Quest to find the smartest person on AnandTech.

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Standarized tests like IQ or ACT/SAT don't prove jack shizzle. I sucked at all 3, yet somehow I graduated with a 3.92 in my mba and am a level3 cfa candidate.

The new SAT has a very low correlation with IQ tests, but the previous two versions had high correlations. There is a .5 correlation between IQ and grades, so don't think good grades automatically proves that you have a high IQ too.

A .5 correlation with something is a pretty high correlation. Now, if the correlation was .1, then I'd say it was "very low". Statistically speaking, saying something is correlated with another on a magnatude of .5, is pretty high.

Sure, good grades doesn't prove you have a high IQ. However, good grades in a graudate level education, competing with other graduate level students in a good school probably shows you are higher intelligence than most.

If we were talking high-school gpa, that'd be something else. If we were talking underwater basket weaving, again, something else.

A .5 correlation is moderately high, but definitely not "very high." The average IQ of someone with a Ph.D. is between 128 and 131, SD 15... in the world of high intelligence, that is below average. The average IQ obtained on high-range IQ tests (ones that measure up to and above 4 standard deviations) is about 142 to 144, SD 15.

Where did I say "very high? I know people love putting words in other's mouths, but you are going a bit far. Do you have evidence of your Ph.D. numbers? I'd love to see proof of that, not to mention your sd numbers. I'd never really equate a PhD in most fields to somebody that was super smart, PhD is a research degree, which does require a high intellect, but not at the very top end. Furthermore, IQ tests a wider range of topics, requiring a more well-rounded individual, not just field specific, so i wouldn't be too surprised at a difference.

How are you coming up with your "SD" numbers? What is your sample size, how is your sample generated? Is it skewed? Why are you assuming that IQ = intelligence, do you have a null hypothesis that it doesn't? What are your critical values? What are your p-values? Are you more likely to commit a type I or type II error in your hypothesis if you even considered the fact that IQ isn't directly correlated to actual intelligence? I have known many "intelligent" people that suck at life.

As the poster mentioned above, you may think you are pretty badass by coming on a forum and spouting "SD", but to me, it's just something to increase your e-penis. Util you can do GARCH tests in your head, or you know multi-variable statistical rules by heart, you aren't jack.

 

[Dofuss3000]

Here is one.

NO CHEATING ALLOWED!!!

If I find that someone has cheated, I will forget the entire thread.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
Here is one.

NO CHEATING ALLOWED!!!

If I find that someone has cheated, I will forget the entire thread.

The smartest will cheat and not get caught. :evil:

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Standarized tests like IQ or ACT/SAT don't prove jack shizzle. I sucked at all 3, yet somehow I graduated with a 3.92 in my mba and am a level3 cfa candidate.

The new SAT has a very low correlation with IQ tests, but the previous two versions had high correlations. There is a .5 correlation between IQ and grades, so don't think good grades automatically proves that you have a high IQ too.

A .5 correlation with something is a pretty high correlation. Now, if the correlation was .1, then I'd say it was "very low". Statistically speaking, saying something is correlated with another on a magnatude of .5, is pretty high.

Sure, good grades doesn't prove you have a high IQ. However, good grades in a graudate level education, competing with other graduate level students in a good school probably shows you are higher intelligence than most.

If we were talking high-school gpa, that'd be something else. If we were talking underwater basket weaving, again, something else.

A .5 correlation is moderately high, but definitely not "very high." The average IQ of someone with a Ph.D. is between 128 and 131, SD 15... in the world of high intelligence, that is below average. The average IQ obtained on high-range IQ tests (ones that measure up to and above 4 standard deviations) is about 142 to 144, SD 15.

Where did I say "very high? I know people love putting words in other's mouths, but you are going a bit far. Do you have evidence of your Ph.D. numbers? I'd love to see proof of that, not to mention your sd numbers. I'd never really equate a PhD in most fields to somebody that was super smart, PhD is a research degree, which does require a high intellect, but not at the very top end. Furthermore, IQ tests a wider range of topics, requiring a more well-rounded individual, not just field specific, so i wouldn't be too surprised at a difference.

You said "pretty high." Let me find the link to the GRE statistics I found awhile ago.

Link to high-range IQ test distributions

 

[FP]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
I expect the smartest person on these forums to have an IQ of about 165, SD of 15. But since this is a high-end internet forum, it may be as high as 166 to 171, SD of 15.

Shut the fvck up with your standard deviation you pretentious prick. Talk about unnecessary wordy bullsh1t. "I expect [...] about [...]" would have been sufficient. No one thinks you deserve a spot in the running. I'm like... fvcking borderline retarded and I understand SD. Do you raise your hand in class, answer a question, and then give the prof a random SD value based on how accurate you think your answer is? I fvcking hate pretentious pseudo-intellects.

God damnit... my tequila buzz is completely gone. I fvcking hate coming down from a buzz while I'm still awake.

Also, your thread sucks. I predict 99% bullsh1t, with an SD of +/-1%.

Lollerskates! So true...

Reminds me of "I'm coming up 32.33 repeating of course % of survival..."

I'm the Leeroy Jenkins to your repeating 33 op!

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Standarized tests like IQ or ACT/SAT don't prove jack shizzle. I sucked at all 3, yet somehow I graduated with a 3.92 in my mba and am a level3 cfa candidate.

The new SAT has a very low correlation with IQ tests, but the previous two versions had high correlations. There is a .5 correlation between IQ and grades, so don't think good grades automatically proves that you have a high IQ too.

A .5 correlation with something is a pretty high correlation. Now, if the correlation was .1, then I'd say it was "very low". Statistically speaking, saying something is correlated with another on a magnatude of .5, is pretty high.

Sure, good grades doesn't prove you have a high IQ. However, good grades in a graudate level education, competing with other graduate level students in a good school probably shows you are higher intelligence than most.

If we were talking high-school gpa, that'd be something else. If we were talking underwater basket weaving, again, something else.

A .5 correlation is moderately high, but definitely not "very high." The average IQ of someone with a Ph.D. is between 128 and 131, SD 15... in the world of high intelligence, that is below average. The average IQ obtained on high-range IQ tests (ones that measure up to and above 4 standard deviations) is about 142 to 144, SD 15.

Where did I say "very high? I know people love putting words in other's mouths, but you are going a bit far. Do you have evidence of your Ph.D. numbers? I'd love to see proof of that, not to mention your sd numbers. I'd never really equate a PhD in most fields to somebody that was super smart, PhD is a research degree, which does require a high intellect, but not at the very top end. Furthermore, IQ tests a wider range of topics, requiring a more well-rounded individual, not just field specific, so i wouldn't be too surprised at a difference.

You said "pretty high." Let me find the link to the GRE statistics I found awhile ago.

Link to high-range IQ test distributions

Heh, 1 poorly written and little detailed "study" that does nothing more than piggyback off of somebody else's research, itself probably poorly written. Statistics do not mean crap unless you get sample information and actual testing methologies, including potential extraneous traits.

Now, you quoted me originally at "very high" and countered that. Now you go down to "pretty high" which I did say. .5 *IS* pretty high, so what is it?

You failed your own intelligence thread.

/thread

 

[sisq0kidd]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: Kalmah

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: KK
look no further

Do you have an IQ or aptitude test to prove it?

Ask me a question.

What is your favorite color!???

Elephant

LMFAO

That had me rollin! I don't know why.

 

[Reckoner]

This is now the "Pictures of scantily clad women" thread


Pics

 

[sisq0kidd]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
I expect the smartest person on these forums to have an IQ of about 165, SD of 15. But since this is a high-end internet forum, it may be as high as 166 to 171, SD of 15.

Shut the fvck up with your standard deviation you pretentious prick. Talk about unnecessary wordy bullsh1t. "I expect [...] about [...]" would have been sufficient. No one thinks you deserve a spot in the running. I'm like... fvcking borderline retarded and I understand SD. Do you raise your hand in class, answer a question, and then give the prof a random SD value based on how accurate you think your answer is? I fvcking hate pretentious pseudo-intellects.

God damnit... my tequila buzz is completely gone. I fvcking hate coming down from a buzz while I'm still awake.

Also, your thread sucks. I predict 99% bullsh1t, with an SD of +/-1%.

This had me rollin too! :laugh:

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
This is now the "Pictures of scantily clad women" thread


Pics

I like this test

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Sure, good grades doesn't prove you have a high IQ. However, good grades in a graudate level education, competing with other graduate level students in a good school probably shows you are higher intelligence than most.

If we were talking high-school gpa, that'd be something else. If we were talking underwater basket weaving, again, something else.

You do realize you're talking about a MBA, yes?

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Standarized tests like IQ or ACT/SAT don't prove jack shizzle. I sucked at all 3, yet somehow I graduated with a 3.92 in my mba and am a level3 cfa candidate.

The new SAT has a very low correlation with IQ tests, but the previous two versions had high correlations. There is a .5 correlation between IQ and grades, so don't think good grades automatically proves that you have a high IQ too.

A .5 correlation with something is a pretty high correlation. Now, if the correlation was .1, then I'd say it was "very low". Statistically speaking, saying something is correlated with another on a magnatude of .5, is pretty high.

Sure, good grades doesn't prove you have a high IQ. However, good grades in a graudate level education, competing with other graduate level students in a good school probably shows you are higher intelligence than most.

If we were talking high-school gpa, that'd be something else. If we were talking underwater basket weaving, again, something else.

A .5 correlation is moderately high, but definitely not "very high." The average IQ of someone with a Ph.D. is between 128 and 131, SD 15... in the world of high intelligence, that is below average. The average IQ obtained on high-range IQ tests (ones that measure up to and above 4 standard deviations) is about 142 to 144, SD 15.

Where did I say "very high? I know people love putting words in other's mouths, but you are going a bit far. Do you have evidence of your Ph.D. numbers? I'd love to see proof of that, not to mention your sd numbers. I'd never really equate a PhD in most fields to somebody that was super smart, PhD is a research degree, which does require a high intellect, but not at the very top end. Furthermore, IQ tests a wider range of topics, requiring a more well-rounded individual, not just field specific, so i wouldn't be too surprised at a difference.

You said "pretty high." Let me find the link to the GRE statistics I found awhile ago.

Link to high-range IQ test distributions

Heh, 1 poorly written and little detailed "study" that does nothing more than piggyback off of somebody else's research, itself probably poorly written. Statistics do not mean crap unless you get sample information and actual testing methologies, including potential extraneous traits.

Now, you quoted me originally at "very high" and countered that. Now you go down to "pretty high" which I did say. .5 *IS* pretty high, so what is it?

You failed your own intelligence thread.

/thread

Oh, you used a different word, I am so sorry. Don't they basically mean *exactly* the same thing? Stop playing silly semantic games with me and address the real issue at hand. I just think you don't like the notion of IQ, as do most people in the world because they don't like the truth that much smarter people than them exist. The guy that did that report is reporting statistics from his own tests, by the way. He also created the most selective IQ society in the world and his IQ tests measure up into that range of intelligence (one out of a billion).

The average GRE score for Ph.D.s seems to be around 1230 to 1270 or, if converted to an IQ score, is 129 to 133, SD 15. link

 

[Reckoner]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Standarized tests like IQ or ACT/SAT don't prove jack shizzle. I sucked at all 3, yet somehow I graduated with a 3.92 in my mba and am a level3 cfa candidate.

The new SAT has a very low correlation with IQ tests, but the previous two versions had high correlations. There is a .5 correlation between IQ and grades, so don't think good grades automatically proves that you have a high IQ too.

A .5 correlation with something is a pretty high correlation. Now, if the correlation was .1, then I'd say it was "very low". Statistically speaking, saying something is correlated with another on a magnatude of .5, is pretty high.

Sure, good grades doesn't prove you have a high IQ. However, good grades in a graudate level education, competing with other graduate level students in a good school probably shows you are higher intelligence than most.

If we were talking high-school gpa, that'd be something else. If we were talking underwater basket weaving, again, something else.

A .5 correlation is moderately high, but definitely not "very high." The average IQ of someone with a Ph.D. is between 128 and 131, SD 15... in the world of high intelligence, that is below average. The average IQ obtained on high-range IQ tests (ones that measure up to and above 4 standard deviations) is about 142 to 144, SD 15.

Where did I say "very high? I know people love putting words in other's mouths, but you are going a bit far. Do you have evidence of your Ph.D. numbers? I'd love to see proof of that, not to mention your sd numbers. I'd never really equate a PhD in most fields to somebody that was super smart, PhD is a research degree, which does require a high intellect, but not at the very top end. Furthermore, IQ tests a wider range of topics, requiring a more well-rounded individual, not just field specific, so i wouldn't be too surprised at a difference.

You said "pretty high." Let me find the link to the GRE statistics I found awhile ago.

Link to high-range IQ test distributions

Heh, 1 poorly written and little detailed "study" that does nothing more than piggyback off of somebody else's research, itself probably poorly written. Statistics do not mean crap unless you get sample information and actual testing methologies, including potential extraneous traits.

Now, you quoted me originally at "very high" and countered that. Now you go down to "pretty high" which I did say. .5 *IS* pretty high, so what is it?

You failed your own intelligence thread.

/thread

Oh, you used a different word, I am so sorry. Don't they basically mean *exactly* the same thing? Stop playing silly semantic games with me and address the real issue at hand. I just think you don't like the notion of IQ, as do most people in the world because they don't like the truth that much smarter people than them exist. The guy that did that report is reporting statistics from his own tests, by the way. He also created the most selective IQ society in the world and his IQ tests measure up into that range of intelligence (one out of a billion).

I've seen a lot of book smart people accompanied with the common sense skills of a gnat. In the end, we're all bottom feeder to ants and various insects anyways. Why does sh!t like this matter?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Oh, you used a different word, I am so sorry. Don't they basically mean *exactly* the same thing? Stop playing silly semantic games with me and address the real issue at hand. I just think you don't like the notion of IQ, as do most people in the world because they don't like the truth that much smarter people than them exist. The guy that did that report is reporting statistics from his own test, by the way. He also created the most selective IQ society in the world and his IQ tests measure up into that range of intelligence (one out of a billion).

It is a large distinction. If I make a pretty large amount of money or I make a very large amount of money, I am talking about two different things. So it isn't silly semantics. Furthermore, you attempted to undercut my argument by putting my "quote" out of context of relativity, something which you failed miserably at, since you not only misquoted me, but you also didn't understand the framing of the context.

Second, the most selective IQ society by who's definition? I don't give a flying fluck who gets into IQ societies, because from what I have seen, they are nothing more than an exercise in mental masturbation intended to inflate ideas of self-importance. Big whoopdy fluck.

Furthermore, has he given his test to the 6 people that would qualify for the highest level? If not, how can he validate that? Or is it merely theory?

What if he's already had 6 people qualify for that stratification and only tested 1 billion people, does that mean his statisitcal analysis is incorrect? Should we then re-adjust?

Where is his data? It seems to me that you are somebody who places way too high of importance on IQ and you are trying to prove your self-worth. Give it up sparky.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Sure, good grades doesn't prove you have a high IQ. However, good grades in a graudate level education, competing with other graduate level students in a good school probably shows you are higher intelligence than most.

If we were talking high-school gpa, that'd be something else. If we were talking underwater basket weaving, again, something else.

You do realize you're talking about a MBA, yes?

No, I was thinking I was talking about a mail-order MBA certificate.

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Standarized tests like IQ or ACT/SAT don't prove jack shizzle. I sucked at all 3, yet somehow I graduated with a 3.92 in my mba and am a level3 cfa candidate.

The new SAT has a very low correlation with IQ tests, but the previous two versions had high correlations. There is a .5 correlation between IQ and grades, so don't think good grades automatically proves that you have a high IQ too.

A .5 correlation with something is a pretty high correlation. Now, if the correlation was .1, then I'd say it was "very low". Statistically speaking, saying something is correlated with another on a magnatude of .5, is pretty high.

Sure, good grades doesn't prove you have a high IQ. However, good grades in a graudate level education, competing with other graduate level students in a good school probably shows you are higher intelligence than most.

If we were talking high-school gpa, that'd be something else. If we were talking underwater basket weaving, again, something else.

A .5 correlation is moderately high, but definitely not "very high." The average IQ of someone with a Ph.D. is between 128 and 131, SD 15... in the world of high intelligence, that is below average. The average IQ obtained on high-range IQ tests (ones that measure up to and above 4 standard deviations) is about 142 to 144, SD 15.

Where did I say "very high? I know people love putting words in other's mouths, but you are going a bit far. Do you have evidence of your Ph.D. numbers? I'd love to see proof of that, not to mention your sd numbers. I'd never really equate a PhD in most fields to somebody that was super smart, PhD is a research degree, which does require a high intellect, but not at the very top end. Furthermore, IQ tests a wider range of topics, requiring a more well-rounded individual, not just field specific, so i wouldn't be too surprised at a difference.

You said "pretty high." Let me find the link to the GRE statistics I found awhile ago.

Link to high-range IQ test distributions

Heh, 1 poorly written and little detailed "study" that does nothing more than piggyback off of somebody else's research, itself probably poorly written. Statistics do not mean crap unless you get sample information and actual testing methologies, including potential extraneous traits.

Now, you quoted me originally at "very high" and countered that. Now you go down to "pretty high" which I did say. .5 *IS* pretty high, so what is it?

You failed your own intelligence thread.

/thread

Oh, you used a different word, I am so sorry. Don't they basically mean *exactly* the same thing? Stop playing silly semantic games with me and address the real issue at hand. I just think you don't like the notion of IQ, as do most people in the world because they don't like the truth that much smarter people than them exist. The guy that did that report is reporting statistics from his own tests, by the way. He also created the most selective IQ society in the world and his IQ tests measure up into that range of intelligence (one out of a billion).

I've seen a lot of book smart people accompanied with the common sense skills of a gnat. In the end, we're all bottom feeder to ants and various insects anyways. Why does sh!t like this matter?

Progress and human ego.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000


Progress and human ego.

How does progress feed into it? For the fact that a bunch of "smart" people can go around claiming they are better than anybody else, which of course feeds into the human ego? Wow, great job. All you have done is taken self-preening egotistical maniacs and placed them on a high pedestal of self-grandeur.

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Oh, you used a different word, I am so sorry. Don't they basically mean *exactly* the same thing? Stop playing silly semantic games with me and address the real issue at hand. I just think you don't like the notion of IQ, as do most people in the world because they don't like the truth that much smarter people than them exist. The guy that did that report is reporting statistics from his own test, by the way. He also created the most selective IQ society in the world and his IQ tests measure up into that range of intelligence (one out of a billion).

It is a large distinction. If I make a pretty large amount of money or I make a very large amount of money, I am talking about two different things. So it isn't silly semantics. Furthermore, you attempted to undercut my argument by putting my "quote" out of context of relativity, something which you failed miserably at, since you not only misquoted me, but you also didn't understand the framing of the context.

Second, the most selective IQ society by who's definition? I don't give a flying fluck who gets into IQ societies, because from what I have seen, they are nothing more than an exercise in mental masturbation intended to inflate ideas of self-importance. Big whoopdy fluck.

Furthermore, has he given his test to the 6 people that would qualify for the highest level? If not, how can he validate that? Or is it merely theory?

What if he's already had 6 people qualify for that stratification and only tested 1 billion people, does that mean his statisitcal analysis is incorrect? Should we then re-adjust?

Where is his data? It seems to me that you are somebody who places way too high of importance on IQ and you are trying to prove your self-worth. Give it up sparky.

It is a large distinction. If I make a pretty large amount of money or I make a very large amount of money, I am talking about two different things. So it isn't silly semantics. Furthermore, you attempted to undercut my argument by putting my "quote" out of context of relativity, something which you failed miserably at, since you not only misquoted me, but you also didn't understand the framing of the context.

Now you are assuming to know what I think. All I am saying is both words mean exactly or almost exactly the same thing and this is just a semantic argument...

Second, the most selective IQ society by who's definition? I don't give a flying fluck who gets into IQ societies, because from what I have seen, they are nothing more than an exercise in mental masturbation intended to inflate ideas of self-importance. Big whoopdy fluck.

By the definition of all of the high IQ societies in existence. Yeah, most people are there for ego related problems, but that doesn't change the fact that they are extremely intelligent.

Statistics will always be a flawed by some degree or another... the only way you could make sure they are not is by testing everyone under the same conditions... impossible.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Standarized tests like IQ or ACT/SAT don't prove jack shizzle. I sucked at all 3, yet somehow I graduated with a 3.92 in my mba and am a level3 cfa candidate.

Actually I'd say GPA is the one that doesn't equate to any kind of intelligence necessarily. The only thing grades indicates is your ability to earn grades. IQ is something entirely different.

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000


Progress and human ego.

How does progress feed into it? For the fact that a bunch of "smart" people can go around claiming they are better than anybody else, which of course feeds into the human ego? Wow, great job. All you have done is taken self-preening egotistical maniacs and placed them on a high pedestal of self-grandeur.

The more intelligent someone is, the more they can do during a single interval of time. The more intelligent we are, the more we can achieve. It is simple physics.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Standarized tests like IQ or ACT/SAT don't prove jack shizzle. I sucked at all 3, yet somehow I graduated with a 3.92 in my mba and am a level3 cfa candidate.

The new SAT has a very low correlation with IQ tests, but the previous two versions had high correlations. There is a .5 correlation between IQ and grades, so don't think good grades automatically proves that you have a high IQ too.

A .5 correlation with something is a pretty high correlation. Now, if the correlation was .1, then I'd say it was "very low". Statistically speaking, saying something is correlated with another on a magnatude of .5, is pretty high.

Sure, good grades doesn't prove you have a high IQ. However, good grades in a graudate level education, competing with other graduate level students in a good school probably shows you are higher intelligence than most.

If we were talking high-school gpa, that'd be something else. If we were talking underwater basket weaving, again, something else.

A .5 correlation is moderately high, but definitely not "very high." The average IQ of someone with a Ph.D. is between 128 and 131, SD 15... in the world of high intelligence, that is below average. The average IQ obtained on high-range IQ tests (ones that measure up to and above 4 standard deviations) is about 142 to 144, SD 15.

Where did I say "very high? I know people love putting words in other's mouths, but you are going a bit far. Do you have evidence of your Ph.D. numbers? I'd love to see proof of that, not to mention your sd numbers. I'd never really equate a PhD in most fields to somebody that was super smart, PhD is a research degree, which does require a high intellect, but not at the very top end. Furthermore, IQ tests a wider range of topics, requiring a more well-rounded individual, not just field specific, so i wouldn't be too surprised at a difference.

How are you coming up with your "SD" numbers? What is your sample size, how is your sample generated? Is it skewed? Why are you assuming that IQ = intelligence, do you have a null hypothesis that it doesn't? What are your critical values? What are your p-values? Are you more likely to commit a type I or type II error in your hypothesis if you even considered the fact that IQ isn't directly correlated to actual intelligence? I have known many "intelligent" people that suck at life.

As the poster mentioned above, you may think you are pretty badass by coming on a forum and spouting "SD", but to me, it's just something to increase your e-penis. Util you can do GARCH tests in your head, or you know multi-variable statistical rules by heart, you aren't jack.

Wow, expect the world to live by your own limited scope much? I agree with a lot of what you said, but YOU don't get to set the qualifications for intelligence. A lot of people much smarter than you or I have already done that, and THAT's EXACTLY what he's asking for. If you don't like it, go dedicate your life to coming up with something better. Otherwise go crap somewhere else.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Standarized tests like IQ or ACT/SAT don't prove jack shizzle. I sucked at all 3, yet somehow I graduated with a 3.92 in my mba and am a level3 cfa candidate.

Actually I'd say GPA is the one that doesn't equate to any kind of intelligence necessarily. The only thing grades indicates is your ability to earn grades. IQ is something entirely different.

Again, it depends. I have seen "intelligent" people score high on IQ and utterly fail in life. I have seen low IQ people succeed immensely.

I have never been tested for IQ, but my ACT was a 27 with a HS gpa of 2.9, my undergrad GPA was 2.72, GMAT was 720, grad was 3.92, and I have passed two levels of the CFA exam on the 1st try and am currently waiting the result of level 3. Within 3 years into my professional career I have moved up 4 levels, from a Jr. Analyst to a manager.

Personally, I don't think intelligence matters nearly as much as motivation. This is fed off of desire to like what you learn. My undergrad was psychology, I hated it, thus I performed poorly. However, finance rung true, and I did awesome.

Some people will fail miserably at an IQ test. Why? Perhaps the questions aren't for them, but they are incredibly bright in other areas. Perhaps they are dyslexic, or have other reading/comprehension issues, but are otherwise uber-smart.

People place *way* too much emphasis on a number.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000


Progress and human ego.

How does progress feed into it? For the fact that a bunch of "smart" people can go around claiming they are better than anybody else, which of course feeds into the human ego? Wow, great job. All you have done is taken self-preening egotistical maniacs and placed them on a high pedestal of self-grandeur.

The more intelligent someone is, the more they can do during a single interval of time. The more intelligent we are, the more we can achieve. It is simple physics.

One has nothing to do with another. Processing speed has nothing to do with the ability to grasp complex topics in certain fields. Furthermore, it isn't phisics. It's a combination of pysiological and psychological attributes.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Wow, expect the world to live by your own limited scope much? I agree with a lot of what you said, but YOU don't get to set the qualifications for intelligence. A lot of people much smarter than you or I have already done that, and THAT's EXACTLY what he's asking for. If you don't like it, go dedicate your life to coming up with something better. Otherwise go crap somewhere else.

But you are making the assumption that their testing criteria are correct and that they capture the essence of intelligence. Frankly, I do not see that as a correct assumption. I have known way too many "intelligent" people belonging to "IQ societies" that utterly suck at life. Furthermore, the arrogance of yourself assuming that I am less intelligent that those who designed a "perfect system" that can't be unquestioned in your mind only highlights the fact that you yourself fall into the hubris of self-importance, or the mantra of it by IQ societies.

Pigeonhole yourself sparky, not me.

You could call my experienced anecdotal evidence, but it's true from my perspective. Furthermore, all true statisticians realize the fallacy of their testing, even true well-rounded personality diagnostic inventories realize the inherent statistical problems, the biggest of which is framing of the question. This can be mitigated (but not eliminated) by asking the same question from different contextual circumstances.

As the saying goes, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Personally, I don't think intelligence matters nearly as much as motivation. This is fed off of desire to like what you learn. My undergrad was psychology, I hated it, thus I performed poorly. However, finance rung true, and I did awesome.

I'll take one hard-workin man over 2 pretentious jackasses with hardons for their own "intelligence" any day of the week.

Not to say there aren't hard working geniuses out there. But the "geniuses" who care more about some test score than creating social progress are worthless. Their genes devoted to intelligence would have been better served going to someone else.