A larger population of those with High IQ on internet forums

[Antediluvian]

I've always wondered about the credibility of the notion of those dwelling in the top 2% or above in IQ test performance on internet forums being in a higher concentration than in real life, it does seem more prevalent on certain forums than others in my experience, the claiming of high IQs, to clarify.

Has anyone else here deliberated over the validity of a higher than normal population of those in the very superior, near genius, or genius range on the internet? Specifically internet forums.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I've always wondered about the credibility of the notion of those dwelling in the top 2% or above in IQ test performance on internet forums, it does seem more prevalent on certain forums than others in my experience, the claiming of high IQs, to clarify.

Has anyone else here deliberated over the validity of a higher than normal population of those in the very superior, near genius, or genius range on the internet?

Just because they have high IQs does not mean they aren't fucktards. The most illogical people I have met have high IQs...

 

[ApostateAbe]

EDIT: Sorry, maybe I don't understand your question.

 

[Question Authority]

The internet is anonymous, thus I'm a 10th level black belt, with $10,000,000,000, and an IQ of 250. Who gets laid twice a day.

That is what I think of the assertion.

Also, I think there are enough Online "IQ Tests" which spit out higher than average numbers, so the gullible will believe that they have higher IQ than they actually do.

 

[Teohrn]

On the basis of claims of high IQs: no. I could claim to have an IQ of 200, which I certainly do not have. A lot of people claim a lot of things that are often extravagant and untrue. It would be far too lacking in credibility to base a conclusion on claims only.

However, I do think that Internet forums, and the Internet in itself, tends to attract individuals that are more intelligent than the average. Moreover, some forums probably have higher average IQs than others, depending on the orientation of the forum. Excuse me for this as it is based on stereotypes, but I daresay the average IQ of a science oriented forum is higher than the average IQ is for a forum that is oriented towards monster truck enthusiasts.

Forums are platforms for socialization, debate, learning, self-identification, search of self, etc., in general things that are intellectually stimulating, that a person often will not get in real life. More intelligent people are more likely to seek such intellectual stimulation than less intelligent people. Meaning that the forums simply attract smarter people.

Furthermore, on the Internet you can find like-minded persons by simply using a search-engine; I'm confident that many here have done that, this being an INTP oriented forum. People cannot do that in real life, and therefore they often retreat to the Internet to find whatever it is that they seek.

Compare Internet forums to higher education institutions like college. The people that are attracted to colleges are in a way quite similar to the people on Internet forums. They come there for intellectual stimulation and to go deeper into their interests, maybe even find like-minded people if possible. The differences pertain to semantics.

Whether IQ is a valid measurement for intelligence is another topic. It is certainly not the sole factor we should rely on as intelligence is too abstract to be measured. Although it does give an indication. Therefore it should be noted that I do not necessarily define intelligence as being the same thing as having a high IQ.

So from a speculative and untested viewpoint: yes, I think that the average IQ on Internet forums are higher than in real life and I believe that they are more intelligent.

 

[Antediluvian]

So from a speculative and untested viewpoint: yes, I think that the average IQ on Internet forums are higher than in real life and I believe that they are more intelligent.

The average might be somewhat higher, especially for certain forums, true. It just seems ridiculous to me, someone on a forum claims an IQ of 140, and most will respond with blatant apathy, as if such a thing is the norm, which is probably true for the claim itself, but the actual occurrence of that level of intelligence is fairly rare.

 

[Teohrn]

The average might be somewhat higher, especially for certain forums, true. It just seems ridiculous to me, someone on a forum claims an IQ of 140, and most will respond with blatant apathy, as if such a thing is the norm, which is probably true for the claim itself, but the actual occurrence of that level of intelligence is fairly rare.

The problem is that a lot people are lying because the forums are anonymous and they want to appear as smart beings. A lot of people are also lacking in confidence and they think that by fooling others on the Internet, it will give them some confidence.

Additionally, some people might be relying on poor Internet IQ-tests, which aren't reliable in the first place. For instance, I've seen people post their test results from tests that are pretty poor. Like this one: http://www.free-iqtest.net/

 

[snafupants]

The average might be somewhat higher, especially for certain forums, true. It just seems ridiculous to me, someone on a forum claims an IQ of 140, and most will respond with blatant apathy, as if such a thing is the norm, which is probably true for the claim itself, but the actual occurrence of that level of intelligence is fairly rare.

I would contend that at least half a dozen folks on this forum could regularly achieve that score or higher on an intelligence test. There's oodles of evidence demonstrating that scores on the extreme righthand side of the bell curve deviate from Gaussian predictions of rarity; at any rate, the rarity of the foregoing score, assuming a fifteen point standard deviation, is around four folks per thousand. A score of one forty isn't stratospherically high; more like average professor at a decent university. One forty or thereabouts is basically the low cutoff for intellectual in my book.

 

[Antediluvian]

I would contend that at least half a dozen folks on this forum could regularly achieve that score or higher on an intelligence test. There's oodles of evidence demonstrating that scores on the extreme righthand side of the bell curve deviate from Gaussian predictions of rarity; at any rate, the rarity of the foregoing score, assuming a fifteen point standard deviation, is around four folks per thousand. A score of one forty isn't stratospherically high; more like average professor at a decent university. One forty or thereabouts is basically the low cutoff for intellectual in my book.

I'm sure there are more than a handful of posters here that have achieved that score. It is true that 140 isn't stratospherically high, although doesn't a 130 on the WAIS translate to approximately 148 on the Cattel? I looked at a conversion chart a while ago, and that was what I remembered, although I am not sure if that is accurate. I suppose that was one aspect I neglected while posting. From my understanding, percentile is more revealing than the raw full score.

And while you have much more experience dealing with these individuals than I do, I wouldn't make the cutoff for intellectual as high as 140. Isn't the PhD average a 120-125?

It just seems that the score is claimed a bit too frequently, is all.

 

[Minuend]

You've just been on the "wrong" forums. Try browsing some there the main topic isn't psychology or science. Am I claiming the more intelligent are drawn to science? I would say not necessarily, but I think science is seen by a lot as "difficult" and "foreign" and thus the more intelligent might be more drawn to it.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

You've just been on the "wrong" forums. Try browsing some there the main topic isn't psychology or science. Am I claiming the more intelligent are drawn to science? I would say not necessarily, but I think science is seen by a lot as "difficult" and "foreign" and thus the more intelligent might be more drawn to it.

So the more intelligent are also drawn towards the opposite sex?




I just realized how often 'science' is generalized. What do people usually mean or think of when they say the word? Theoretical physics? Biology?

 

[snafupants]

I'm sure there are more than a handful of posters here that have achieved that score. It is true that 140 isn't stratospherically high, although doesn't a 130 on the WAIS translate to approximately 148 on the Cattel? I looked at a conversion chart a while ago, and that was what I remembered, although I am not sure if that is accurate. I suppose that was one aspect I neglected while posting. From my understanding, percentile is more revealing than the raw full score.

And while you have much more experience dealing with these individuals than I do, I wouldn't make the cutoff for intellectual as high as 140. Isn't the PhD average a 120-125?

It just seems that the score is claimed a bit too frequently, is all.

@Antediluvian

Four things: high scores are claimed an inordinate, and perhaps improbable, amount on internet forums; the Wechsler and outmoded versions of the Stanford-Binet offer deviation IQ scores within fifteen and sixteen point standard deviation frameworks, respectively; percentiles are far easier to deal with because they present a common barometer of cognitive performance between tests; lastly, I do not consider most doctorate holders to be intellectuals. Attaining a doctorate involves extraneous factors such as but not limited to: determination, connections, money, and adherence to protocol. Actually, I was contemplating lowering the bar for intellectual to the giftedness cutoff of one thirty but decided on one forty because that's less innately moot. With a score of, say, one thirty one there's a chance that the astute observer may find an incurious dunderhead with a lopsided cognitive profile; one forty and above showcases an elite company in which certain behavioral and thought factors are almost given. One thirty five is the lowest I could designate the low cutoff score for intellectual; I would posit intellectuals fall between one thirty five and one fifty five and anything above that is basically genius to some extent. This term intelligentsia is meant to postulate something exclusive, at least the top one percentile of intelligence, while connoting depth, breadth, and nimbleness of mind; since one thirty five is at the ten per one thousand mark, given a fifteen point standard deviation, that seems almost as good for the low cutoff score.

http://www.crosscurrents.org/miles.htm

 

[EditorOne]

"However, I do think that Internet forums, and the Internet in itself, tends to attract individuals that are more intelligent than the average."


You wouldn't think that if you had to moderate a daily newspaper's forum like I did for four years. I'll grant that some forums tend to attract intelligent people just by their nature, but I'd make a counter argument to yours: I believe the internet has empowered millions of ignorant people to flaunt their stupidity and, worse, find each other and gain confidence from knowing there are other people who "believe" as they do. In this country, for sure, we have huge groups of people who are furthering their agenda of stupidity via forums and Web sites. These are people who take counsel of their fears and seek to make others afraid as well, creating momentum for bigotry, jingoism and stupidity. You can't explain United States politics without taking into account the newly awakened activism of the ignorant and hateful who have not been in such a position of relative power since the days of the Know Nothing Party of the 1850s. That party got its name because its beliefs and activities were so vile that the leaders remained hidden and the members, when asked about the organizations that formed it, would respond " I know nothing." Contrast that to now, when equally vile organizations flaunt their beliefs and convince low IQ, non-reality-oriented individuals that they are right to share those beliefs. Internet promiscuity did that.

 

[Antediluvian]

@Antediluvian

Four things: high scores are claimed an inordinate, and perhaps improbable, amount on internet forums; the Wechsler and outmoded versions of the Stanford-Binet offer deviation IQ scores within fifteen and sixteen point standard deviation frameworks, respectively; percentiles are far easier to deal with because they present a common barometer of cognitive performance between tests; lastly, I do not consider most doctorate holders to be intellectuals. Attaining a doctorate involves extraneous factors such as but not limited to: determination, connections, money, and adherence to protocol. Actually, I was contemplating lowering the bar for intellectual to the giftedness cutoff of one thirty but decided on one forty because that's less innately moot. With a score of, say, one thirty one there's a chance that the astute observer may find an incurious dunderhead with a lopsided cognitive profile; one forty and above showcases an elite company in which certain behavioral and thought factors are almost given. One thirty five is the lowest I could designate the low cutoff score for intellectual; I would posit intellectuals fall between one thirty five and one fifty five and anything above that is basically genius to some extent. This term intelligentsia is meant to postulate something exclusive, at least the top one percentile of intelligence, while connoting depth, breadth, and nimbleness of mind; since one thirty five is at the ten per one thousand mark, given a fifteen point standard deviation, that seems almost as good for the low cutoff score.

http://www.crosscurrents.org/miles.htm

I suppose this one sentence sums up your statement best:

If the academic tills one field and the intellectual is a hunter pursuing prey across many fields, which one is unemployed?

That is true enough, I suppose, concerning the distinction between the two.

To my knowledge, Terman and Hollingworth argued over the cutoff point for genius, with the latter claiming that a score hovering around 180 should be the mark of exclusivity. Perhaps 180 is a bit too high as far as the cutoff point goes, and your proclamation of 155+ seems about right for genius. And of course, we'd be treading old ground if we discussed observed and true scores, etc. It makes me curious though what Wechsler said about his tests, that they were meant for identifying those possessing intelligence within the "normal variance," or 70-130. I'd have to look through my browsing history again to find the specific quote. Another interesting portion of information I came across suggested that some schools require a score of 130+ on at least two separate measures.

As for me, I have a lopsided cognitive profile. Though I've always considered myself a dunderhead. I think high verbal skills can mask stupidity, it's like I subconsciously feign competence. That is clearly a subject for a different thread, though.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I've always wondered about the credibility of the notion of those dwelling in the top 2% or above in IQ test performance on internet forums being in a higher concentration than in real life, it does seem more prevalent on certain forums than others in my experience, the claiming of high IQs, to clarify.

Has anyone else here deliberated over the validity of a higher than normal population of those in the very superior, near genius, or genius range on the internet? Specifically internet forums.

I've actually never heard the claim before. Ever. If there is a correlation, though, I imagine it's due to people with very low IQs not being on computers as much, though, and that it's very slight.

Everybody and their brother is online now, so I fail to see why those with high IQs would use forums those with lower IQs would not.

 

[snafupants]

I suppose this one sentence sums up your statement best:

If the academic tills one field and the intellectual is a hunter pursuing prey across many fields, which one is unemployed?

That is true enough, I suppose, concerning the distinction between the two.

To my knowledge, Terman and Hollingworth argued over the cutoff point for genius, with the latter claiming that a score hovering around 180 should be the mark of exclusivity. Perhaps 180 is a bit too high as far as the cutoff point goes, and your proclamation of 155+ seems about right for genius. And of course, we'd be treading old ground if we discussed observed and true scores, etc. It makes me curious though what Wechsler said about his tests, that they were meant for identifying those possessing intelligence within the "normal variance," or 70-130. I'd have to look through my browsing history again to find the specific quote. Another interesting portion of information I came across suggested that some schools require a score of 130+ on at least two separate measures.

As for me, I have a lopsided cognitive profile. Though I've always considered myself a dunderhead. I think high verbal skills can mask stupidity, it's like I subconsciously feign competence. That is clearly a subject for a different thread, though.

@Antediluvian

The four sigma point does seem to consistently demarcate and distinguish the intellectual from the genius. The Terman studies largely dealt with ratio IQ scores, which aren't really analogous or comparable to modern deviation IQ scores; upon request I can provide a link that attempts to bridge the divide between extrapolated, childhood, sometimes stratospherically (and artificially) high ratio IQ scores and contemporary deviation IQ scores. To address another point, yes, Wechsler and Terman had fundamentally different assessment methodologies.

 

[Antediluvian]

About

It makes me curious though what Wechsler said about his tests, that they were meant for identifying those possessing intelligence within the "normal variance," or 70-130

That may have been Kaufman, not sure.

 

[snafupants]

About



That may have been Kaufman, not sure.

@Antediluvian

The comment was a defensive statement Wechsler supposedly made about his tests and testing philosophy towards Kaufman. The recounted episode may be more folklore than fact.

 

[Antediluvian]

Right, and would you agree that his tests (at the time) weren't capable of such distinctions? Are they more capable of such a feat now?

Didn't know about the folklore bit.

 

[snafupants]

Right, and would you agree that his tests (at the time) weren't capable of such distinctions? Are they more capable of such a feat now?

Didn't know about the folklore bit.

@Antediluvian

By my last sentence I just meant that historical narratives have this tendency of becoming warped and exploited. Who knows what folks like Churchill or Jesus really said, you know? Anyway, the current incarnation of the WAIS (a.k.a., WAIS-IV) tracks scores as high as one sixty, which is a five point extension of the WAIS-III ceiling; I wouldn't rely on makeshift above ceiling raw score extrapolations for the WAIS-III or whatever because hitting a few subtest ceilings means the test doesn't have enough top. The WISC-IV offers extended norms but the practice is somewhat ridiculous; the extended norms reward younger ages and mostly processing speed. Theoretically the extended norms for the WISC-IV were intended to emulate the older Stanford-Binet tests' ceilings by extending the subtest ceilings, but the implementation is basically an unmitigated failure. I would rely on Ron Hoeflin's Titan Test or Mega Test to determine above ceiling scores for adults; the Titan Test is actually presented online gratuitously. The field of above ceiling IQ tests is still pretty experimental, and the norms are essentially extrapolated scores. Some criticize these tests for focusing on complex mathematical knowledge and arcane trivia or not focusing enough on processing speed and other broad cognitive abilities; these criticism are valid but these high range tests also show robust correlations (~.5 - ~.82) to, for instance, the GRE and SAT (both highly g-loaded) so the high range tests are tapping into something.

 

[Teohrn]

"However, I do think that Internet forums, and the Internet in itself, tends to attract individuals that are more intelligent than the average."


You wouldn't think that if you had to moderate a daily newspaper's forum like I did for four years. I'll grant that some forums tend to attract intelligent people just by their nature, but I'd make a counter argument to yours: I believe the internet has empowered millions of ignorant people to flaunt their stupidity and, worse, find each other and gain confidence from knowing there are other people who "believe" as they do. In this country, for sure, we have huge groups of people who are furthering their agenda of stupidity via forums and Web sites. These are people who take counsel of their fears and seek to make others afraid as well, creating momentum for bigotry, jingoism and stupidity. You can't explain United States politics without taking into account the newly awakened activism of the ignorant and hateful who have not been in such a position of relative power since the days of the Know Nothing Party of the 1850s. That party got its name because its beliefs and activities were so vile that the leaders remained hidden and the members, when asked about the organizations that formed it, would respond " I know nothing." Contrast that to now, when equally vile organizations flaunt their beliefs and convince low IQ, non-reality-oriented individuals that they are right to share those beliefs. Internet promiscuity did that.

@EditorOne

I understand what you're talking about, and I had that in mind too. There are plenty of stupid, ignorant, delusional and fanatical people with an Internet connection and that are ready to show it off. This has been a rather recent phenomenon.

You are right in that the Internet has given nonsensical fanatics a larger voice than ever. No discussion on that.

However, the problem is rather that these people have very large voices, being fanatics, rather than that they have very large numbers. In the same way, there are a lot of extremist organizations everywhere which get a lot of attention, but they are not necessarily great in numbers, their voices are just larger than that of normal, decent people. In the same way, you have trolls who get a lot of undeserved attention due to their intentionally inflammatory behavior. By behaving ignorantly, stupidly, fanatically, etc., these trolls get more attention than your average poster because the content of their postings are meant to cause controversy. The only real difference between the average troll and the Internet fanatic is that the former isn't serious about it while the latter actually is. Essentially, my point is that these people are like hairless bears dressed as Mr. Monopoly walking down the New York Times Square, while the normal Internet users are the crowd taking notice to it in complete bewilderment.

Additionally, I think political oriented forums tend to attract people like these a lot, especially those of readily available (and probably popular) newspapers for the masses such as the one you were a moderator for.

I'm not arguing that the difference is large, perhaps moderate at best if we take the Internet as a whole.

 

[Antediluvian]

@Antediluvian

By my last sentence I just meant that historical narratives have this tendency of becoming warped and exploited. Who knows what folks like Churchill or Jesus really said, you know? Anyway, the current incarnation of the WAIS (a.k.a., WAIS-IV) tracks scores as high as one sixty, which is a five point extension of the WAIS-III ceiling; I wouldn't rely on makeshift above ceiling raw score extrapolations for the WAIS-III or whatever because hitting a few subtest ceilings means the test doesn't have enough top. The WISC-IV offers extended norms but the practice is somewhat ridiculous; the extended norms reward younger ages and mostly processing speed. Theoretically the extended norms for the WISC-IV were intended to emulate the older Stanford-Binet tests' ceilings by extending the subtest ceilings, but the implementation is basically an unmitigated failure. I would rely on Ron Hoeflin's Titan Test or Mega Test to determine above ceiling scores for adults; the Titan Test is actually presented online gratuitously. The field of above ceiling IQ tests is still pretty experimental, and the norms are essentially extrapolated scores. Some criticize these tests for focusing on complex mathematical knowledge and arcane trivia or not focusing enough on processing speed and other broad cognitive abilities; these criticism are valid but these high range tests also show robust correlations (~.5 - ~.82) to, for instance, the GRE and SAT (both highly g-loaded) so the high range tests are tapping into something.

I've always wondered if extrapolating levels of intelligence based off of SAT and ACT scores should be taken more seriously, of course caution should be used because of the ease of increasing scores on SAT/ACT. Are the correlations based off of initial scores? Of course, one could under-perform quite severely on either of those tests.

Aside from that, I've been looking into Hold tests, which of course attempt to measure pre-morbid intelligence by tapping into abilities thought to be resistant to cognitive decline. It seems at least a few of them are reading tests, which for some reason I score extremely well in (usually a few points from perfect).