Are you above average intelligence?

[Synadrasa]

Trying to figure out the reason behind pointless threads like these. Its like asking someone, "are you the way that you are?"

[Raetary]

nope
/10imaveragechars

[wowaccounttom]

mmmm no

but since this is mmo, i am going to say yes times every other user

[Twix]

IQ of 142 so yes smarter than 99% of people.

[Jayburner]

seriously, the first 10 people tha said they weren't super-intelligent are the smartest here. People don't say they are smart.

[Eliandal]

Based on some questionable tests I had to take as a teen when I was seeing a psychiatrist (yeah, slightly effeminate - at that time - wise-assed little teen growing up in a small mining town in the late 70's - I was the definition of a problem ) - I supposedly am. Doesn't mean a lot though! Except when my mother occasionally lords over the family how smart she is (usually after a few cocktails ) - then I just tell her my 128 trumps her 120 ;P

[A dot Ham]

No response personally.

Come on mods... close this shit. It isn't adding value to the forums. Nor is it adding discussion. Its just clutter.

He/she is simply increasing their thread/post count.

Here let me just start something I have no interest in and nothing to input.

[Santti]

I think I'm above average in some areas.

[Jonnusthegreat]

seriously, the first 10 people tha said they weren't super-intelligent are the smartest here. People don't say they are smart.

You must be talking about only humble people. Humility is not a factor of intelligence. One could argue that realism is a factor of intelligence.

[Jayburner]

Come on mods... close this shit. It isn't adding value to the forums. Nor is adding discussion. Its just clutter.

He/she is simply increasing their thread/post count.

Here let me just start something I have no interest in and nothing to input.

its fucking terrible when someone has 3k posts after 6 years. Ban that motherfucker.

[Vash The Stampede]

Rating intelligence is funny business. When I was a teenager I scored above some chart when I took an IQ test. I was in a basement course and I was tested by the government to see if I belonged there. I didn't realize what was going on until after I finished high school and that IQ test I took got the principal in trouble cause he was putting kids in basement courses to get funding by the government. Wish I knew the exact score to see why it got my high school principal fired.

I didn't do well in school mostly because I was bullied a lot. So I avoided homework cause it was depressing. Was easy to label me and put me in a basement course. Too bad back then they didn't give a crap about bullying like they do today.

I took an IQ online test a while ago while eating food and got 104 or 108 which puts me about average I guess.

[Santti]

seriously, the first 10 people tha said they weren't super-intelligent are the smartest here. People don't say they are smart.

Is this your way of saying you are intelligent, by saying you aren't? And above intelligent isn't really "super-intelligent".

[Laerrus]

Stupid people try to argue with me all the time, I just nod my head and let them think they are right. I know better.

[A dot Ham]

its fucking terrible when someone has 3k posts after 6 years. Ban that motherfucker.

(1) You're baiting people... you are asking for attention... trolling
(2) You are creating threads and commenting within the tread with vapid drivel

If you could have you would have asked the question in the title and left the first post blank. I think that defines worthless.

[KrotosTheTank]

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.

You're kind of missing the point where the IQ test can be accurate. Spacial awareness for example, being able to see patterns, these things help a dancer be great. Also, as for interpretive dance, the test that that should come up on would be an EQ test. Intelligence isn't a factor when it comes to emotional expression, just perhaps in the words you may use.

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.[/QUOTE]

I had the same thing on my recent test; I moved the simple block patterns near instantly. It's one facet and all portions are not scored (weighted) equally and not the same way for each person either. It takes much skill to be an accurate IQ test "grader."

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 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.

You're mixing up knowledge and intelligence. Based off of what you've said, it sounds like you're quite intelligent but have a knowledge disparity in various fields. Your mention of the help your parents gave you; if your dad was a whizz at crossword puzzles I'd venture to say that with the intelligence you possess that you'd be much more proficient in verbal / linguistic fields than the math. You have to view intelligence as something that goes deeper than specific strengths. It's a conceptual measure of how well you learn and interpret information you receive, not what you've learned and which school subjects you've mastered; sure spacial strengths tend to manifest themselves in maths and comprehension skills in verbal subjects, but your ability to learn within the strengths you gravitate towards is how you measure intelligence.

[alexw]

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!

I am the one who said my IQ was ~135.

I took the test a number of years ago, so I cannot remember the methodology just roughly the end result which was somewhere around 135. It might be a bit off, but given my background (PhD in the hard sciences and I was among the smartest in my year) I don't think its that inaccurate.

[Jayburner]

(1) You're baiting people... you are asking for attention... trolling
(2) You are creating threads and commenting within the tread with vapid drivel

what would you have me do? Like seriously? I've been here a long time. I like making whimsical threads. What is so wrong with that?

[Frogguh]

Well let's see. I got straight As all through school and college and got a 148 on the last IQ test I did. I was also 16 years old before I figured out how to plug a phone into the wall, and a lot older than that before I figured out how to navigate on and off an interstate.

So am I intelligent? Well let's just say I'd trade my book smarts for street smarts any day.

[Yvaelle]

seriously, the first 10 people tha said they weren't super-intelligent are the smartest here. People don't say they are smart.

It doesn't take a genius to tell you IQ tests are bullshit - any high IQ person will tell you that.

The mistake you are making is (perhaps ironically) equating IQ with intelligence. "IQ Tests" are imperfect, but "Intelligence" is very real - some people are objectively more intelligent than others - so some distribution curve must exist to describe average IQ, and thereby identify above and below the average.

As Jonnus mentioned, humility does not perfectly correlate with intelligence - and arguably realism would be a better indicator.

High IQ people saying IQ tests are dubious, is not the same as highly intelligent people denying the variability of intelligence.

[pfbe]

Above average? Nah. Just average.