Quest to find the smartest person on AnandTech.

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: 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.

Processing speed has everything to do with it. There are universal correlations between every measure of intelligence and working memory capacity. Everything boils down to physics.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
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.

Which is one of my main points. Intelligence can't just be measured upon one dimension, which is what more IQ inventories utilize, it must be measured as a whole-person. Motivated and hard-working people are much better than pretentious jackasses as you mentioned.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: 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.

Here's the thing:

No one placed any emphasis on the number in this thread, until you came in trying to de-emphasize it. The OP just wanted to find the highest IQ on ATOT. Is that number meaningless? To many yes, and in many ways, yes. In all and to all? No, not at all. The study of intelligence and IQ is valid and valuable. Not to predict who will 'succeed at life' (which, by the way, is absolutely a subjective measure and won't be based on the same criteria for any two people) but to help understand more about our brain functions and maybe to provide some insight into why some people do well at some things, and not so well at others.

Take for instance Gardners theory of mulitiple intelligences or sternbergs triarchic theory of intelligence. Both attempt to address your point about peoples scores on IQ tests not relating the whole picture of intelligence. These studies are very helpful to a number a fields of research. If everyone just ignored IQ and pretended there was no such thing, what would be lost?

As someone who has spent his life in 'gifted' programs I can attest that IQ IS a valid attribute that deserves study. People with exceptional IQ's (especially those over the 145 sweet spot) experience well documented issues that those of lower IQ's do not, in much the same way that those of extremely low IQ (under 80) experience problems that those of average IQ do not. If more money and research was spent on high intelligence studies maybe I would have had some options growing up and wouldn't have made such a mess of things. Maybe not of course, but there's a chance.

Just because a number isn't EVERYTHING doesn't mean it isn't SOMETHING. Relax. If you don't want to be a part of it, go elsewhere. No one is twisting your arm.

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
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.

Which is one of my main points. Intelligence can't just be measured upon one dimension, which is what more IQ inventories utilize, it must be measured as a whole-person. Motivated and hard-working people are much better than pretentious jackasses as you mentioned.

I completely agree... again, it just goes back to semantics. Intelligence is the ability to learn and make sense of the world, while personality traits are different than this ability.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Processing speed has everything to do with it. There are universal correlations between every measure of intelligence and working memory capacity. Everything boils down to physics.

How is it physics? Are you talking the speed at which chemicals go from one end of a neural receptor to another, firing the neurons, exciting brain cells?

I have seen people work fast and I have seen people work correctly. I have seen both types fail and both succeed. Processing speed is one dimension of intelligence.

You boil it down to just speed. So tell me, just because an Intel P4 was faster was it better than a Centrino or AMD processor? It had longer pipelines, which meant errors took longer to clear, it wasn't the most efficient. Speed isn't everything.

*YOU* may break it down to pysics, but the human psyche is so much more than that. I have a feeling you read some silly books that got you hooked on one dimension, forgetting the other 1,000 dimensions of intelligence.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
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.

Which is one of my main points. Intelligence can't just be measured upon one dimension, which is what more IQ inventories utilize, it must be measured as a whole-person. Motivated and hard-working people are much better than pretentious jackasses as you mentioned.

I completely agree... again, it just goes back to semantics. Intelligence is the ability to learn and make sense of the world, while personality traits are different than this ability.

Again, most intelligence inventories test the ability to learn upon limited experiences. My ability to "learn" psychology was severely hampered by my inability to gather desire to learn. However, my desire was strongly enhanced when speaking of finance.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
Here is one.

NO CHEATING ALLOWED!!!

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

I got 136. Where's my trophy?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: 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.

That's not entirely true. Process speed is correlated to high IQ, as is grasp of complexity. If you are highly intelligent you will likely think faster AND understand more. Not always (especially when breaking it down in a multiple intelligence theory) but often. For instance: exceptionally gifted individuals tend to develop at a much younger age. They completely skew Piaget's stages of development, often being able to contemplate the abstract at a very early age. This is usually coupled with quick processing speed as well. As they grow, so does their ability (as it becomes supported by more and more knowledge). Thus they not only think quicker, they eventually learn more and easier than someone of lower IQ.

That doesn't mean people can't grasp complexity without high IQ, nor is it a guarantee (everyone has strengths and weaknesses), but there is a high correlation.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Here's the thing:

No one placed any emphasis on the number in this thread, until you came in trying to de-emphasize it. The OP just wanted to find the highest IQ on ATOT. Is that number meaningless? To many yes, and in many ways, yes. In all and to all? No, not at all. The study of intelligence and IQ is valid and valuable. Not to predict who will 'succeed at life' (which, by the way, is absolutely a subjective measure and won't be based on the same criteria for any two people) but to help understand more about our brain functions and maybe to provide some insight into why some people do well at some things, and not so well at others.

Take for instance Gardners theory of mulitiple intelligences or sternbergs triarchic theory of intelligence. Both attempt to address your point about peoples scores on IQ tests not relating the whole picture of intelligence. These studies are very helpful to a number a fields of research. If everyone just ignored IQ and pretended there was no such thing, what would be lost?

As someone who has spent his life in 'gifted' programs I can attest that IQ IS a valid attribute that deserves study. People with exceptional IQ's (especially those over the 145 sweet spot) experience well documented issues that those of lower IQ's do not, in much the same way that those of extremely low IQ (under 80) experience problems that those of average IQ do not. If more money and research was spent on high intelligence studies maybe I would have had some options growing up and wouldn't have made such a mess of things. Maybe not of course, but there's a chance.

Just because a number isn't EVERYTHING doesn't mean it isn't SOMETHING. Relax. If you don't want to be a part of it, go elsewhere. No one is twisting your arm.

OP came into the thread spouting a hypothesis, complete with "SD" and all sorts of wannabe statistical genious. IQ is a poor measure of intelligence or the ability to learn. While it may have some statistical validity, it's application is poor and uneven. Extrapolating any kind of correlation from it is difficult and misses the point.

I never said anybody was forcing me to be here, nor did I say that I didn't want to be a part of it. Debating has nothing to do with either.

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Processing speed has everything to do with it. There are universal correlations between every measure of intelligence and working memory capacity. Everything boils down to physics.

How is it physics? Are you talking the speed at which chemicals go from one end of a neural receptor to another, firing the neurons, exciting brain cells?

I have seen people work fast and I have seen people work correctly. I have seen both types fail and both succeed. Processing speed is one dimension of intelligence.

You boil it down to just speed. So tell me, just because an Intel P4 was faster was it better than a Centrino or AMD processor? It had longer pipelines, which meant errors took longer to clear, it wasn't the most efficient. Speed isn't everything.

*YOU* may break it down to pysics, but the human psyche is so much more than that. I have a feeling you read some silly books that got you hooked on one dimension, forgetting the other 1,000 dimensions of intelligence.

By speed I don't mean how fast someone does a task, but by how fast your brain computes single units of information and by how much your working memory can hold at any given time. Doing a single mental task, like remembering a symbol and finding it in a series of random symbols is different than doing hundreds of mental tasks over a short period of time and calling it a single task.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
That's not entirely true. Process speed is correlated to high IQ, as is grasp of complexity. If you are highly intelligent you will likely think faster AND understand more. Not always (especially when breaking it down in a multiple intelligence theory) but often. For instance: exceptionally gifted individuals tend to develop at a much younger age. They completely skew Piaget's stages of development, often being able to contemplate the abstract at a very early age. This is usually coupled with quick processing speed as well. As they grow, so does their ability (as it becomes supported by more and more knowledge). Thus they not only think quicker, they eventually learn more and easier than someone of lower IQ.

That doesn't mean people can't grasp complexity without high IQ, nor is it a guarantee (everyone has strengths and weaknesses), but there is a high correlation.

Correlation does not infer causation. Many people without high IQ's skew Piagets stages, trying to tie one to another is a poor way of extrapolating statistics.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: 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.

What does intelligence have to do with 'sucking at life'? YOU are the one that thinks intelligence should equate to some illusory life success. Intelligence researchers make no such claim (unless they're quacks). I can't think of much in 'life' that intelligence is a key factor in. It IS, however, a key factor in the study of intelligence.

Generally speaking genius gives us new ideas, while the average research worker fills in all the gaps and makes it work. In other words, the concept of G, IQ, intelligence, multiple intelligences, etc are truly the work of geniuses, even if it took centuries of average joes to compile data, crunch the numbers, and find a use for it.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
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.

Which is one of my main points. Intelligence can't just be measured upon one dimension, which is what more IQ inventories utilize, it must be measured as a whole-person. Motivated and hard-working people are much better than pretentious jackasses as you mentioned.

But again, motivation and work-ethic have NOTHING to do with intelligence. They are SEPERATE issues. Why is that so hard to grasp?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Processing speed has everything to do with it. There are universal correlations between every measure of intelligence and working memory capacity. Everything boils down to physics.

How is it physics? Are you talking the speed at which chemicals go from one end of a neural receptor to another, firing the neurons, exciting brain cells?

I have seen people work fast and I have seen people work correctly. I have seen both types fail and both succeed. Processing speed is one dimension of intelligence.

You boil it down to just speed. So tell me, just because an Intel P4 was faster was it better than a Centrino or AMD processor? It had longer pipelines, which meant errors took longer to clear, it wasn't the most efficient. Speed isn't everything.

*YOU* may break it down to pysics, but the human psyche is so much more than that. I have a feeling you read some silly books that got you hooked on one dimension, forgetting the other 1,000 dimensions of intelligence.

By speed I don't mean how fast someone does a task, but by how fast your brain computes single units of information and by how much your working memory can hold at any given time. Doing a single mental task, like remembering a symbol and finding it in a series of random symbols is different than doing hundreds of mental tasks over a short period of time and calling it a single task.

The average human can remember 3 pieces of information over a shorter/medium duration, deos the ability to hold more or longer mean they have a higher IQ? Does being able to process an IQ test quickly equate to being intelligent? Not hardly. I can think of studies that refute that logic, not to mention many anectodal pieces of evidence.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

But again, motivation and work-ethic have NOTHING to do with intelligence. They are SEPERATE issues. Why is that so hard to grasp?

They don't? So you are telling me that the application of intelligence has nothing to do with intelligence?

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Processing speed has everything to do with it. There are universal correlations between every measure of intelligence and working memory capacity. Everything boils down to physics.

How is it physics? Are you talking the speed at which chemicals go from one end of a neural receptor to another, firing the neurons, exciting brain cells?

I have seen people work fast and I have seen people work correctly. I have seen both types fail and both succeed. Processing speed is one dimension of intelligence.

You boil it down to just speed. So tell me, just because an Intel P4 was faster was it better than a Centrino or AMD processor? It had longer pipelines, which meant errors took longer to clear, it wasn't the most efficient. Speed isn't everything.

*YOU* may break it down to pysics, but the human psyche is so much more than that. I have a feeling you read some silly books that got you hooked on one dimension, forgetting the other 1,000 dimensions of intelligence.

By speed I don't mean how fast someone does a task, but by how fast your brain computes single units of information and by how much your working memory can hold at any given time. Doing a single mental task, like remembering a symbol and finding it in a series of random symbols is different than doing hundreds of mental tasks over a short period of time and calling it a single task.

The average human can remember 3 pieces of information over a shorter/medium duration, deos the ability to hold more or longer mean they have a higher IQ? Does being able to process an IQ test quickly equate to being intelligent? Not hardly. I can think of studies that refute that logic, not to mention many anectodal pieces of evidence.

Your ability to reason is tied to your ability to manipulate information which is tied to your working memory capacity.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
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.

Which is one of my main points. Intelligence can't just be measured upon one dimension, which is what more IQ inventories utilize, it must be measured as a whole-person. Motivated and hard-working people are much better than pretentious jackasses as you mentioned.

LOL youa re calling people pretentious whenever you pointed out your super-dooper GPA to make people think you are smarter than you actually are.

Also, since you failed to mention the school for MBA I am assuming that it is not a top20 program which normally means a chimp could get a 4.0 in an MBA if he worked hard enough.

I am by no means insulting the amount of work you have put into your MBA/career, and I will in all likelyhood be doing the same thing at the same type of school, but I do not have the delusion that hard work = intelligence.

All that being said, 1500 on SAT before the changes. 800 math, 700 verbal...I hate grammar.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

What does intelligence have to do with 'sucking at life'? YOU are the one that thinks intelligence should equate to some illusory life success. Intelligence researchers make no such claim (unless they're quacks). I can't think of much in 'life' that intelligence is a key factor in. It IS, however, a key factor in the study of intelligence.

Generally speaking genius gives us new ideas, while the average research worker fills in all the gaps and makes it work. In other words, the concept of G, IQ, intelligence, multiple intelligences, etc are truly the work of geniuses, even if it took centuries of average joes to compile data, crunch the numbers, and find a use for it.

It comes back to the single or even limited dimensions of intelligence measured. Looking at one or even a selective few doesn't capture what really matters. Even if you were intelligent, the ability to apply it is what the tests depend on. Therefore, the test themselves depend on application, which can't be accounted for in every way, making even the testing of intelligence an impossible task.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
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.

Which is one of my main points. Intelligence can't just be measured upon one dimension, which is what more IQ inventories utilize, it must be measured as a whole-person. Motivated and hard-working people are much better than pretentious jackasses as you mentioned.

I completely agree... again, it just goes back to semantics. Intelligence is the ability to learn and make sense of the world, while personality traits are different than this ability.

Again, most intelligence inventories test the ability to learn upon limited experiences. My ability to "learn" psychology was severely hampered by my inability to gather desire to learn. However, my desire was strongly enhanced when speaking of finance.

Wrong. Your 'ABILITY' to learn psychology was innate and associated with your intelligence. ABSOLUTE.

The outcome was dictated by your desires and other factors, but the ability itself is there.

Look at it this way:

Four people start a psychology degree.

Person 1 has an IQ of 70, but really wants to understand it.
Person 2 has an IQ of 120, but does not want to understand it.
Person 3 has an IQ of 120, but really wants to understand it.
Person 4 has an IQ of 170, but does not want to understand it.

Now, 2 & 3 have equal ABILITY in psychology. Person 1 probably won't ever make it because their ability is so low. Maybe with years and years and years of hard work they may get somewhere, but it's unlikely they'll be able to use it even as well as person 2, because of their intelligence. Person 4 can learn it much easier than any of the others, but likely won't dedicate himself to it. Only person 3 could make a successful career out of psychology, even though person 4 is more likely to arrive at some ground-breaking understanding of the field.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: thepd7
LOL youa re calling people pretentious whenever you pointed out your super-dooper GPA to make people think you are smarter than you actually are.

Also, since you failed to mention the school for MBA I am assuming that it is not a top20 program which normally means a chimp could get a 4.0 in an MBA if he worked hard enough.

I am by no means insulting the amount of work you have put into your MBA/career, and I will in all likelyhood be doing the same thing at the same type of school, but I do not have the delusion that hard work = intelligence.

All that being said, 1500 on SAT before the changes. 800 math, 700 verbal...I hate grammar.

1. I usually don't mention names of schools, but I went to Univ of MN for undergrad, Univ of Chicago for grad (studying finance at the top finance school)
2. The application of intelligence is what proves intelligence tests. Without the ability or the will to apply that intelligence the entire statistical base of an intelligence inventory is null and void.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: thepd7
LOL youa re calling people pretentious whenever you pointed out your super-dooper GPA to make people think you are smarter than you actually are.

Also, since you failed to mention the school for MBA I am assuming that it is not a top20 program which normally means a chimp could get a 4.0 in an MBA if he worked hard enough.

I am by no means insulting the amount of work you have put into your MBA/career, and I will in all likelyhood be doing the same thing at the same type of school, but I do not have the delusion that hard work = intelligence.

All that being said, 1500 on SAT before the changes. 800 math, 700 verbal...I hate grammar.

1. I usually don't mention names of schools, but I went to Univ of MN for undergrad, Univ of Chicago for grad (studying finance at the top finance school)
2. The application of intelligence is what proves intelligence tests. Without the ability or the will to apply that intelligence the entire statistical base of an intelligence inventory is null and void.

2. wrong. Someone who doesn't apply themselves can still be brilliant. A true IQ test does not test will or application, it does not ask how hard you work. It accurately measured your ability to associate and reason.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Here's the thing:

No one placed any emphasis on the number in this thread, until you came in trying to de-emphasize it. The OP just wanted to find the highest IQ on ATOT. Is that number meaningless? To many yes, and in many ways, yes. In all and to all? No, not at all. The study of intelligence and IQ is valid and valuable. Not to predict who will 'succeed at life' (which, by the way, is absolutely a subjective measure and won't be based on the same criteria for any two people) but to help understand more about our brain functions and maybe to provide some insight into why some people do well at some things, and not so well at others.

Take for instance Gardners theory of mulitiple intelligences or sternbergs triarchic theory of intelligence. Both attempt to address your point about peoples scores on IQ tests not relating the whole picture of intelligence. These studies are very helpful to a number a fields of research. If everyone just ignored IQ and pretended there was no such thing, what would be lost?

As someone who has spent his life in 'gifted' programs I can attest that IQ IS a valid attribute that deserves study. People with exceptional IQ's (especially those over the 145 sweet spot) experience well documented issues that those of lower IQ's do not, in much the same way that those of extremely low IQ (under 80) experience problems that those of average IQ do not. If more money and research was spent on high intelligence studies maybe I would have had some options growing up and wouldn't have made such a mess of things. Maybe not of course, but there's a chance.

Just because a number isn't EVERYTHING doesn't mean it isn't SOMETHING. Relax. If you don't want to be a part of it, go elsewhere. No one is twisting your arm.

OP came into the thread spouting a hypothesis, complete with "SD" and all sorts of wannabe statistical genious. IQ is a poor measure of intelligence or the ability to learn. While it may have some statistical validity, it's application is poor and uneven. Extrapolating any kind of correlation from it is difficult and misses the point.

I never said anybody was forcing me to be here, nor did I say that I didn't want to be a part of it. Debating has nothing to do with either.

Completely and totally wrong. You don't understand anything about IQ or intelligence if this is your opinion.

IQ is an EXCELLENT measure of the ABILITY to learn. IQ is analagous to intelligence. You can call it G if it makes your feel better, but what we're talking about is RAW MENTAL ABILITY.

IQ cannot measure the desire to learn, cannot fully overcome the socio-economic factors of education, etc.

There have been incredibly vast and detailed studies into this, where researchers have followed the lives of exceptionally gifted individuals for about 60 years now. Statistically speaking, IQ is a good indicator of ability in all things. Not an absolute indicator, but a good one. It's not the only factor, but it IS a factor.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Wrong. Your 'ABILITY' to learn psychology was innate and associated with your intelligence. ABSOLUTE.

The outcome was dictated by your desires and other factors, but the ability itself is there.

Look at it this way:

Four people start a psychology degree.

Person 1 has an IQ of 70, but really wants to understand it.
Person 2 has an IQ of 120, but does not want to understand it.
Person 3 has an IQ of 120, but really wants to understand it.
Person 4 has an IQ of 170, but does not want to understand it.

Now, 2 & 3 have equal ABILITY in psychology. Person 1 probably won't ever make it because their ability is so low. Maybe with years and years and years of hard work they may get somewhere, but it's unlikely they'll be able to use it even as well as person 2, because of their intelligence. Person 4 can learn it much easier than any of the others, but likely won't dedicate himself to it. Only person 3 could make a successful career out of psychology, even though person 4 is more likely to arrive at some ground-breaking understanding of the field.

That is incorrect in many ways. Some people who are intelligent do not have the innate ability to do math, but they are extremely intelligent in other areas. This is why intelligence inventories fail, unless they can test intelligence on every level that somebody can be intelligent.

I would agree with your IQ/desire breakout, but I still disagree with your premise above.

My ability to learn psychology also had to do with my innate ability to grasp the topics (which I did reasonably well), but my innate ability to grasp financial topics largely dictated my intelligence in that area.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: thepd7
LOL youa re calling people pretentious whenever you pointed out your super-dooper GPA to make people think you are smarter than you actually are.

Also, since you failed to mention the school for MBA I am assuming that it is not a top20 program which normally means a chimp could get a 4.0 in an MBA if he worked hard enough.

I am by no means insulting the amount of work you have put into your MBA/career, and I will in all likelyhood be doing the same thing at the same type of school, but I do not have the delusion that hard work = intelligence.

All that being said, 1500 on SAT before the changes. 800 math, 700 verbal...I hate grammar.

1. I usually don't mention names of schools, but I went to Univ of MN for undergrad, Univ of Chicago for grad (studying finance at the top finance school)
2. The application of intelligence is what proves intelligence tests. Without the ability or the will to apply that intelligence the entire statistical base of an intelligence inventory is null and void.

2. wrong. Someone who doesn't apply themselves can still be brilliant. A true IQ test does not test will or application, it does not ask how hard you work. It accurately measured your ability to associate and reason.

How can a "true IQ" test measure something that can't be measured if it can't be applied?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
That's not entirely true. Process speed is correlated to high IQ, as is grasp of complexity. If you are highly intelligent you will likely think faster AND understand more. Not always (especially when breaking it down in a multiple intelligence theory) but often. For instance: exceptionally gifted individuals tend to develop at a much younger age. They completely skew Piaget's stages of development, often being able to contemplate the abstract at a very early age. This is usually coupled with quick processing speed as well. As they grow, so does their ability (as it becomes supported by more and more knowledge). Thus they not only think quicker, they eventually learn more and easier than someone of lower IQ.

That doesn't mean people can't grasp complexity without high IQ, nor is it a guarantee (everyone has strengths and weaknesses), but there is a high correlation.

Correlation does not infer causation. Many people without high IQ's skew Piagets stages, trying to tie one to another is a poor way of extrapolating statistics.

Actually Piaget is VERY accurate for people between 90 and 120 IQ. Perfect? Of course not, but what is? You can solidly bet on Piagets stages of development if you are of average IQ. That is NOT true for those higher and lower. This has been supported in countless studies. Other developmental models show similar constraints; they are geared towards the averages in intellect.