I suppose that. No because what is the intelligence ?
There are a lot of intelligence forms (Logical , Musical , Social , Emotional , Artistic etc...).

(May 6, 2013 at 4:05 pm)viocjit Wrote: I suppose that. No because what is the intelligence ?
There are a lot of intelligence forms (Logical , Musical , Social , Emotional , Artistic etc...).

Sometimes I think judging intelligence is choosing speakers. If you can't hear the difference, it doesn't make a difference. Same with smarts. If someone is hella smarter than me, all I'm going to hear is what I can understand. Oops, class about to start. Discuss among yourselves.

(May 6, 2013 at 3:05 pm)catfish Wrote:

(May 6, 2013 at 11:44 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: One must live in an odd sort of place where where the village idiot scores higher than the village wise man.

It is a thing we can observe in people. It is a characteristic of their personalities. The idea of trying to measure it was in fact a 20th c. idea but was a subset of the idea of trying to measure the intangibles, the stick a number to everything idea.

Seriously, look into the history of the IQ test (I never said your strawman up there, what's your IQ again?)...
.

In the monitored "puzzle" test it came out in the 190s. I don't think that much of the tests myself rather only that they serve as a general measure. I presume your opinion of me will cause you to share my skepticism at that score.

As to the history of IQ tests, I have. In the late 19th/early 20th century the idea of psychometrics and biometrics arose as an imitation of the progress the sciences were making by attaching numbers to things. Phrenology sort of came out of it too.

One of the earliest tests was used for WWI draftees. I doubt anyone could pass it today as it was way skewed to practical, accumulated knowledge of farmers using horses. It is on the web several places.

As for modern, general usage if a child does not score over 120 he should not consider a career in law or science for example. There are only a couple other such things for example if I recall correctly at least 130 for a career as a historian or archivist. Over that there is not much correlation with anything in particular. However from sports to entertainment to chef to science there is a general correlation with career success and IQ.

Other than annoy the politically correct egalitarians among us it has never been in a particularly abusive manner and I consider annoying them a good thing.

There are a few more details I can recall with time before reading to refresh my memory. What specifically is your interest?

I have found intelligence to be overrated in most instances. Those who claim to be intelligent tend to have a grandiose sense of self worth, while those who are truly intelligent claim to know little of anything.

(May 6, 2013 at 4:05 pm)viocjit Wrote: I suppose that. No because what is the intelligence ?
There are a lot of intelligence forms (Logical , Musical , Social , Emotional , Artistic etc...).

As soon as you can attach a numerical value to them you can publish and make a name for yourself. The point of IQ is not to say one person is smarter than another it is to quantify the difference.

Quantifying musical and artistic talent could be extremely useful. It could save lots of people from a disappointing career choice, Hitler for example. But emotional and social do not have any measurment value I can see.

(May 6, 2013 at 7:18 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: I have found intelligence to be overrated in most instances. Those who claim to be intelligent tend to have a grandiose sense of self worth, while those who are truly intelligent claim to know little of anything.

Quote:“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”


― Socrates

While I would not go as far as Socrates did, he does have a point. There is a certain value in understanding what one does not know, just as there is in understanding what one does.

(May 6, 2013 at 7:32 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

Quote:“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”

― Socrates

While I would not go as far as Socrates did, he does have a point. There is a certain value in understanding what one does not know, just as there is in understanding what one does.

Quote:One who knows and knows that he knows... This is a man of knowledge; get to know him!
One who knows, but doesn’t know that he knows... This is a man who’s unaware, so bring it to his attention.
One who doesn’t know, but knows that he doesn’t know... This is an illiterate man; teach him!
One who doesn’t know and doesn’t know that he doesn’t know... This is an ignorant man; and will be ignorant forever!

― Ibn Yamin Faryumadi (1286 - 1368 CE)

(May 6, 2013 at 7:13 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: There are a few more details I can recall with time before reading to refresh my memory. What specifically is your interest?

No interest other than to see if people know the IQ test was created to identify mental retardation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligen...ly_history

I look at this way, anyone who announces their IQ score is basicaly screaming "I'm not retarded!" which makes me doubt the accuracy of the test... (you're interpretation may vary)
.

(May 6, 2013 at 9:20 pm)catfish Wrote:

(May 6, 2013 at 7:13 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: There are a few more details I can recall with time before reading to refresh my memory. What specifically is your interest?

No interest other than to see if people know the IQ test was created to identify mental retardation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligen...ly_history

I look at this way, anyone who announces their IQ score is basicaly screaming "I'm not retarded!" which makes me doubt the accuracy of the test... (you're interpretation may vary)
.

You expect a high school level anonymous source to contain correct material. Perhaps that is an alternate measure of IQ.