How do people with IQs of 140 - 200 think?

forgive me for my 2 cents worth here, but....

IQ will NEVER be a substitute for COMMON SENSE.

I have learned that the hard way, over more than 40 yrs of life.

I am a Mensan, a Merit Scholar, etc.

But... It took me many years to develop the simple common sense that someone with a much lower IQ has.

I am not talking street smarts, I am talking common sense.

If you have the intellect to do something better, for yourself or for the world, and you DON'T do what you are capable of....

If you have the intellect to know more than others but still can't figure out how to connect to someone with less intellect...

And there are more similes I can go through, but you should have the idea...

Then what F'ing good does all that IQ do you?

Yeah, we can think "better" we can do complex algorithms in our heads, but WTF good does that do you in every day life?

Yeah you can be a brainiac and go into a cave and advoid "normal" people in life, OR you can learn to accept others as they are, reach them at their level of understanding and make a better world, one little bit at a time.

I chose the latter

reply to post by redhatty

In my view you would qualify as a more intelligent person than someone with the same IQ, working away in a lab somewhere weaponizing anthrax spores. You have used your powers of analysis on yourself to realize your own shortcomings as a human being and to do something about them. Not to do so is a failure of intelligence.

In an IQ test the more intelligent person sees possibilities that a less intelligent person does not. In the big IQ test, life, the same thing happens, the more intelligent person doesn't ignore pertinent facts, like the fact that we do live in a social context with social responsibilities.


[edit on 1-11-2008 by ipsedixit]

I just wanted to share a little distinction I just thought up:

IQ: There are some very smart people with very clever thoughts, that do some very stupid things. IQ, is the ability to structure thoughts within a context, for example within the boundaries of a particular field of knowledge.

EQ: Emotional 'IQ', or EQ, is a measure that begins to move beyond a particular context, realizing that people are different. Communication is thus essential, and emotional sensitivity and flexibility, is thus a parallel skill that enables the effectiveness of IQ.

CQ: (This is the interesting third one). Contextual IQ. It's not just enough to be able to be smart within a fixed set of viewpoints or rules, or understand and communicate with others. Being able to adapt oneself, dynamically, to different contexts and viewpoints, honestly and without agenda, is key. The flexibility to do this, without losing a center, or requiring a fixed center of belief that everything relates to, is a third, parallel skill that many high-IQ or high-EQ people never seem to express.

reply to post by Ian McLean

I think the distinctions you are drawing are valid. I wouldn't be surprised if current intelligence tests allowed for a broader definition of intelligence and have found ways to test for it. I don't think the world can afford to continue an overemphasis on what has been the notion of IQ for the past 50 years or so.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by Ian McLean

 

I think the distinctions you are drawing are valid. I wouldn't be surprised if current intelligence tests allowed for a broader definition of intelligence and have found ways to test for it. I don't think the world can afford to continue an overemphasis on what has been the notion of IQ for the past 50 years or so.

Its kind of funny that a lot of really smart people still think IQ is a valid way of ranking people. The nazis came up with it, then the rest of the world followed.

It doesnt measure empathy, social skills or anything else that is really relevant to how you will do in business. Its the social skills that will make or break people, not the IQ.

My guess is that a lot of smart people think like the rest of us, just less blurry, more focused and with stronger memory.


[edit on 1-11-2008 by Copernicus]

I would like to say that IQ tests are not a definitive identifier of intelligence - rather, they are a signature of being able to do IQ tests very well.

Intelligence is an abstract concept and can only be applied in context. Intelligence alone is no guarantee of a "smart" person. I have seen people with tremendous IQs walking the street and directing the traffic in yellow Marigolds - equally, I have seen people with low IQs apparently making a success of themselves by the measure of money that they accumulate.

Can we measure the benefit of IQ to humanity?

Compassion is not an attribute related directly to IQ, we can talk of "propensities" and it may be that low IQs are shared by many criminals, but there are a number of criminals with high IQs (Lex Luthor for one ;-P) so, how do we reconcile intelligence with the benefit to humanity?

Intelligence may be an ability to combine abstract ideas into a coherent thought, to alight upon connections where there appear to be none.

A chimps realised that by sticking a long thin twig into a termite mound, he could extract a neat little snack with minimum problems from biting. That is surely intelligence.

Intelligence is simply a method of deriving conclusions and yet these conclusions can be warped and against all prevailing common sense.

During the early days the atomic bomb, intelligent men developed game theory in support of the strategy of using such weapons. Intelligent men in the US decided that the best thing to do was to bomb the crap out of Russia in an unprovoked attacked - before the Russian programme of nuclear armament could take place.

Intelligent men saw a logical conclusion but failed to compensate the natural instinct of humanity.

Next time you take an IQ test, consider whether having a number associated with your mind makes you a better person than the next.

reply to post by Copernicus

I think the IQ test serves a purpose that most people are not aware of. I didn't know that the Nazis had introduced it, but the purpose I'm thinking of fits nicely in the Nazi context of a cult of the superior man who needn't trouble himself with the lower orders.

In many ways our most intelligent people are encouraged not to think, at least not broadly. If they did that , they could become a political force.

reply to post by ipsedixit


Thank you for your analysis, it is appreciated.

I do not think IQ is a measure of a person's worth in this world. I look at it as telling of a person's potential. As a quasi-musician I can certainly appreciate a person's abilities that fall outside of standardized IQ tests. I've had many great jams with people that are not high IQ types.

I still think your argument is apples and oranges though. I take up this argument with people because there is a prejudice in this world AGAINST smart people. When I hear someone say it has NO value, I just can't help but think of my early years sitting in class, watching the stupid people make fun of nerdy types for BEING smart. No, I wasn't picked on....but I certainly felt like I would be if I became truly engaged. Always weighing wether I should make a point or not for fear of being ridiculed....for being smart.

I don't think like Nazi's. I don't want to classify people's worth because their IQ. I'm thinking more in terms of how we educate our children. There is not a person on Earth that could convince me I wasn't held back by attending school with the other 98%. So, let's say that when we have children, we test them at various intervals in their academic career to make sure we put them with similar minded people....so they CAN maximize their potential. And it matters not whether it's public or private schools...I've been to both and they are both the SAME in regards to how we teach.

Teaching morals is up to our surroundings. Where and how we live. Partly our socio-economic situation. But mostly our parents, guardians, teachers, and friends.

You keep going back to the moral argument about a person's intelligence. And to me it has nothing to do with it. I'm more interested in IQ tests so we can maximize our children's potential and make a better world. I think our schools are designed to keep the general population dumb. I will not get wrapped up in the moral aspect of it. You have to understand that ALL morals are subjective. It is a very philisophical thing. Not that I consider myself immoral by our standards...I certainly wouldn't sacrifice humans for testing. It's just two different arguments.

I am pro-IQ tests simply for the reasons stated above. I want our children to be smart for the betterment of mankind. If we DO NOT measure a child's IQ and teach them accordingly.....well....frankly....we get what we have now.....a public which does not have the capacity to change the world in the face of tyranny.

Originally posted by Copernicus

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by Ian McLean

 

I think the distinctions you are drawing are valid. I wouldn't be surprised if current intelligence tests allowed for a broader definition of intelligence and have found ways to test for it. I don't think the world can afford to continue an overemphasis on what has been the notion of IQ for the past 50 years or so.

Its kind of funny that a lot of really smart people still think IQ is a valid way of ranking people. The nazis came up with it, then the rest of the world followed.

It doesnt measure empathy, social skills or anything else that is really relevant to how you will do in business. Its the social skills that will make or break people, not the IQ.

My guess is that a lot of smart people think like the rest of us, just less blurry, more focused and with stronger memory.


[edit on 1-11-2008 by Copernicus]

I think you're taking it to an extreme with that analysis. How did this argument become how well a person does in life. There are way too may variables for that.

But, well, OK. Let's take your argument for a second. I would bet my life that MOST of our successful business leaders are very high-IQ. Perhaps they have the social skills and such ALSO....but perhaps not.

Please name all the low IQ leaders of industry and top businessmen that you know of?

There is this dirty little trick played by stupid people...an idea that spreads like cancer: High IQ people do not have social skills. LOL. There are way more stupid people without social skills than intelligent people. But this argument is always dragged out as some sort of proof that IQ doesn't matter. Sure there are low social-skill high-IQ people out there. But that is not the norm.....or if it is then prove it. That is a small argument for a small percentage.

The fact that intelligent people constantly have to dumb down conversations for "average" intelligence people shows right there that we do, in general, have great social skills. Because we are smart enough to make the judgement that if we are to get along with this person we must come down to their level of thinking. That to me shows serious skills on the social end of things.

IQ is in fact a GREAT way of ranking people....for academics. Your argument assumes there is something nefarious about testing our children. I guess you do NOT want to maximize human advancement by properly teaching our children based on their capacity to learn?? That's what IQ tests are for. Not to determine a person's worth. That Nazi argument is just so weak.

reply to post by Liberty1

Originally posted by Liberty1

 

I do not think IQ is a measure of a person's worth in this world. I look at it as telling of a person's potential.

No argument there, except that I don't believe all kinds of potential would be recognized by an IQ test.

There is not a person on Earth that could convince me I wasn't held back by attending school with the other 98%. So, let's say that when we have children, we test them at various intervals in their academic career to make sure we put them with similar minded people....so they CAN maximize their potential. And it matters not whether it's public or private schools...I've been to both and they are both the SAME in regards to how we teach.

I could accept segregation of students in certain areas. I think we can agree that intensified learning environments in specialized subjects are a good idea. People generally sink to the lowest common denominator in group situations, so obviously such a situation would be onerous for a person with an IQ of 195 who has to put up with knuckleheads with IQs of 150. Imagine having to deal with someone whose IQ is forty-five points lower than one's own! Oh the humanity!

Teaching morals is up to our surroundings. Where and how we live. Partly our socio-economic situation. But mostly our parents, guardians, teachers, and friends.

I don't think the state's educational apparatus should be heavy handed and invasive when it comes to moral and ethical teaching.

I do think that there should be presented, in schools, some kind of overview of the history of government, one's duties as a citizen, and the history of the labour movement in the context of the history of industrial development as a whole. There should also be an attempt in the high schools to help students situate themselves with respect to the law, both civil and criminal.

Obviously, these tasks will require a lot of the educators in the system both to prepare courses and to present them in a dynamic way that really communicates to the students.

You keep going back to the moral argument about a person's intelligence. And to me it has nothing to do with it.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement here. What you are saying, in my view, is a rough equivalent to saying that being colour blind has nothing to do with one's vision.

My whole point is that IQ tests, at least as I am familiar with them, do not test in all the areas relevant to intelligence.

People who approve of IQ tests in a general sense believe that they are an accurate way of grading a person's ability to solve complex problems. They would say that how that ability is used afterward would be up to the individual and that IQ tests as they are now formulated, with their emphasis on math and logic are really sufficient to determine how a person might perform in any area of human endeavour.

Meanwhile in Hitler's Germany, virtually the entire intelligentsia stood by and did nothing about him. In the United States right now, virtually the entire intelligentsia is doing nothing as American constitutional guarantees are being eroded.

I'm more interested in IQ tests so we can maximize our children's potential and make a better world.

I think we need more comprehensive testing to reach that goal. IQ tests should certainly be part of the testing process.

I think our schools are designed to keep the general population dumb.

For me this is a tough call. Is the education system designed to be a shambles or is it a shambles by default?

I will not get wrapped up in the moral aspect of it. You have to understand that ALL morals are subjective. It is a very philisophical thing. Not that I consider myself immoral by our standards...I certainly wouldn't sacrifice humans for testing. It's just two different arguments.

Here I agree and disagree. I think society is right to insist that there are some moral absolutes, although circumstances might affect how infractions are dealt with.

I am pro-IQ tests simply for the reasons stated above. I want our children to be smart for the betterment of mankind. If we DO NOT measure a child's IQ and teach them accordingly.....well....frankly....we get what we have now.....a public which does not have the capacity to change the world in the face of tyranny.

I think an over reliance on IQ tests and a lack of attention to other ways of educating and testing students has lead to the society we have now.

When I say that, I should make it clear that I'm not in favor of relaxing standards.

I don't know how to answer that question simply because I would require something for comparison. I've had this brain my whole life and can't imagine how someone who is several standard deviations away would experience the world. I often think I might be happier if I knew less about certain things, or processed information more slowly. I would be easier to understand, not nearly as lonely, and I would certainly have an easier time putting others at ease. I'm not as patient as others, I find it frustrating to interact with a lot of people, and I spend a lot of time hanging out in my own little, "Happy Place" (in my own mind).

Having a high IQ does not make one superior in any way. I suspect it more accurately measures how poorly one fits in with the rest of society. I try to relate. I try to understand, but I just can't do it. I have to accept that and try not to trample on anyone else's toes on my way through. Most people are very good at letting me know when they're unhappy and I would rather not have their unhappiness seeping through the walls of my own personal sanctuary. I'd love to have you all come in-- if only I could find the door!

reply to post by ipsedixit


Thank you for your intelligent post. I'll leave the moral argument aside for now.

You bring up some interesting points. The point about segregating becoming a problem as IQ increases. I see what you mean. I don't like the word segregate...and I don't know what the answers are.

I just know that there are plenty of highly intelligent folks out there who not only DIDN'T benefit from being stuck in schools for dummies but that it actually HURT them not to be challenged to their full potential.

We're in disagreement on the school system. While you debate that catch 22, I see conspiracy.

We're in agreement on society having the right to moral absolutes.

I'm all for testing in other areas as well. But I disagee with your assertion that we rely on IQ tests too much. Are children routinely being tested? I guess I really don't know and am assuming not. I know it was not routine when I was in school. (nearly 40yo)

Anyway, I'm a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist. So any testing and evaluation of a child should be never be something mandated. The Libertarian views on education are well known so I won't detail it here.

Smart people think for themselves.

Stupid people let others do the thinking for them.

reply to post by freakyty


I thought it was:

smart people make other people do the thinking for them

I love the last two posts. There's a great anecdote told in My Secret War by Kim Philby, where someone, I think in Britain's foreign office, writes a memo concerning an urgent problem needing a solution.

He writes: 'This is of the utmost importance and therefore should be handled at the lowest level possible.'

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I love the last two posts. There's a great anecdote told in My Secret War by Kim Philby, where someone, I think in Britain's foreign office, writes a memo concerning an urgent problem needing a solution.

He writes: 'This is of the utmost importance and therefore should be handled at the lowest level possible.'

LOL, I will be using that quote and the other two in my repertoire. Very funny.

I.Q. means nothing to me, intelligence as with most things in life i feel is born out of love and practise. A person can love mathematics so studies math more and improves and the thirst can lead on to other areas. A man who finds no joy in numbers could become a genius at fixing cars purely because he loves cars so spends his time around cars. Most of the people who excel and stand out in their chosen area of working life are those whose love for something bordered on obsession, jimmy hendrix used to take his guitar to the toilet, sir isaac newton jammed nails behind his eyes to see what would happen ( guess answers were his obsession ). I think having a body of work to show for your intelligence rather than a number highlights your abilities much more. The achiever or the believer at the end of the day the person who goes to bed with the smile on their face is the winner, if i could have any wish it would be for a satisfied mind ( with my luck id be turned into a slug with a lifetime supply of lettuce).

Originally posted by R-evolve
I think having a body of work to show for your intelligence rather than a number highlights your abilities much more.

This is absolutely true, but unfortunately it falls into the category of observations where hindsight is 20/20.

I really don't have a problem with IQ tests per se. In one respect they are like a game or a sport. Some people score higher than other people. My objection is that the way IQ tests are used in education is a symptom of what I consider an an impoverished value system in our society.

Aspects of intelligence which are not reflected by an ability to solve complex problems of logic are downgraded or ignored to the detriment of society as a whole. We end up paying for these values in all sorts of ways.

If we are going to have a happy society where people can reach their maximum potential as human beings and where humanity as a whole can successfully meet the challenges of surviving on this big spinning ball in space, we need to start testing for empathy, generosity, and compassion and maybe even, dare I say it, honesty, as well as for raw computing power.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by ipsedixit]

The funniest joke about intelligence is a gary larson cartoon. A guy entering Midvale School for the Gifted, trying to push open the door that says 'pull'.

This is the common sense aspect that is so often missing from individuals with high IQ. I work with people who have learning difficulties and while their IQ maybe in the 60's, some are so talented in other areas. One patient springs to mind whose artwork is awesome. Another one who has an ability to take engines apart and mend them. On a negative note, the Personality Disorder patients can set up diversions to take certain members of staff in one direction so that the one member of staff who is targeted gets beaten.
It is all clever.

Emotionally, I would say I feel odd. My emotions change according to my surroundings and what feelings are being impossed on me, not that other people control my emotions but that my emotions are entangled in my entire existence from the images i see to the things i smell, hear, or touch. For an example i on one day can stand in front of a large crowd and talk about any subject normal or taboo, then on the next day be withdrawn into my thoughts where no one can reach me.

Socially, I can work wonders, my personallity is that of a chameleons skin and can addapt to others. I am a buisness owner who's buisness is based strictly off of customer service and my art skills. My personallity helps my social interaction as long as I let people who choose to be ignorant continue down that path without my injection of reason or facts. I don't feel better than anyone just better than those who choose to do nothing with their life or remain ignorant to a fault.

Ideologically, I remain Agnostic on anything that doesn't have solid proof. Blind faith causes more socio-economic issues than any single cause across the globe. I do not judge those with blind faith, I just hope some day they will begin to believe in themselves more than idols or false prophets of society. I am an artist by trade so I view the world through my art eyes some days and then through my logical mathmatic side on other days. It is bothersome some days because my Intelligence is the hybrid combination of both sides of my brain. I feel sometimes that it would be better to be a little less in tune with all aspects of life.

I was told by a testing group at age 14 that i was a different kind of genius that is rare in so many aspects of the genius label. My IQ tests vary wildly from one day to the next. Because of this I won't give any numbers but at no time do I drop below your range unless I am drunk. I have taken 4 Full length IQ tests and several small to medium range IQ tests, and no I am not talking about the little internet surveys. Most of the people involved with me are amazed at my ability to create art one day, and on another day write a multi faceted computer program, or work on cars with an efficiency of a veteran mechanic.

I know its alot but what would you expect of me.