many rocket scientists, can paint a great work of art or design a beautiful skyscraper that appeals to the human imagination. We humans are a varied lot, and thank goodness for that.
Also, by the way, stop being so modest! I'm sure you could hold your own with those folks in many other ways, in that you can do certain things with pure mental ability that they are absolutely incapable of. You just may not be realizing it, but if you really ask them you'll realize that often some folks that are considered "geniuses" in certain fields are quite deficient in many other fields of study.
Many high achievers tend to be quite "specialized". Folks have strengths AND weaknesses. Many extremely smart people tend to be extremely strong in either qualitative fields or quantitative fields. The world requires high achievers in all possible fields, from the entire spectrum of pursuits, from architecture, art, and writing to finance, physics, medicine and engineering.
So, going back to your "rocket scientist" example, not many rocket scientists, can paint a great work of art or design a beautiful skyscraper that appeals to the human imagination. We humans are a varied lot, and thank goodness for that.
I think the problem is when someone who knows his IQ is not high tries to prove that it is of no use. Yes, there are great painters who are not rocket (or racquet) scientists, but how do you know their IQ was not high? It is just an assumption. Shakespeare's IQ is estimated to be higher than Einstein. There is no evidence that people who are highly specialized are lacking in other areas - you will find that people who are not highly specialized are also lacking in other areas, the only difference is they don't do much so they hang around getting involved in activities where they are visible. The glorification of stupidity and excessive "community involvement" to compensate for it, is a big problem. It strikes at the roots of democracy, because an intelligent electorate is a must for a successful democracy. Stupid but helpful people are a drag on democracy in the long run, because of the ease with which they can be manipulated by politicians and religious leaders.
borg number one
Legend
Yes, there's a lot of truth to what you are saying above Sureshs. By the way, in my previous post, I wasn't asserting that people that are highly specialized in a field are necessarily not strong in other fields. I do think though that many folks that very specialized and strong in one field are not very good in many other difficult pursuits. It's just that there are many pursuits that are extremely difficult in their own particular way and they require certain people that have the talent and desire to become excellent.
Ultra2HolyGrail
Hall of Fame
I'm not saying it's of no use, just that IQ is not the end all be all. For example i knew a guy who was really smart, was able to watch jeapordy or something like that and could name all the correct answers and really impressed me, but when we played some chess that he asked me to play and if i knew how, and i beat him a couple times in a row, he was pretty devastated and stunned, from someone with a obviously lower IQ than him.
Street smart does not just mean hustling people on the streets.
Last edited:
It's a bit telling how you chose TW to address that question lol.
Merely an educated one. What constitutes "intelligent" is inherently biased against political subjectivity. Every stripe of the spectrum thinks the outliers are idiots or dangerous. But at least they can all be reasonably informed about the issues of the day.
Newton is speculated to be a high functioning autistic.
I do think that's kind of a unfair stereotype, but there's some academic studies that speculate slight correlation between strong technical fields and people demonstrating high functioning autism or Asperger's syndrome. But it's not as strong as some people think, and just because somebody's a HFA doesn't mean they're great at math. Most aren't.
Just tricky to make generalizations, I guess.
While it's true that average IQs in certain majors are significantly higher (i.e. math-oriented), usually the average numbers are in the 120-130 range (still extremely high.) The studies show that once you're past 120-130, there's not a strong correlation between IQ and academic achievement, regardless of field. Other things take over, such as personality type.
chess9
Hall of Fame
We had a new member at our chess club who had a B.S. from MIT, an M.S. from Princeton, and a J.D. from Harvard. He learned to play chess at age 40, but discovered he was awful and could not understand why. One day he pulled me aside and quietly confessed how frustrated he was at the state of his play, including many truly stupid and obvious blunders (dropped pieces, easy checkmates missed, etc.) I gave him some of the latest (for then) research from a seminar I'd attended on the importance of teaching kids chess at an early age. Chess is sort of a graphical language, so learning young is a huge advantage just as it is in tennis. I can't tell you how many times I've watched 10 year old boys devastate grown men over the chessboard, including men with advanced degrees. And given two equally smart adults, one of them is likely to be vastly superior to the other at chess and a man is likely to be vastly superior to a woman. I knew a carpenter who was an extremely fine chess player and beat many people, including me! Yet, he could barely write his name. Go figure....
-Robert
borg number one
Legend
Very interesting Chess9. I think that really illustrates the hidden "genius" of so many people AND how specialized a skill chess playing can be. There must be innate talent involved, as well as skill that must be honed from a young age for many years in order to become an extremely accomplished player.
In general, human beings always try to differentiate themselves from those "others", and when it comes to intelligence, there are many "diamonds in the rough" who just haven't been given the same opportunities/advantages to realize their intellectual/career potential.
Tricky, you've alluded to this somewhat in your post above, in that there are highly intelligent people in so many fields out there, but many mistakenly tend to think well, only THESE sorts of folks are intelligent and not all those others.
If we as a society truly appreciated people of all stripes and backgrounds, and really encouraged them to maximize their potential and made sure the opportunities were there, society would reap huge dividends and we would be a much more humane society.
I will say that the United States has been better than just about any other country on the face of the earth at doing this, hence its ability to be so very productive. Yet, we still have a very long way to go and the manner in which we provide true opportunities for everyone, and not just the "upperclass" or "overclass" will determine how successful we'll be in the decades to come. We simply can't leave tens of millions of folks way behind and expect to prosper overall.
In general, human beings always try to differentiate themselves from those "others", and when it comes to intelligence, there are many "diamonds in the rough" who just haven't been given the same opportunities/advantages to realize their intellectual/career potential.
Tricky, you've alluded to this somewhat in your post above, in that there are highly intelligent people in so many fields out there, but many mistakenly tend to think well, only THESE sorts of folks are intelligent and not all those others.
If we as a society truly appreciated people of all stripes and backgrounds, and really encouraged them to maximize their potential and made sure the opportunities were there, society would reap huge dividends and we would be a much more humane society.
I will say that the United States has been better than just about any other country on the face of the earth at doing this, hence its ability to be so very productive. Yet, we still have a very long way to go and the manner in which we provide true opportunities for everyone, and not just the "upperclass" or "overclass" will determine how successful we'll be in the decades to come. We simply can't leave tens of millions of folks way behind and expect to prosper overall.
Last edited:
borg number one
Legend
Here's an interesting excerpt from a Psychology website about IQ:
See: http://www.guidetopsychology.com/testing.htm
" Intelligence tests attempt to measure your intelligence—that is, your basic ability to understand the world around you, assimilate its functioning, and apply this knowledge to enhance the quality of your life. Or, as Alfred Whitehead said about intelligence, “it enables the individual to profit by error without being slaughtered by it.”[1]
Intelligence, therefore, is a measure of a potential, not a measure of what you’ve learned (as in an achievement test), and so it is supposed to be independent of culture. The challenge is to design a test that can actually be culture-free; most intelligence tests fail in this area to some extent for one reason or another.
The concept of IQ derives from about 1916 when a Stanford University psychologist, Lewis Terman, translated and revised the intelligence scale created by Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon. Hence the name of the new instrument, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. In this instrument, Terman used the ratio of mental age to chronological age. This ratio—or quotient—concept led to the use of the term IQ (Intelligence Quotient). For example, a six year old child with a mental age of 6 would have an IQ of 100 (the “average” IQ score); a six year old child with a mental age of 9 would have an IQ of 150.
This mental age-chronological age concept works well for children, but what do you do about adults? What’s the difference between a mental age of 25, say, and a mental age of 45? Needless to say, the problems here are so complicated that today psychologists have generally given up the idea of IQ and speak simply about intelligence. Today, intelligence is measured according to individual deviation from standardized norms, with 100 being the average."
See: http://www.guidetopsychology.com/testing.htm
" Intelligence tests attempt to measure your intelligence—that is, your basic ability to understand the world around you, assimilate its functioning, and apply this knowledge to enhance the quality of your life. Or, as Alfred Whitehead said about intelligence, “it enables the individual to profit by error without being slaughtered by it.”[1]
Intelligence, therefore, is a measure of a potential, not a measure of what you’ve learned (as in an achievement test), and so it is supposed to be independent of culture. The challenge is to design a test that can actually be culture-free; most intelligence tests fail in this area to some extent for one reason or another.
The concept of IQ derives from about 1916 when a Stanford University psychologist, Lewis Terman, translated and revised the intelligence scale created by Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon. Hence the name of the new instrument, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. In this instrument, Terman used the ratio of mental age to chronological age. This ratio—or quotient—concept led to the use of the term IQ (Intelligence Quotient). For example, a six year old child with a mental age of 6 would have an IQ of 100 (the “average” IQ score); a six year old child with a mental age of 9 would have an IQ of 150.
This mental age-chronological age concept works well for children, but what do you do about adults? What’s the difference between a mental age of 25, say, and a mental age of 45? Needless to say, the problems here are so complicated that today psychologists have generally given up the idea of IQ and speak simply about intelligence. Today, intelligence is measured according to individual deviation from standardized norms, with 100 being the average."
mtommer
Hall of Fame
Excellent point. You even see this effect in political/religious threads all the time, political especially.
Worth keeping in mind that the IQ tests were originally designed to point out deficiencies rather than to recognize people of exceptional genius. If somebody scores below 90 points, that's a credible, serious concern. You want to see if there was test-specific issues with that person before wanting to diagnose a mental disorder.
And most intelligence experts that any one test cannot adequately cover what is viewed as "genius", which itself is contingent on practical achievement. If Einstein never discovered the Theory of Relativity, would he be viewed as a genius? If Federer opted to play soccer instead of tennis, would he be viewed as a brilliant tennis player? And so on.
And most intelligence experts that any one test cannot adequately cover what is viewed as "genius", which itself is contingent on practical achievement. If Einstein never discovered the Theory of Relativity, would he be viewed as a genius? If Federer opted to play soccer instead of tennis, would he be viewed as a brilliant tennis player? And so on.
meltphace 6
Hall of Fame
Write a first-person shooter in the brain**** programming language.
http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/bf/
http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/bf/
