Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How do people with IQs of 140 - 200 think?

page: 5
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Intelligence becomes a factor on the internet in filtering information. The internet is a form of Hell, so too much information encountered on the internet is just disinformative fodder.




posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Im not typing this in order to offend anyone however i think we might have a tad bit of exaggeration here in this thread. As for those with child IQ’s for reference it is important to remember the intelligence quotient for children is quite different for that of an adult. In children it is very common for a 160 IQ or better but this is due to the scale adjustment in children, however the same person as an adult may only attain a 120 IQ. Ive seen some rather high claims of intelligence quotient levels in this thread and again im not wishing to call anyone a liar however if the levels stated are true then why are there no Nobel prize winners in this thread. ( the range in which many have stated their IQ’s fall is that of most Nobel prize winners ) For that matter a few here have stated IQ’s that would make them savants.



Personally i have been tested many times and my range has fallen between 149 and 160 on the three tests i have received. These tests where administered by neuro physiologists as a result of a medical condition i suffered from ( temparary boughts ofl hemi paliga ) and personally i do not consider myself a genius i really put very little faith in the whole testing system. The intelligence quotient test standards check to see how a person solves a problem not did they get it right, this testing in my mind is flawed. Personally i have a gift of figuring things out or understanding them fairly quickly , a good example of this is some of my past work with databases. When working with finical figures i have had accountants come to me asking how did this number come to be , i somehow seem to have the ability look at a computer screen with 60 different data tables and find the correlating numbers that equal the sum the accountants question. How do i do it? i dont know, yet at the same time ive seen myself stumbling when multiplying single digits in my head. Im not like rain man counting grains of salt by any means but i seem to be able to compute data at a fairly high rate which ive also used in cryptography situations with success. At the same time this ability comes with drawbacks in my case and my neurologist has said that with most people with high IQs also have the same drawback, that drawback is we dont finish anything. For example we are given a challenge and once that challenge is overcome we loose interest in the whole process even if our goal is not complete. Its pretty similar to adult adhd in some aspects. I have so many unfinished projects its ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I have an official test result of 159 when I was 16.

I am pretty normal, mainstream, moderate kind of person. My husband swears I think alot faster and more abstractly than most. Although I am horrendous in math. Calculators and computers are my friend. My comprehension skills and vocabulary are above average.

My political views are moderate to conservative. My values are Christian and that is about it. I run around with regular people and we don't do anything out of the ordinary. I mother two kids, ride dressage(horses) enjoy photography and reef tanks. I also work for a mortgage company kinda freelance. Gives me the "have my cake and eat it too" ability. Get to work, have extra money while not sacrificing raising my kids.

I didn't read the rest of the thread, so if my answers are not what you were looking for, I apologize



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I have tested in the 99th percentile and I will tell you, I'm no genius, nor are most people with such IQs. We must remember that an IQ score is a test score and it reflects a person's performance on any given day, depending on many factors. Standardized intelligence tests, regardless of any other desired outcome, are very good predictors of success in academics. Success at life, including academics, requires a lot more than intellect, so some brainy folks fail at school and life, while others with lesser endowments do very well with hard work, persistence and many other less quantifiable attributes.

I will tell you this about thinking. Most of us think as any other person does. What is different is what is obvious. A good test such as the Weschler will test across a range of aptitudes so that even the smartest person will be challenged. On some scales, I do very well and its no work whatsoever. There is even one test that I have aced every time I have ever taken it and I will tell you that, even though I don't have any statistics, the test is designed so that very few people will ever do that. However, there are tests that I work very hard at and my scores are good, but hardly stellar.

The movie "Rainman," which is based on a real individual, has a scene that illustrates this very well, even if it suffers from some artistic license. When Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman are in the restaurant and the waitress drops the toothpicks, or some such, Hoffman's character, Rainman, takes one look and states a number. The waitress counts the items and declares that the count is identical to the number given by Rainman, so Cruise decide immediately to take his brother to Las Vegas.

Regardless of what other deficits Rainman may have had, numbers and counting were so obvious to him that he could beat Vegas at its own game. When you have a gift, some things just come easy. Everything else takes work.

www.wilderdom.com...


[edit on 05/4/9 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   
My IQ sux bigtime, pretty interesting CPU, but low clockspeed and a faulty memorycontroller, slooooow learning, can do some pretty interesting calculations if I manage to fetch the right opcodes, but especially for timecritical tasks this gets problematic "div by zero", I guess something with poor dopamine
and serotonine transport (I have tiny bloodvessels in my extremities, cold hands in the winter or when handling glass of water, also my willie only wants to come out and play in hot summers or on bloodvessel dilating and dopamine increasing ghb)

Slow clockspeed sux when you have a job with many deadlines and lots of customers interruptions, thats what I experienced as a networkadministrator, as the network grew, I started burning out... Wrong job, I love computers, but I don't love managers and users hehe.

Nowadays I am a glassfiber engioneer, workling in the outdoors, with one good trusted partner, no boss around top look over your shoulder, concentrating on a very delicate task, but no annoying customers to mess up my concentration! Love it.

What I am trying to say is, that you should try to look critical at your work, does your work love you as much as you love your work. Made more money as a netadmin, but I feel better now....

Also noticed the "smart" Cristians around here, maybe thats partly work ethics ? like parents get their kids to do their homework instead of letting them hang around with potsmoking friends ? I definately think with my mediocre cpu (lol) that intensive study itselve improves the dataprocessing abillities of brains at younger ages...


[edit on 9-4-2005 by Silenus]



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 01:03 AM
link   
My parents werent christians.... I chose it for myself. also, they do have e do all of the homework that they know about lol. I never do half of it but i get a's anyways because my teachers dont check. I guess you could say i aint smart but oh well. this is a thread about IQ and i have the high iq. (I took the ACT today btw, 2nd time. cant wait for results "4-7 weeks" lol)



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by KyleChemist

Not quite sure what you mean by 'lack of intelligence' But, we'll have to agree to disagree here. Call me dramatic if you want, but if you have the drive determination, and detication, nothing is impossible. Read a book called The Millionaire Next Door, most millionaires are not geniuses, they just have a dream and went for it and didn't let anything get in their way.


Fair enough. I was definitely being unclear with the phrase "lack of intelligence". The problem is that intelligence is an extremely vague term that often gets confused with things like creativity. By intelligence, I mean the end result of all of the different activities of the brain. That is, working memory, long-term memory, spatial ability, verbal ability, etc.. I suppose nobody is actually lacking in intelligence in that sense, so I worded that poorly. What I really meant was that severly lacking in these domains makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to do what you have done. People diagnosed as mentally retarded or with IQs under 70 are not getting Ph.D.s in chemistry, even if they have dreams and go for it. I could be wrong, and if so, just provide the reference.



Maybe they were not administerd properly, but I doesn't matter. I have done HORRIBLE on EVERY standardized IQ test I have ever taken, and has not hurt me one bit. Most of my friends that did do well on those test have not been helped by it all that much either.


Well, in a practical sense it doesn't matter, I agree. But if someone took your temperature incorrectly and said you had a fever, but in reality it was simply a measurement error on the part of the physician, does that mean that the Fahrenheit scale is a bunch of crap? Of course not.



In the sciences, grad schools don't care all that much about the GRE (I had two acceptance letters before even taking it). A high score will help you, but If you have a solid GPA, a strong background in undergraduate research, and good letters of recomedation, the GRE doesn't mean a thing.


That's news to me. When did you get accepted? Why do most natural science programs require applicants to take both the GRE and the standardized subject test for their field? A high GPA and good letters of recommendation are expected for any applicant. That's exactly why standardized tests are needed.


There are a lot of people in my situation, success in life depends a lot more than some scores on a test. If I really wanted to, and applied myself, I probably could do well on some intelligence test, but its not worth my time. My past record of accomplishments speak for themselves. Intelligence tests may work in most cases, and they may have worked for me, I may actually be dumb for all I know. I have to work harder than those who have natural intelligence, but as I keep saying, desire, determination, and dedication will overcome some scores on a test any day of the week, period.


What is "natural intelligence"? Is that what intelligence tests measure?

In a way, I agree with you that motivation and interests are excellent predictors of later success. I disagree with you when you say that intelligence scores don't matter. The score on the test doesn't help you in any practical sense, fine. However, intelligence scores are better predictors of later success than motivation and interests measures alone. That's all I'm saying. Take 100 people of equal motivation and interest in field X. 50 have an IQ of 80 and the other 50 an IQ of 120. Which group will have the better outcome in their field? I'm putting my money on the people with the IQ of 120.

Take another example: A lot of kids want to be professional athletes when they grow up. Why don't they all do it? Because they don't have the ability. They have the desire, they have the dedication, they go to whatever camps they can, they play in rec leagues, they play in high school and in college, but still, the majority don't make it. Why? They don't have the ability.

Your personal situation sounds to me like a kid who was told by stupid coaches that they couldn't make it in the big leagues, but you made it anyways. Fair enough, dumb coaches. But now you are interpreting it as if ability had nothing to do with it.

See what I mean?

phaedrus








[edit on 11-4-2005 by phaedrusxxx]



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Fair enough. I was definitely being unclear with the phrase "lack of intelligence". The problem is that intelligence is an extremely vague term that often gets confused with things like creativity. By intelligence, I mean the end result of all of the different activities of the brain. That is, working memory, long-term memory, spatial ability, verbal ability, etc.. I suppose nobody is actually lacking in intelligence in that sense, so I worded that poorly. What I really meant was that severly lacking in these domains makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to do what you have done. People diagnosed as mentally retarded or with IQs under 70 are not getting Ph.D.s in chemistry, even if they have dreams and go for it. I could be wrong, and if so, just provide the reference.


I should be clear, I have never done that bad on intelligence tests to be considered mentally handicaped, but I am definantly 'below average' but as I said before, this has not hurt me one bit. But you are right, people who are metally handicapped will not be getting PhDs. (at least I don't know of any)



Well, in a practical sense it doesn't matter, I agree. But if someone took your temperature incorrectly and said you had a fever, but in reality it was simply a measurement error on the part of the physician, does that mean that the Fahrenheit scale is a bunch of crap? Of course not.


As far as I know, the tests are accurate. I can't do math in my head, I can't grasp concepts quickly, I'm a slow reader and a slow learner. I simply haven't let these things get in my way.


That's news to me. When did you get accepted? Why do most natural science programs require applicants to take both the GRE and the standardized subject test for their field? A high GPA and good letters of recommendation are expected for any applicant. That's exactly why standardized tests are needed.


I got accpeted in the Spring of 2000. Schools require the GRE and subject test just as formality. I have several friends in top schools that did poorly on the GRE and subject test. If you have strong letters of recommendation, you can go anyhere, regardless of GRE scores.





What is "natural intelligence"? Is that what intelligence tests measure?

In a way, I agree with you that motivation and interests are excellent predictors of later success. I disagree with you when you say that intelligence scores don't matter. The score on the test doesn't help you in any practical sense, fine. However, intelligence scores are better predictors of later success than motivation and interests measures alone. That's all I'm saying. Take 100 people of equal motivation and interest in field X. 50 have an IQ of 80 and the other 50 an IQ of 120. Which group will have the better outcome in their field? I'm putting my money on the people with the IQ of 120.

Take another example: A lot of kids want to be professional athletes when they grow up. Why don't they all do it? Because they don't have the ability. They have the desire, they have the dedication, they go to whatever camps they can, they play in rec leagues, they play in high school and in college, but still, the majority don't make it. Why? They don't have the ability.

Your personal situation sounds to me like a kid who was told by stupid coaches that they couldn't make it in the big leagues, but you made it anyways. Fair enough, dumb coaches. But now you are interpreting it as if ability had nothing to do with it.




Sorry should have been more clear. As I keep saying, I may actually be dumb for the above mentioned resesons. I have many co-workers who CAN do complex equations in their head, understand concepts quickly, etc. so thats what I would call 'natural intelligence' I was not born with this, so as a result I have to work harder than these people. Its not fair but thats the way it is, and I have NOT let that deter me.

You are right, taking people with equal motivation, the ones with the higher IQs will probably do better, no arguments there. However, the real world is not so simple. Many of my friends who do have 'natural intelligence' and who did well on IQ tests think that this alone will give them success. WRONG!! Call me arrogant if you want, but I am doing far better than most of my friends and co-wokers who are constatnly braging about their high test scores.

In looking at professional athletes (and real life), I think most would agree that its desire PLUS natural ability. They both have to be there. period. If one is laking, the other has to pick up the slack. Remeber Micheal Jordan was cut from his Freshman basketball team in high school, but he did not let that stop him. In my case, I may not have the gift of natural intelligence, so I have to make up for it with a strong work ethic.

For those of you with IQ in the 140-200, kudos to you, but this will NOT gurantee you success in life.








[edit on 12-4-2005 by KyleChemist]



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   
As a child everyone called me a smarty pants - nerd wasn't even invented then. At 16 I tested with an IQ score of 168.
Ten years later at 26 after a wild, wild, wild life I retested at 146.
I shudder to think what that number would look like now.
It is just that.
A number.

Do I consider my life wasted because I don'y have a nobel prize? No.
It has nothing to do with the way I live my life, apply myself and my feelings in every day life.

I consider myself to be extraordinary and so should everyone else (not me, you) because we all have the potential to acheive.

I myself am an extremely sensitive and emotional person and it has taken me this long to realise that and start to gain some modecum of control.
I have always had fantastic ideas but I move so quickly that projects rarely get finished - you should see my house.
This seems to be a common theme amongst those people consider to have a high IQ.

If only we could harness our true potential and control the fragmentation who knows what might be possible?



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Let me say first, that I don't concider myself particulary smart, as I have met and encountered a number of people in my life that actually made me feel stupid by comparision.

I used to take IQ tests for the fun of it, to the extent that I became "Test Aware" to some extent. The Best Score I have had on an IQ test was 183 (Exceptional day - felt good, well rested, alert, ect.) My worst score was 127. I don't concider the IQ tests accurate by any means - The memorisation of facts, figures, and dates is a useless waste of time. (Thats what paper is for) The trick is knowing where to look for the answers and "Understanding" what the question is. Visulisation of the problem, what is the problem and what is the obsticle, and what is the desired out come. A lot of the time the answer is flashing right there infront of everyone and nobody sees it. - How can they not see this?

It is possible to know the answer, and be right without having someone else recognise your theory as being acceptable or right. It is also likely that your theory will only be acceptable and valid as truth if it is based on other invalid data.

The biggest secret out there is that the guy who knew the answer to the secret question died before he could tell any one.

Is the glass half full, or half empty? Maybe the glass is the wrong size.

A number of years ago I asked Menza a question; I have yet to get an answer:


"How do I calculate the area of contact at the intersection
of two (Both 1" Diamiter) perfect sphears, the surfaces of
which possess no allowance for Deformation?

Please Provide detailed explanation of Solution, and proof there of."


Socially, I have never had more than 2 or 3 friends at a time. Although I know a few hundred people (after working in a club). I shun people, I don't like to be around them. Their conversations are lame, small minds talk of others, common minds talk of themselves, large minds talk of events, great minds talk of ideas. Their lives are predictable like a movie and they share small dreams many are petty only because they have never tried to be great. I am pleased that their Team won the big game - in what ever sport, It makes me feel good to see others feel good.

It saddens me everytime some kid gets married right outa school, and has to be responsible right away. Best thing I ever did was travel. Not just as a tourist, bit pick some place and live there a year or two, to live it - the people, and culture especially, understand it. All forsaken because they have fallen into the machine.

I don't concider myself a religious person, as entailed by going to church.
(Despite having a white colar) I am a man of Peace, I like things quiet, and I wouldn't have a phone if I could avoid it. I belive in The laws of G-d, but not in the laws of man, as it has become corrupt and vile as lawyers change the meanings of the words, and attempt to interperate that which should not be interperated due to the selection of the words chosen to define the idea in the first place.

The reason there is more Violence today than in the past is that the obsenities once used to express anger or displeasure have become common place causing an invalidity in their meaning. This in turn causes the expession of anger to escalate.

Although the Quote is "Violence is the last resort of the incompetant" I belive there are times you must hand G-d your jacket and tell him to sit this one out. (If the OT is correct, you ain't about to do anything he hasn't told someone do for him. So he understands there are times one must stand and deliver - if he dosn't then he aint My G-d). Although I do belive the Bible is the Word of G-d. I distrust the KJV between the contaminations of Constitine, and King James' translation. I know there is much more to the Bible than what is currently cannonised. (One of the things the Bible researchers have not yet concived is that there is more than one correct way to read the Bible). Where as I question the actual resurection of Christ, as well as an actual Death. I also question if the answers Really matter. The point is to be a good person, do the right thing even if it isn't the popular thing - as the majority will make the wrong one. If you are the best person you know how to be, and you are striving to make yourself better - what more could G-d want from you?

I closed My Real-estate office because of 2 philosophical items that haunted my years of operation.
1) Who did G-d sell it to?
2) If you pay taxes on your land, then it is not your land - you are mearly leasing it from the government. If it is yours then it can't be taken from you by anyone for any reason, but must be surrendered.

I studied the martial arts for a while for some measure of self dicipline, meditation, and mind over body. This led to me to become "The" cooler at
one of the worst clubs in S. Florida for over a year.

Only a fool looks to his wallet for his success, it is around you - your friends, your family, the euphoria of love in your presence. That is sucess. Some might say I'd rather be rich and miserable than poor and happy. And so many are...

I concider business a hobby, when it starts being work it's time to do something else.

I get so obsessed with something I am working on that anything beyond the scope of what I am doing falls to the wayside. As long as My coffee and Cigarettes are with in arms reach that is all there is. I have forgotten to eat, sleep, shave for days on end, let alone changing clothes etc. I have Dominos on speed dial, and if they are lucky I'll hear the doorbell.
and I procrastinate.

When I'm not obsessed I can't restart my brain. It seems to stick in this state of "So what if that doesn't get done this week" which may last several months. Then I'll hit upon an idea and start chasing that down rabbit trails for as long as 2 years while recording other ideas I hit on that will likely never get started until I can hire someone to chase it down for me, if I still have that interest when I have the cash to do it.

The biggest mistake people make is using a credit card. If you want it, it's worth saving up to get. Instant gratification is bad.

I ain't married, don't have any kids, and don't plan on it. I have reservations about adding to the population of a dying planet. I still have places I'd like to checkout though I have traveled a bit.

(When G-d said Go forth and multiply, he didn't necessasarly mean your gene pool specificly)

By nature I am a bit sarcastic. I try to find the humor in things, or look for an opportunity just to make people laugh.

Hope this wasn't too long winded or boring....



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I consider business a hobby, when it starts being work it's time to do something else.

ditto,

I found another person who is also high IQ(140) to form a relationship with, and we have been happily sarcastic together ever since. (I have never been tested except for a SAT way too many years ago to remember. My SO was an airplane mechanic until that got ruined. Then, a musician, now a nurse. It seems like whenever you turn your hobby into a living- it just ruins it.
The unfinished projects seem to be a recurring theme, but my obsessions usually, at least, get me to the prototype. I love to experiment, and this usually takes a long attention span. ( my current one is at least over 1 yr) I go through periods of intense research- try out some aspect of it- and then back to the drawing board or onto another 'rabbit' trail.
I agree, that bookworming is not all it's cracked up to be. Mind, body, and spirt are interconnected. Martial arts is very intense- but very rewarding. I would have to say that ritual is very important to my general welfare. It keeps me centered, grounded, and fulfilled.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   
One thing I forgot to mention is that the biggest problem is frustration.

There are ideas, concepts and inventions that I have come accross, through my own work as well as collaborating with others that simply cannot be revealed. The risk of potential mis use of them out weigh the benefits to man kind.

Try getting a patent on something the patent office maintains cannot exist.
It is fruitless to try sometimes...

Then there is the problem of Johnny having a great product, but as soon as anyone sees it they don't need him any more so he's out in the cold trying to take legal action against a mamoth corporation for a copyright/patent infringement that they can afford to drag out in court for years with the best lawyers, while he looses everything he has trying to handle the lawsuit himself. (Why bother with all the Bull when you don't have to).

"Sure we know your right, and will eventually beat us in court, however we are willing and able to drag this whole thing out for years. We figure you and your resources are worth $X, So we'll offer you $y (10% of x) to walk away now. Or expect to spend $Z (10 * X) draging the whole thing through the courts for the next 20 years as we file appeals. Did I mention that we contribute to Judge XYZ's campaign on a regular basis so when you get to his court you loose any way?"



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by KyleChemist

For those of you with IQ in the 140-200, kudos to you, but this will NOT gurantee you success in life.


[edit on 12-4-2005 by KyleChemist]


I agree completely with this statement and most of what you said in the last post. I disagree that the GRE and subject tests are merely formalities. If two applicants have similiar CVs and one has a higher standardized test score, I'd bet they will accept the one with the higher score. In highly competitive programs, where only 2-5 people may be accepted out of 300 or more applicants, I would think (just speculation) that the top 25 applicants have very strong letters of recommendation, and I would agree that the CV and letters of recommendation are what put them in the top 25 to begin with. People with high test scores and poor letters of recommendation or a lack of research experience will never make it on test scores alone.

I think we can agree that it takes a blend of motivation, hard work, and natural ability to succeed in any field. The difficult part is defining "natural ability" or "intelligence". I guess a conservative definition would be that intelligence is that factor that accounts for the rest of the variation unaccounted by motivation and hard work. Not everyone who has the motivation and dedication to answer a difficult problem will arrive at the correct answer.

On the other hand, I understand that people come to the correct answer in many different ways. Intelligence shouldn't be thought of has a specific "way" or "method" of solving a problem, nor should it be thought of as how quickly someone can answer it. In that sense, if two people can arrive at the same correct answer, one doing it slowly on paper and the other doing it instantly in their head, I don't think this should be used as an indication of any difference in their ability. They are simply using different strategies.

If individuals such as yourself can receive below average scores on intelligence tests and still achieve at a high level in your field, then I agree that these tests are not doing what they are supposed to do. That seems like more of an indication of poor measurement than an indication of an invalid construct, though, because in the majority of cases, intelligence tests can be excellent predictors of these outcomes. If 5 out of 100 tests for a certain disease result in a false negative, this doesn't mean the disease doesn't exist. It means we need better tests.

I agree that there are often people who test above average who lack the motivation or dedication to accomplish what they want to do. This doesn't mean that they aren't intelligent. They are probably just lazy.

In the long run, I find hard work and motivation and real results much more impressive than a high score, because they are much harder to come by.

phaedrus


MBF

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I took an IQ test at about 40 kind of as a dare. I was tired and wasn't really into it, but I guess I did ok. I scored 138. I kind of stay to myself, never married, don't even date. I'm another Christian...I wonder if it has anything to do with IQ. I guess I see how things can work together more than most people do. I have came up with many ideas and thought to myself that somebody else must have already thought of it already. Well in 15-20 years I will read about this "great idea" that somebody has just came up with, funny how it will be just like my idea. I still have a lot of ideas if somebody has a lot of money to invest we can get rich.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   

I agree completely with this statement and most of what you said in the last post. I disagree that the GRE and subject tests are merely formalities. If two applicants have similiar CVs and one has a higher standardized test score, I'd bet they will accept the one with the higher score. In highly competitive programs, where only 2-5 people may be accepted out of 300 or more applicants, I would think (just speculation) that the top 25 applicants have very strong letters of recommendation, and I would agree that the CV and letters of recommendation are what put them in the top 25 to begin with. People with high test scores and poor letters of recommendation or a lack of research experience will never make it on test scores alone.


It depends on the program and the school. Most graduate programs in the sciences, are not very competitive due to lack of US applicants. In fact most graduate programs have to try and recruit more graduate students to fill all the slots, thus the large number of foreign grad students. The GRE may or may not be just a formality, but letters of recommendation and undergraduate research definanlty carry much more weight. Even more so than GPA. In fact a high GRE can accutally hurt you in some cases. If you have a high GRE, but a low GPA, no undergraduate research, and dismal letters of recommendation (I knew A LOT of people like this) you get labled SLACKER, and you can kiss your chances of getting into a top school goodbye.


I think we can agree that it takes a blend of motivation, hard work, and natural ability to succeed in any field. The difficult part is defining "natural ability" or "intelligence". I guess a conservative definition would be that intelligence is that factor that accounts for the rest of the variation unaccounted by motivation and hard work. Not everyone who has the motivation and dedication to answer a difficult problem will arrive at the correct answer.


Yes, you are right 'natural ability' is a tough value to measure. Both natural ability and work ethic have to be there in order to achieve success in ANY field. If one is lacking, the other has to pick up the slack. But that doesn't mean if you have high test scores and you are lazy bum you going to make it.


On the other hand, I understand that people come to the correct answer in many different ways. Intelligence shouldn't be thought of has a specific "way" or "method" of solving a problem, nor should it be thought of as how quickly someone can answer it. In that sense, if two people can arrive at the same correct answer, one doing it slowly on paper and the other doing it instantly in their head, I don't think this should be used as an indication of any difference in their ability. They are simply using different strategies.


Absolutely, I am one of those people that has to come up with the answer slowly on paper. Yes, I do have to work harder and longer than some of co-wokers who can come up with answer in their head. But as I have said before, this hasn't hurt me one bit.

As far as I am concerned, the tests I took worked, they measure intelligence and test taking abiliy, NOT drive and motivation.





[edit on 14-4-2005 by KyleChemist]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by KyleChemist

It depends on the program and the school. Most graduate programs in the sciences, are not very competitive due to lack of US applicants. In fact most graduate programs have to try and recruit more graduate students to fill all the slots, thus the large number of foreign grad students. The GRE may or may not be just a formality, but letters of recommendation and undergraduate research definanlty carry much more weight. Even more so than GPA. In fact a high GRE can accutally hurt you in some cases. If you have a high GRE, but a low GPA, no undergraduate research, and dismal letters of recommendation (I knew A LOT of people like this) you get labled SLACKER, and you can kiss your chances of getting into a top school goodbye.


Agreed.



Yes, you are right 'natural ability' is a tough value to measure. Both natural ability and work ethic have to be there in order to achieve success in ANY field. If one is lacking, the other has to pick up the slack. But that doesn't mean if you have high test scores and you are lazy bum you going to make it.


Again, agreed.



Absolutely, I am one of those people that has to come up with the answer slowly on paper. Yes, I do have to work harder and longer than some of co-wokers who can come up with answer in their head. But as I have said before, this hasn't hurt me one bit.

As far as I am concerned, the tests I took worked, they measure intelligence and test taking abiliy, NOT drive and motivation.


Again, I agree. I think we have come to sort of a synthesis here. Except perhaps the last sentence " they measure intelligence and test taking abiliy (sic)." My whole point is that YOU ARE INTELLIGENT and that tests should be picking up on this. This is the problem with intelligence tests... some people slip through (and on the other side of the spectrum, people slip by as being "highly intelligent" who never do anything). I sympathize with you because I'm also one of the people who needs to do things out on paper, slowly, with a great deal of thought.

I think that we can both agree that intelligence tests need to be improved so that they can pick up cases such as yours. This means that they need bigger and diverse sample sizes, and they need more rigorous follow-up procedures. When these things are in place, intelligence tests can be restandardized to predict what they are supposed to predict.

Intelligence tests are not perfect by any means, but that doesn't mean they are worthless. They will get better with time. I predict that they will soon rely on genetic and biological variables as well, which aren't subject to the kinds of variation that psychological variables are. I also predict that they will become a stronger force in predicting educational outcomes in the U.S., especially due to the new emphasis on testing that policies like "No Child Left Behind" are having.

We will be entering new ground soon. Standardized testing will be administered less and less in the classroom and more in the laboratory, I think. This is why this is a crucial issue.

KyleChemist, I appreciate all of your input and feedback.

phaedrus



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   
I really do find enjoyment in the fact that many people confide in a three digit number that seems to dictate one's position on the intellectual ladder. IQ's mean nothing ... to dwell on the fact that your number is lower or higher than the other guy's number, and/or to judge who you are by it, is rather ridiculous.

So taking these classifications of 'genius' into consideration ... let me ask you this. Who's more 'genius', a man with an IQ of 100 (average) whom happens to succesfully create an alternative to gasoline using corn (although it's already been done) ... or a man with an IQ of 175 whom sits at his house all day everyday with a bottle of Jimmy Beam at his side, thinking about how misserable and meaningless his life is because he can, and believe he has, learned almost everything there is to know in life without trying? And don't even try to say that no incredably 'genius' people spend their days getting liquored up ... I know a couple myself.

It doesn't matter whether or not some guy with 'credentials' says you're genius .... it matters what you do with what you have.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grey
I really do find enjoyment in the fact that many people confide in a three digit number that seems to dictate one's position on the intellectual ladder. IQ's mean nothing ... to dwell on the fact that your number is lower or higher than the other guy's number, and/or to judge who you are by it, is rather ridiculous.

So taking these classifications of 'genius' into consideration ... let me ask you this. Who's more 'genius', a man with an IQ of 100 (average) whom happens to succesfully create an alternative to gasoline using corn (although it's already been done) ... or a man with an IQ of 175 whom sits at his house all day everyday with a bottle of Jimmy Beam at his side, thinking about how misserable and meaningless his life is because he can, and believe he has, learned almost everything there is to know in life without trying? And don't even try to say that no incredably 'genius' people spend their days getting liquored up ... I know a couple myself.

It doesn't matter whether or not some guy with 'credentials' says you're genius .... it matters what you do with what you have.


The point is that IQ should help predict different outcomes. In fact, people identified as extremely gifted based only on their performance on SATs at age 12-13 get three times as many patents in their adult lives as compared to their peers. (I don't have the exact reference for that, but the data is from the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth, look up the names Lubinski, D. or Stanley, J.)

Also, IQ doesn't predict any kind of susceptibility to alcoholism or other addictions that could seriously alter the path of someone's life, so the fact that some people with high IQs are alcoholics and are unproductive does not affect the construct validity of IQ.

phaedrus



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Good thread, this is very interesting


Keep the post coming, I love reading about this.

Thanks, your friend Liquid



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   
This is a very good thread, excellent work

im bumping this up, to keep it top





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join