IQ

[Reach]

Re: IQ

We should probably start talking about IQ again anyway, so here are some more tests from Reach: http://webs.ono.com/iqtests/

I can't really speak for the reliability of any of those tests, for those that are interested, though they are fun and very challenging, so they're worth a look just for that.

Obviously I still recommend the Mensa Denmark test I posted on the first page, and the TRI52 for those that scored high on the first test. Alternatively, for those that cracked the TRI52 or simply want to try an excruciatingly hard test they're guaranteed not to hit the ceiling of, try : http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/titan.html

Such tests are fairly experimental, as measuring IQ above the range of 160 is very hard to do, but at least this one is normalized properly.

In my opinion I feel like we do not need a God to explain anything.

Not that I want to turn this into a religious discussion, but I will say that I agree and can very easily supply any number of arguments as to why, though this would best be saved for PM or something.

Well... It looks like the people I live with are humbler than usual, because I've known several smart or average people who keep calling themselves "dumb" or "nothing special". I'm not on that group, but I'm not annoyingly arrogant either. I think.

Very unlikely (That they're humbler than usual)

The statistics that I provide are from reports from people anonymously in private, not in public. Asking someone to report how they feel about themselves intellectually in private will yield different results from asking in public, as public displays are subject to social pressures. People are much less likely to tell you what they really think under public scrutiny - rather, they're more likely to tell you what you want to hear.

[Ice wolf]

Re: IQ

I just took the TRI52 and got a score of 940. I guess I might have gotten over a thousand, but I wanted to finish it reasonably quickly after I got in the forties.

I don't know if I'm doing the equation right though...
940 - 518 = 442/114 = 3.7 x 15 = 55.5 + 100 = 155.5?

[DotKritic]

Re: IQ

128.

[Ice wolf]

Re: IQ

128.

That sounds much more reasonable. Will you show me how to calculate it? I just copied what Reach did.

[DotKritic]

Re: IQ

That sounds much more reasonable. Will you show me how to calculate it? I just copied what Reach did.

I didn't read the whole thread so I wasn't sure what you were talking about about until you replied and I scrolled up. Sry.

No calculation. Just bawls.

[Ice wolf]

Re: IQ

I didn't read the whole thread so I wasn't sure what you were talking about about until you replied and I scrolled up. Sry.

No calculation. Just bawls.

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding.

[DotKritic]

Re: IQ

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding.

No problem, bro. I'll read the entire thread next time to keep up with the - uh - what is this?

[Ice wolf]

Re: IQ

No problem, bro. I'll read the entire thread next time to keep up with the - uh - what is this?

IQ scores, of course. I just needed someone who knew how to calculate my score.

[DotKritic]

Re: IQ

IQ scores, of course. I just needed someone who knew how to calculate my score.

IQ =mental age x 100/ actual age.

[Reach]

Re: IQ

I just took the TRI52 and got a score of 940. I guess I might have gotten over a thousand, but I wanted to finish it reasonably quickly after I got in the forties.

I don't know if I'm doing the equation right though...
940 - 518 = 442/114 = 3.7 x 15 = 55.5 + 100 = 155.5?

As far as I know that's 49/52, which is an incredibly high score. Average is around 20 right.

But yeah, that's correct.

Explanation:

Your score - Mean score = Difference from the mean / Standard Deviation = # of standard deviations above the mean x Standard deviation of IQ = Points above mean IQ + Mean IQ = IQ

This is how all deviation IQ scores are calculated, i.e. IQs of individuals over the age of 16.

(Mental Age / Chronological age) x 100 -> applies only to 'children', or people under the age of 16.


The reason two difference scales are used is because up until around the age of 16, intelligence increases with age. By figuring out a childs mental age, you can know how smart the child is for his/her age. However, after the age of 16 intelligence begins to plateau and doesn't get higher, so it's fair to compare the individual to the whole of the population and say how much smarter the person is compared to the average person.

(After the age of 16, IQ goes up slightly with age on tests of crystallized intelligence, but not fluid...i.e. scores on vocabulary or general knowledge would increase very slowly over time, but not scores on the TRI52. Actually, scores tend to decrease on fluid tasks with old age.)

[ieatyourlvllol]

Re: IQ

ieat: Thing is, I feel the online aspect is only a small part of it. I can blast off at people online because I can simply vent and get away with it -- if I don't want to see that person again, I don't have to. In real life, I have to be a bit more constructive and reserved with how I interact with people I strongly disagree with.

Like, I was damn-near ready to kill my Finance group. I never called them retarded like I might have done online, but rather just became more and more frustrated. They seemed to favor groupthink at the expense of accuracy. It's like trying to explain to someone, "If I drop this apple, it will fall to the ground" only to have a few people go "Ehhh, I think that's wrong. It'll probably go up." I can rant and rave with a billion examples and proofs as to why they're wrong, but it doesn't seem to matter. I can't imagine any other reason as to why people would still insist their incorrect way is right unless they're stupid. Of course, nobody wants to be called stupid, and by doing so, you come across as arrogant. My group was losing points on **** THEY were getting wrong, and they just kept ignoring my contributions. Even if it's about maintaining credibility... I mean, who are they fooling? They're obviously wrong -- the proof was in the score, the explanations, the class, etc.

I think once they've ignored you twice, they've reached the point that their overweening pride won't allow them to concede (as in "Oh, you were right all along, bro! It's totally our fault that we bombed two projects!). The only path they see is the one they're traversing, and rather than being made to look foolish by going back on their convictions, they stay the course, even if they know it leads off a precipice. In your case, the rest of the group seems to have been polarized in their desire to keep the minority from prevailing over the majority, despite the former having demonstrated the validity of its method. It sounds like you just had yourself a tough case of status quo.

[ThatKidJust]

Re: IQ

quick question.. That test is a bit off compared to the real I.Q right Reach?
I scored 134 on that test but I scored a 123 on the real one last year.

[mhss1992]

Re: IQ

What, then, is your opinion of the concept of evolution and mutation and natural selection as it applies to intelligence? Are you an intelligent design advocate?

In my opinion I feel like we do not need a God to explain anything.

Okay, then, where did the universe come from? Nothing?

Like I said, the "intelligent design" is not the only reason why I believe in an intelligence. Well, I do believe in natural selection, but I really don't think it explains everything. There are things that I would consider too much of a coincidence to exist, and natural selection explains only the fact that they will continue existing, but not the fact that they appeared. Forcing natural selection to explain everything is plausible, but it's like saying that a song or a complex machine would appear randomly in a world. It's just easier to assume that an intelligent being, like a human, did it.
The way organs interact, with hormones, always with exactly what they need. The way muscles, bones, nerves and veins are connected. The fact that you have chlorhydric acid in your stomach, and is, luckily, protected against it, and also use it for digestion. The fact that the only chromosome that is different in both sexes is responsible for making those two sexes a perfect match, and how luckily nature makes these two sexes attract each other(most of times), and the only organs in both sexes that make cells with meiosis is connected to genital organs. Also, did you know that the complexity of the eye even made Darwin question some of his studies? Of course, natural selection is more acceptable than the conception of god he was used to.

I know that doesn't prove anything, but I do consider it intelligent. Forcing randomness to explain everything is just too much, in my opinion. The question is: why do you think it's more plausible than God? Do you require a material proof to believe in God? Well, that's impossible. If God created physical laws, he is not subjected to them.

[MrRubix]

Re: IQ

Disclaimer: Just my opinion

I can fire the same question back: Who made God, then? Atheists may not know where the universe came from, but technically, we'd argue that religious types technically have no better answer. Some do believe the universe came out of nothing, and asking what came before it is nonsensical, as it was the beginning of time (I believe it was Hawking who said "It's like asking what's south of the South Pole"). I am personally very uncertain about the origins of time since it ties into so many different theories that are, at this point, still just theories.

Regardless, though:

Complex systems can still come about naturally. Contrary to popular belief, it's all a very NON-random process.

For example, consider this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ
This as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUOpa...eature=related

Besides, you'll notice that there are TONS of different creatures that all have different types of sensory input methods / eyes that function very differently from our own. I can write a genetic algorithm to achieve an optimal solution given enough time merely by *doing nothing else* but selecting for slight changes in various individuals of that population over time based on fitness metrics. I can create complex solutions naturally.

It's easier to assume, in my opinion, that a being "just made it," but I personally find it very implausible when we have so much evidence for complex systems being possible without the need for a creator. It's easier to say "God makes lightning when he's angry" too, but that doesn't mean the truth can't be understood with a little more observation.

It may seem "like a coincidence" that all these things exist in us and work in perfect harmony, but really that should be an indicator, if anything, that we're the result of necessary conditions. If those things did not work together in perfect harmony, you would not be here. In our universe we have countless planets and systems, and only a few are suitable for life like ours, and so just because we happen to be a successful case doesn't mean we had to be designed.

[MrRubix]

Re: IQ

Sorry, forgot to address your last points there.

"I know that doesn't prove anything, but I do consider it intelligent. Forcing randomness to explain everything is just too much, in my opinion. The question is: why do you think it's more plausible than God? Do you require a material proof to believe in God? Well, that's impossible. If God created physical laws, he is not subjected to them."

I believe we do not need a God because, again, we can explain everything without the need for one. Why add in a variable we don't need? Instead of just throwing up our arms and saying "God did it," I believe it is better to say "We don't know yet." And perhaps we may never know the explanation for something. That doesn't mean I can't respect another's belief in a God, because the possibility is always there. I just don't think we can know for sure either way, but what I do know is that science continues to pile on heaps and heaps of evidence indicating that there probably isn't one.

Also, it's important to note that many religions are indeed soothing. They can be good for leading a good life. But, I think it's a function of a human need to attach meaning to things. I personally believe there is no objective "meaning" or purpose to life, and any meaning we derive is a result of our physical ability to interpret and feel utility by finding significance and insignificance in various things (to what extent does a dog create meaning? A cockroach? A bacterium?). It would be nice to think that we have a soul, an afterlife, or even a chance at reincarnation. However soothing these thoughts may be, I can't find them to be plausible. We're still physical creatures. It would be like me believing my computer has a soul. If I break Computer A into pieces, there's no reason for me to believe that it has some kind of "essence" that transfers into a newly-built Computer B. Computer B is Computer B merely because Computer B is a result of the components that compose it! I may be a sentient being with a brain, personality, and thought process, but it doesn't mean I am exempt from this basic physical constraint. I believe when we die, we die. We return to the same kind of "nonmemory-nonexistence" we "experienced" before we were born. Death, in my opinion, is the same as that period -- feeling nothing, thinking nothing, doing nothing, experiencing nothing. It's really depressing, but I have many reasons to believe that this is the case. I have a massive fear of death. Even though I know I won't care (since I'll be unable to) once I die, I'm able to think and feel NOW. And I love life too much to leave it.

It's one of the reasons I believe we really need to make this life count. Only one shot -- it's a really marvelous gift. The luxuries of looking at your computer screen right now... or simply turning your head to look out a window and see a bird flapping against a blue sky... are not things I think you can enjoy forever. I still "talk" to my father sometimes even though he has passed, although I think it's more of a comfort mechanism to simply get my thoughts out into words, since I really do believe he cannot hear me.

Anyways, getting offtrack there -- addressing your last question about God, I think that's just another form of "easy out." It's easy to say, for instance, "God made everything and isn't subjected to his own laws." What if I have evidence against a God? "Oh, well God works in mysterious ways." Who made God? "Oh, God doesn't need a creator." If he didn't need a creator, then when did time begin? "Oh, God is outside of time." None of these common responses actually explain anything and are just filler. Evidence is meant to help make or break a hypothesis -- you don't insist the hypothesis is true and continue to bend the evidence around until you get something you want. This is also a very dangerous practice in statistics :P

Anyways, I know this is way off topic for a subject of IQ, but it's always fun to discuss.