Are you above average intelligence?

[Jonnusthegreat]

The only bad thing about being above average intelligence is that when you meet someone, common sense dictates that they are most likely dumber than you.

[Deleted]

Intelligence is the capacity you have to understand logic and retain knowledge, but this is often highly overrated. The point really is what you can do with your knowledge, aka wisdom. I have met very intelligent people who could see relations between things like no other, but they where not wise enough to understand what can be done with the knowledge. And then i have met very stupid people who can capitalize on every last drop of their knowledge.
You can come far in life by having one of these traits, but if you are master of one you will be outpaced by someone who is average in both.

OT, i do think that most intelligent people will say that they are below average because they understand/have realized that their knowledge is very limited in the grand scheme of things.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I think people who keep asking what kind of I.Q or what about EQ are trying to pawn off some kind of idea if you don't have a certain I.Q there are other kinds of intelligence.

It's real simple unless you actually taken a real I.Q test in person and had it graded, then you really don't know what your I.Q test, and there is only 1 of 2 test that actually does that. So if you have taken an I.Q test and you found out you aren't as intelligent as you thought, or that you are dumber than a brick, well then that is just what it is.

However if you are going by averages based on a specific group you might belong to rather than an actual test, you are probably one of those around the dumb as a brick range.

I.Q is what it is, and yes there are other qualities it doesn't account for, but there really is no need to dismiss it. It just needs to be put in context, if you have a Average I.Q as most people probably do, it doesn't fucking mean because someone who has a higher I.Q is in any way better or quantified as such.

bottom line here is most of you posting don't have a fucking I.Q anywhere near 135 either.

[Isohden]

I was.

Then I discovered internet forums and chatrooms.

[Faesroll]

I'm probably the least intelligent person alive

[Deleted]

I think people who keep asking what kind of I.Q or what about EQ are trying to pawn off some kind of idea if you don't have a certain I.Q there are other kinds of intelligence.

It's real simple unless you actually taken a real I.Q test in person and had it graded, then you really don't know what your I.Q test, and there is only 1 of 2 test that actually does that. So if you have taken an I.Q test and you found out you aren't as intelligent as you thought, or that you are dumber than a brick, well then that is just what it is.

However if you are going by averages based on a specific group you might belong to rather than an actual test, you are probably one of those around the dumb as a brick range.

I.Q is what it is, and yes there are other qualities it doesn't account for, but there really is no need to dismiss it. It just needs to be put in context, if you have a Average I.Q as most people probably do, it doesn't fucking mean because someone who has a higher I.Q is in any way better or quantified as such.

bottom line here is most of you posting don't have a fucking I.Q anywhere near 135 either.

eeuh, that is what the whole iq is based upon, an iq of 100 is the average. Everything above 100 is over average, and the average keeps changing.

But as i've said, IQ isn't everything, what really matters is how you are able to use that what you know. And i know that the real test is the one you get when have 3 people monitor you for about a month (at least that was mine, the first time). If you do one online then it wont be accurate, but they aren't totally without merit. If you are as dumb as a brick you won't get a score of 120 or something on an online survey.

[Total Crica]

How do you measure intelligence?

by how quickly you succeed (if at all) in what you attempt to do (and live through of course!), would be my first guess

of course, that just measures that one area at a time, not sure if there is a general way to measure it, which means i prolly am not too smart in that?

[Ratyrel]

This is quite a heart-warming and pensive thread. Nice going mmo-champ OT.

[KrotosTheTank]

I think people who keep asking what kind of I.Q or what about EQ are trying to pawn off some kind of idea if you don't have a certain I.Q there are other kinds of intelligence.

It's real simple unless you actually taken a real I.Q test in person and had it graded, then you really don't know what your I.Q test, and there is only 1 of 2 test that actually does that. So if you have taken an I.Q test and you found out you aren't as intelligent as you thought, or that you are dumber than a brick, well then that is just what it is.

However if you are going by averages based on a specific group you might belong to rather than an actual test, you are probably one of those around the dumb as a brick range.

I.Q is what it is, and yes there are other qualities it doesn't account for, but there really is no need to dismiss it. It just needs to be put in context, if you have a Average I.Q as most people probably do, it doesn't fucking mean because someone who has a higher I.Q is in any way better or quantified as such.

bottom line here is most of you posting don't have a fucking I.Q anywhere near 135 either.

Simple, just ask em if they've taken one of the "real" tests. If you're expecting something in the 135 range, I've been told the Woodcock-Johnson is better than the more common WAIS, as the WJ is more tailored towards around average and above, whereas the WAIS is generally used to determine levels of cognitive deficiencies (read: retardation, true meaning, not derogatory).

I took the WAIS-IV, all 15 sections - 10 core, 5 supplemental. It was...not brief!

[Doctor Amadeus]

eeuh, that is what the whole iq is based upon, an iq of 100 is the average. Everything above 100 is over average, and the average keeps changing.

But as i've said, IQ isn't everything, what really matters is how you are able to use that what you know. And i know that the real test is the one you get when have 3 people monitor you for about a month (at least that was mine, the first time). If you do one online then it wont be accurate, but they aren't totally without merit. If you are as dumb as a brick you won't get a score of 120 or something on an online survey.

Well, I don't know any I.Q test that monitor you for a month, or if it has to be evaluated by 3 people, but, I agree it isn't everything, and based on the law of averages and statistics as many people touting around their I.Q level doesn't match the reality and no, I don't agree online I.Q test have any more merit than taking a test to find out which Harry Potter character you are.

- - - Updated - - -

Simple, just ask em if they've taken one of the "real" tests. If you're expecting something in the 135 range, I've been told the Woodcock-Johnson is better than the more common WAIS, as the WJ is more tailored towards around average and above, whereas the WAIS is generally used to determine levels of cognitive deficiencies (read: retardation, true meaning, not derogatory).

I took the WAIS-IV, all 15 sections - 10 core, 5 supplemental. It was...not brief!

Yep WAIS is the one I took, there are 3 or 4 parts that are scored and I got an over all average of 101, which was average, and hell one of the sections it dipped below that and no it wasn't brief.

[vindicatorx]

Yes, I have always tested as above average in intelligence so Yes, I am smarter than average.

[Vurdah]

I become easily adept at things I take an interest in but I have issues with spelling and have dyslexia. I can also read words I am unable to spell which makes me go wtf. Although dyslexia likes to kick in and I swap letters of words I am reading. That moment when you excitedly show your friend an energy drink you think is called 'donkey dick' and your friend laughs and tells you it's 'donkey kick'. Oh boy.

[Airlick]

I don't know, on one hand I tend to pick up new things pretty fast (usually faster than the people I'm surrounded with, but I don't really hang around lawyers, politicians and CEOs of big companies), on the other I sometimes feel dumber than a brick, especially when it comes to all things mathematic. I could never get myself to actually finish an IQ test, either, I always get bored half-way through and start picking random answers.

What kinda proves that I am a quick learner is that I had decent grades at school, despite the fact that ever since elementary I had horrendous attendance, to the point of usually being in danger of not passing a class at the end of the year, but never actually failed. Looking back, I wish I was a better student, though honestly, it's up to parents to force a kid to study until they grow mature enough to understand the value of getting good education. Mine never ever forced me. The worst part is that I know it's not that they didn't care, they cared a lot, but took the wrong approach. They always tried to appease me, while they should have replaced the carrot with a stick - and I understood and abused that.

[KrotosTheTank]

Yep WAIS is the one I took, there are 3 or 4 parts that are scored and I got an over all average of 101, which was average, and hell one of the sections it dipped below that and no it wasn't brief.

Yea, that matches with my experience. I only took the whole thing because he (friend friend in Ma Psych) had to administer it to learn how it works. I guess an advanced tester is supposed to choose which of the core and supplemental portions to give that accurately reflect one's IQ. For example, if I had a disorder that complicated my reading comprehension, they may choose a test that does not involve reading but tests the same portion of your IQ through verbal means. It was quite fascinating actually to hear the back door reasons after I completed it.

[Knolan]

Yep 120 to 132 iq, depending on the test (i do very well on tests with sequences and bad on word processing, I. E.: which other word can be formed with the letters of *insert word here*).

I really don't think I am that smart, just the average person is too stupid.

[Yvaelle]

A proper IQ test is a pretty good test of a variety of problem solving skills - it should have no information / regurgitation on it - with the exception of applications of rudimentary math concepts applied in brain-teasing ways.

So on the one hand - I think people give IQ tests a bad rap - when they accuse IQ tests about being memorization or test-taking skills: they aren't and they shouldn't be (the real ones, anyways). On the flip side, I think intelligence manifests in far, far more ways than an IQ test is capable of recognizing. I think you can be a genius at dance - but at no point during my IQ tests did anyone ask me to interpretative dance for them.

I score very well on IQ tests, but I also think they play to my strengths while ignoring my weaknesses. When I was a child they brought me into an IQ test in the early 90's, before I was even 10, and I did alright on some sections, exceedingly well at math and spatial awareness. I was the highest spatial awareness score they'd ever seen (of anyone at any age) - the psychologist actually called her colleague into the room mid-testing to watch what I was doing.

The goal was to see a brief image of a pattern of blocks, and assemble them as I'd seen them - not only could I do this for shapes consisting of dozens of painted blocks, but I could do it so fast with the smaller quantities that she didn't feel comfortable timing me: she thought her own reaction speed with the stop-watch was negatively skewing my scores. It wasn't anything magical though - in retrospect - when I looked at the photos I was making shapes out of them to help me remember (a memory technique I still use when I see weird patterns): an elephant, or a giraffe, or etc. Given that I was a very early adopter of video games - I also had way above average hand dexterity for a kid my age. Nowadays, my scores from back then are probably not nearly as impressive - I was just Patient Zero for being trained by Keyboard and GameBoy to rock at exactly that sort of thing.

The flip side is, there were lots of portions of the test that I was quite average at - but when you average my for-the-time Overpowered scores at math and spatial reasoning for a 6-7 year old, and then adjusted that for my age: I looked pretty shiny. At least - at that limited set of intelligences, both of which happen to be on the IQ test - while the perhaps hundreds of other measures get ignored.

My math score was also very high - but this too is explainable by external circumstances rather than being purely the product of genius. I wasn't comprehending new math above my grade level - it was just a poor assumption that I got my math education entirely in school: my dad was big on mathy puzzles as kids' games - so I knew my times tables cold, and could do basic algebra - way ahead of my peers - but because of greater subject exposure, rather than faster comprehension.

In these ways, IQ tests can be good and bad at measuring intelligence - they do require some basic knowledge in order to be performed, but I wouldn't have been as good at those things were it not for my early experiences. IQ tests also have massive blindspots for virtually all kinds of intelligence - but for the types they do test - and when only interested in comparing against the relative average of your age group - they are probably a mostly accurate indication of comprehension: except where extenuating circumstances exist (like mine).

I'm a firm believer that early childhood exposure to types of intelligence - actually helps to develop that kind of intelligence lifelong. Due to my early gaming, and my early exposure to math - my brain is now better mapped than most for those sorts of activities. Therefore IQ - as a measure of intelligence - is really more a measure of how well we prepare our children for the types of intelligence we want them to express, via exposure during infancy.

I think if we took a really Grand View of Intelligence - encompassing all the hundreds of ways it might express itself - I'm probably above average, but not nearly to the extent my IQ purports: it only values the things I happen to be good at.

[Kellhound]

Based on IQ scores, yes.

[Deleted]

some online test say I am a genius, others say I am as dumb as a box of rocks, I like to think I am about average intelligence.

[Deleted]

Well, I don't know any I.Q test that monitor you for a month, or if it has to be evaluated by 3 people, but, I agree it isn't everything, and based on the law of averages and statistics as many people touting around their I.Q level doesn't match the reality and no, I don't agree online I.Q test have any more merit than taking a test to find out which Harry Potter character you are.

Its for children, as I've said, it was the first time But what i was trying to say is that you can have an high IQ and still be ignorant, intelligence is just one part of the equation. There are a lot of people with an above average IQ, because there are also a lot of people below average. Someone might have an above average intelligence, but it doesn't make them smart or all knowing in anyway. It just means that they may have a better overall picture of things or that they might see a connection where others cant. They often see something, but they do not understand what it means, that is why it isn't always apparent that someone has a high IQ.

[Jayburner]

The first 10 people passed my test in this thread. Apologies to the rest.