I don't think it was meant for vanity. There's a history of people misusing the IQ test (racism, eugenics). The test was originally used to help school children. I like what Steven Hawking said “People who boast about their I.Q. are losers.” — Wheatley

I can imagine practical uses for the test, like steering children through some system.

But when adults give it too much thought, I imagine they've never done intellectual work with smart people. When you are kid and no one trusts you with anything real, they give you a pencil and a test. In the real world, there are actual, difficult problems to be solved...as well as financial rewards for solving them (or the adoration of the curer of cancer, etc.)

:lol:

I've always felt it's counterintuitive that one person in fifty would have a genius level IQ. — Janus

I know what you mean. 'Genius' makes me think especially of artistic genius (Van Gogh, etc.). It's hilariously banal to apply this old word to someone who merely aces an abstract pattern recognition test. Obviously it's cool to do well, but still....

Have you heard of John Von Neumann? — Shawn

I've heard that Von Neumann was to brilliant people as brilliant people are to normal people, and it's the brilliant people who said so (and who else would be in a position to do so?).

Probably Von Neumann would or did destroy an IQ test, but that's trivial compared to the work he did, which is what surely impressed those brilliant people who could half-understand him (or rather understand him by taking much longer than he did to arrive at the thought.)

But when adults give it too much thought, I imagine they've never done intellectual work with smart people. — hanaH

Perhaps.

When you are kid and no one trusts you with anything real, they give you a pencil and a test. — hanaH

Exactly! The video I posted early, physicist Michio Kaku argues that IQ is merely "bookkeeping" ability. He mentions other forms of intelligence (such as planning and scheming).

In the real world, there are actual, difficult problems to be solved...as well as financial rewards for solving them. — hanaH

Yeah, and some problems require other brain abilities (besides IQ): coordination, organization, time management, rational thinking, etc..

I've heard that Von Neumann was to brilliant people as brilliant people are to normal people, and it's the brilliant people who said so (and who else would be in a position to do so?).

Probably Von Neumann would or did destroy an IQ test, but that's trivial compared to the work he did, which is what surely impressed those brilliant people who could half-understand him (or rather understand him by taking much longer than he did to arrive at the thought.) — hanaH

Yes, he was called Johnny by his peers at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project.

It's amazing how quickly he understood the implications of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem's right after his seminar.

Exactly! The video I posted early, physicist Michio Kaku argues that IQ is merely "bookkeeping" ability. He mentions other forms of intelligence (such as planning and scheming) — Wheatley

Just watched it. Nice vid!

Yeah, and some problems require other brain abilities (besides IQ): coordination, organization, time management, rational thinking, etc.. — Wheatley

Right. So the test, maybe good for some things, is maybe just overblown.

"Smith just cured cancer. Now let's see what he can do with an IQ test...."

It's amazing how quickly he understood the implications of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem's right after his seminar. — Shawn

Yeah, that's what I had in mind. I also am becoming more interested in economics and game theory...as something like the heart of reality...and that makes me relate to him (on the level of interest anyway.) I also like CS, and he was deep in that. A god among men, a superman, an anomaly.

SQ (stupidity quotient) tests taken at the end of primary school, again at the end of secondary school and then lastly at the end of professional school (e.g. law, medicine, finance, a research science) would be, IMO, far more useful to society as a criterion for disqualifying idiots from being allowed to squat in high places since, apparently, it is the well above average level of stupidity endemic in the intellectual (bureaucratic) & decision-making classes that is chiefly responsible for the persistently deplorable state of many developed societies (re: climate change, WMD proliferation, human trafficking, neoliberalization, etc). :mask:

Amen :up:

:clap:

Facts. Well said.

Right. So the test, maybe good for some things, is maybe just overblown. — hanaH

Who knows?

So, essentially your not happy with the test or criteria?

it is the well above average level of stupidity endemic in the intellectual (bureaucratic) & decision-making classes that is chiefly responsible for the persistently deplorable state of many developed societies (re: climate change, WMD proliferation, human trafficking, neoliberalization, etc). :mask: — 180 Proof

Most likely that and the well above average level of complacency and corruption in those classes. That said, I guess complacency and corruption could arguably be seen as functions of stupidity. :wink:

Does the perpetually nodding imbecile there have a high IQ?

I don't know man. It's Jack fucking Nicholson, so who gives two shits?

Are you?

It wouldn't be an intelligence test if it was about, as you say, "

deplorable state of many developed societies (re: climate change, WMD proliferation, human trafficking, neoliberalization, etc) — 180 Proof

"

So, your argument is a non sequitur, no?

What your basically asking for is a competency test, no @180 Proof?

I don't think so. That you've quoted me out of context amounts to a non sequitur.

But, you do agree that what you describe as a competency test doesn't amount in any manner to psychometric IQ testing?

Stupidity test. Stupidity. Test. How you get "competency" from that only you would know, Mr. "160". :roll:

So, I take it your not happy with the test...

5:00 psychometrics is not useful for judging individuals. It's useful at scale (studying populations).

IQ tests are irrelevant because they are not predictive. As Michio Kaku says "they are just bookkeeping".

Predictive of what?

IQ tests are not predictive of anything useful to either the test taker or society. MENSA is merely a club for high aptitude underachievers. Big whup.

So, since you use the term, "high aptitude" I suppose you see this as non relevant to academic achievement? I mean, the correlation is pretty strong between the two.

For such a self-described "high IQ" fella you sure do make a lot of hasty generalizations, Shawn.