How Smart Are You?

[hope]

SOMEwhat related: IQ tests always make 100 the average. However, new generations--as a whole--are more intelligent than their predecessors. So, if you took an IQ test and got 130 also, you'd actually be "more intelligent" than your dad, even though the number is the same. (I got this from an iTunes University podcast on psychology from Yale. Seems a trustworthy source, no?)


Yep, that's pretty much me. I often come across people on this forum talking about how they try/tried to fit in with the popular kids, but I always tried to fit in with the "smart kids" or geeks. Possibly, that should not be in the past tense....


This too, the bolded especially.

---

Is there a difference between "smart" and "intelligent"?
I would say it goes with stupid vs ignorant, but that would be more of a "knowledgeable" thing, I think.

I want to try to answer this
1. If you got the same score as your dad on an iq that he took in, say, the 80s vs now and you both tested at 130, that doesnt mean you're smarter. Why? Ever since iq tests were created the raw scores got higher and higher. But the actual (scaled) scores do not. How have psychologists accounted for this anomaly? The people of today have access to more knowledge and thoughts that are measured by an iq test.(A farmer would score worse than an academic because they didnt memorize information, they learned motor skills for growing crops) Due to this clear and obvious fact, people are becoming smarter and smarter as measured by IQ tests. You know more and have access to more "thinking stuff" so you got a higher raw score than your dad, but it doesn't make you smarter than your dad when you like at the big picture. Contrary to what psychologists say, 130 1985 98th percentile = 130 2005 98th percentile-- same percentile = same intelligence compared to the rest of the world. The only way you can consider people as actually more intelligent than their ancestors is by looking at their achievments versus their ancestors. Which is actually more difficult: proving fermat's last theorem or learning to farm?

elanrig grammerz and spe//ing or thinking?
Different advantages = accomplishments considered on different scales

 

[Traianus]

My answers to the OP's questions:

I see myself as being smart and intelligent, sure. I have an above average IQ and have had many experiences that, i would venture, a lot of people haven't. That said, I don't think I'm any smarter or any more intelligent than anyone else as they surely know things I don't and have surely had experiences I haven't.

For me, intelligence is relative, there are many different types of it, and it's hard to quantify with any form of standardized testing.

I would see curiousity, skepticism, and open-mindedness as different facets of intelligence yes.

I believe Intelligence is largely something innate but can be nurtured throughout one's life.

I think intelligence is hard to define because there are many different forms of it. Sorry for the ambiguity, but that's just the way I see it.

 

[Murphy1d]

@ashitara - I hope you don't feel like I'm attacking you, because I'm not.

But I am one for a good logical discussion, so I want to be clear that this is not a flame war.

So, in general your argument is (if condensed) that if you were pre-disposed to questions or situations similar to the IQ questions then you would have a better chance at accurately answering the question?

Yes. You are correct.

And would that mean that experience has a factor in IQ? Absolutely. But possibly not in the way you are describing it.

That's because (as many have stated) it is a representation of your results compared to others in your age group. If you score in the 98% percentile then 98 people out of 100 people your age scored lower than you did on a series of questions. Not your age "in your neighborhood." Not your age "in your state." But your age "in the total testing population across the country."

Thus, if the random factors of 'pre-disposition to IQ testing criteria" were significant they would be noticeable in review (such as "50% of those in the top scores were from upper income families). So what does that mean for the other 50% who were not from upper income families? Who attended public school and never had any specialized training? Are they flukes?

I would disagree, because I fit into the "other" 50%. I had no special classes prior to the IQ testing. I lived in a lower middle class as a latch-key kid with two working parents. So how would I be able to answer correctly more questions than 99.4% of the kids my age? Does this mean that I have an aptitude for THESE KINDS OF QUESTIONS? Ahhhh, if so, then what KIND of questions are on the Stanford Binet IQ test?

Thus if you are saying that people who score high on IQ tests either A) studied IQ tests or B) have an ability to answer similar questions around reasoning, solving problems, thinking abstractly, then I would have to say that we agree (partly).

 

[ashitaria]

@ashitara - I hope you don't feel like I'm attacking you, because I'm not.

But I am one for a good logical discussion, so I want to be clear that this is not a flame war.

So, in general your argument is (if condensed) that if you were pre-disposed to questions or situations similar to the IQ questions then you would have a better chance at accurately answering the question?

Yes. You are correct.

And would that mean that experience has a factor in IQ? Absolutely. But possibly not in the way you are describing it.

That's because (as many have stated) it is a representation of your results compared to others in your age group. If you score in the 98% percentile then 98 people out of 100 people your age scored lower than you did on a series of questions. Not your age "in your neighborhood." Not your age "in your state." But your age "in the total testing population across the country."

Thus, if the random factors of 'pre-disposition to IQ testing criteria" were significant they would be noticeable in review (such as "50% of those in the top scores were from upper income families). So what does that mean for the other 50% who were not from upper income families? Who attended public school and never had any specialized training? Are they flukes?

I would disagree, because I fit into the "other" 50%. I had no special classes prior to the IQ testing. I lived in a lower middle class as a latch-key kid with two working parents. So how would I be able to answer correctly more questions than 99.4% of the kids my age? Does this mean that I have an aptitude for THESE KINDS OF QUESTIONS? Ahhhh, if so, then what KIND of questions are on the Stanford Binet IQ test?

Thus if you are saying that people who score high on IQ tests either A) studied IQ tests or B) have an ability to answer similar questions around reasoning, solving problems, thinking abstractly, then I would have to say that we agree (partly).

Do I seem like I'm angry? Don't worry. I'm not, this is just my usual mood in debates, I just tend to see flaws in everything, and I am a very frank person who states my beliefs.

I see what you mean, but as I said, if you believe that you are better than other people because you have done well on an IQ test, you are arrogant and ignorant because there is so many other forms of intelligence besides academic intelligence (which IQ tests measure).

But yes, I agree on the same thing partly, but experience can greatly affect IQ tests even WITHOUT studying for IQ tests, even if you are lower middle class. Even lower-middle classes attend school do they? And as I have said, there was a study that proved that students that had not attended school for a long time did badly, did I?

So experience does effect IQ tests in someway or another. Here's evidence.

http://ezinearticles.com/?how-accurate-are-standard-iq-tests?&id=1109935

Read through it, and tell me what you think. And, I repeat, I am in no way angered or disgusted by you, I just do what I do in debates, which is what I truly enjoy.

 

[bluesquid]

seriously is my argument on software and hardware completely lost?

I think its elegant. Elegance seems to be difficult for many of you, if you want to talk of experience.

 

[Murphy1d]

seriously is my argument on software and hardware completely lost?

I'm a PC. (LOL)

I read the article @ashitara and the thing that I pulled from it is that "Studies show that a standard IQ test is an accurate measure of a person's intelligence, only that there are certain environmental factors that can affect it."

I can see that "environmental factors" can affect an IQ score negatively, but can it really affect it positively? That's what I hear you saying, and the article noted that some people are able to study for the tests and do better than if they had taken the test with no preparation.

But do those people define the population with the higher IQ? And if more people were studying for IQ tests, wouldn't they become "the norm" and bring up the overall average score (the 100 IQ) and thus still make the higher IQ score that more relevant?

I guess the thought is that if 50 out of 100 people were answering 35 out of 50 questions correctly last year, they would have an IQ of 100. But this year they all studied more and answered 40 out of 50 questions correctly, yet they still would have received an IQ of 100.

That's because the population sets the score, not the number answered correctly. So if 1 studious kid reads up on IQ tests and pushes his score up 5 points I would agree that FOR THAT KID the generalization that IQ tests can be affected is acceptable.

To state that "(IQ) tests are bullsh!t" because of this is errant logic. If there was a score given based upon the % of questions answered correctly (like most school tests are) then I would agree that "that little edge" you get from cheating, studying and guessing would affect it overall (i.e. you would have gotten a 89, but you cheated on one question and got a 90).

But the effect of this logic is diluted when you have a class of 5 million students in your age group (just an educated guess). Its all about The Bell Curve. If everyone studies how to get a better IQ score, suddenly everyone has the same score they had before they started studying.

Think of it as Mob Rules. If everybody is doing it, then it doesn't count. But if you are the only one doing it, you will gain some attention.

(PS - Believing you are better and arrogant because of a number is, indeed, stupid. Believing in yourself because of it is reaffirming. And I agree that multiple intelligence tests are better at assessing aptitude more completely than one single test. )

Well, this was fun.

 

[MattKelevra]

I took the WAIS III and got a 155. That was the max the test could score you. I made perfect scores on a few sections so I could have theoreticaly done better if the test had been more thorough and designed to test higher IQs, although I've heard it said you can't accurately measure any IQ over 140 anyways.

I do think (some) IQ tests out there are an accurate survey of intelligence. If you define intelligence as the ability of the brain to make new connections and solve problems without being told how. The WAIS for example tested many various forms of reasoning and problem solving, which are used inside and outside of academic or "pen and paper" situations, and really in all sections of life.

Having said that, I would take any score with a grain of salt. IQ does not mean you will be successful, it does not mean people will like you, (in fact, telling someone your IQ in real life, or the internet for that matter, is one of the quickest ways to make them dislike you. It's almost like telling people you are more handsome than 99% of men or something equivalent) it does not mean you will have motivation to utilize it to it's full potential either.

It is in no way a measure of a human being or their worth. I would trade lives and brains happily with many people I'm sure would score average on IQ tests.

I also do think it is genetic. My sister was tested young as having a 140+ IQ. My father is an engineer, my mother a librarian. Never tested but I know they would be high as well.

Emotional intelligence on the other hand I think may actually be mostly learned (to an extent). I think I made great strides in it in just a matter of a few years from actively forcing myself into a lot of college clubs, activities, parties, ect after always being a loner in highschool. But thats just my personal thoughts, haven't read any pyschology studies on it to tell.

 

[Waugh]

I must admit, I'm a bit of a dolt.

 

[chaomon]

I do believe that we are all smart, in our on ways, in our own thinking. Some of us may not that smart as we expect a INTP should, smart in a way that we excel in academics. But I think that we dont actually care about school. Me, I am not actually interested on what they teach us and the way they teach us, so I ended up being lazy not listening to our teachers always sleeping. So I ended up having a failure quizzes and exam. But when I'm serious about something, and so damn interested I do pass. I think what make as not that smart is bcoz were not interested, I am not interested to know what most people knew. I want to know something that only a few people new. Like the scientist they were not studying things that other people already knew, they are the one who makes topic that we should learn..

 

[Luminates]

So I guess my questions are: do people see themselves as being smart, intelligent, creative, etc?
Personally, I don't but that doesn't mean other people don't as well. I believe many do see themselves as being smart, intelligent etc. Only because they compare themselves to others that are considered "below them" The reason I don't is because when I do something lets say creative, that doesn't mean I'm the only one capable of doing that, many others can if wanting to, so how am I creative when others are just if not more creative than myself? But if we don't view ourselves in such a way, then it's hard to understand if were smart or not in the first place, so it's somewhat biased.

Is intelligence something that can be measured in any way (IQ tests, GPA's, one's ability to play Jeopardy etc)?

Never, Intelligence is something that cannot be measured, for there are different types of smart. Booksmart, logic smart, common sense, etc. It is almost impossible to measure all of these into one scale. One person may be seen as smart in farming, but completely stupid when dealing with the changes of society. Because he is stupid in that sense, is he considered stupid regardless? I believe not for he has his own type of knowledge, and we all our different when it comes to this issue. Some tests like the Iq were only meant for giving us an understanding as to what we lack in, not how stupid or smart we are.

Is curiosity a facet of intelligence? How about open mindedness? Or skepticism?
For some reason, I believe so, because it's curiosity that causes many to look deeper into the hole, and so for themselves what the truth is behind the mysteries of life. They do say that curiosity killed that cat, and for that reason it is a value of intelligence. Being open in the mind is the same as being outside the box, it can go as far as the person wants it to, which is just another way to view curiosity.

Are NT's really naturally intelligent?
Not really, but people view NT"s as being so because of there way of thinking. There mind is the same in every aspect except for the curiosity that comes into play. While another person may see a box setting on top of a table, no one around, they will continue walking, but a NT will go and open it just to see why it's laying there and what is in it. Because of this, NT's gain more knowledge than most and thous considered smarter.

Is intelligence something you're born with or is it something that can vary/grow on a daily/monthly/yearly etc basis?

Like I said before, it depends on what type of intelligence your given, most can be learned through experience and over time, actually almost everything is learned over time. Like my understanding of learning The String theory, now i'm clueless about most of it, but given 10 years, I will know quite a bit.

And, ultimately, how does one even define intelligence? Are there a variety of different ways that one can be intelligent? Creativity; ingenuity; deductive/inductive thinking; memory; pattern recognition; ability to learn quickly or easily; holistic/reductionist thinking; strategic thinking so on and so forth.

Sorry for not answering the final question, it seems impossible as there is know definite way to define intelligence.

 

[Tunesimah]

I'm smarter than I think I am...

I have a horribly slow learning curve, but I'm more than capable of understanding most things.

I've had a distorted self-image for so long that I'm only now slowing coming around to actually having above average intelligence... and eventually I'll realize I'm more intelligent than about 95+% of others. (which is what IQ tests say, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the significance of this)

 

[LAM]

I cannot in all honesty answer this question. Right now I am in one of my "I have no idea about anything right now" phase. Although my ego is telling me I am a genius. I am thinking of all this conditional intelligence stuff and usage of intelligence, EQ and RQ but whenver I typed up a bit I just delete it because I think its wrong. I blame my Pness for this.

 

[snafupants]

My verbal IQ is very good (99th percentile on GRE verbal) but my math skills are somewhat lacking. And people skills, forget about it - insert Italian accent. I read about two or three books per week: an annoying compulsion. Nothing more.

Agent Intellect, and someone else alluded to, you really sell yourself short. Some other people on the forum were claiming their IQs were 145, 147, etc. but, honestly, I would say your the brightest guy here. Assuming you are a guy

 

[commandolam]

I'm pretty freakin smart.

 

[useless username]

Too big of claims are being made without sufficient evidence, in my opinion, when regarding peoples intelligence. I think that some people are not modest enough in their claims. However, I believe that future research will allow for better evaluations of intelligence.

 

[KazeCraven]

I prefer to say something like, "Well, I'm good at abstract thinking and logical thought." Intelligence, or even smartness, is too broad a term for me.

 

[snafupants]

I think you have probably said some of the most intelligent stuff in the God/religion discussions - don't sell yourself short.

I find it strange that a lot of INTP's seem think of themselves and NT's in general as being highly intellectual, yet view themselves as inadequate in some way. I wonder if some of the INTP angst comes from the feeling of having such high expectations of themselves, wanting to 'fit in' with the intellectualism they perceive in the NT category (it's probably especially difficult when INTP's are having to compare themselves to people like Einstein and Socrates).

The problem may even go back to the article that Snowqueen posted on another thread - the idea that INTP's feel like they need to stack up against the intelligence that's stereotypical of NT's, and when they aren't the next Einstein, they punish themselves and attempt to deal with the issue through self deprecation (or even become depressed).

Given the heritability of IQ, perhaps they are subconsciously in competition with their uber smart parents. This is probably a crap thesis.

I feel my math skills have always been somewhat lacking. Pretty skilled with words, however. It is really hard to define intelligence; I dont even think it boils down to math, verbal, visuospatial, and logical skills which an IQ test putatively quantifies.

You can usually tell just be talking to someone and the depth and breadth of their points. Are they good listeners? Do they humbly concede points? How many things can they juggle mentally at one time? These are the right questions to ask.

 

[Dormouse]

You can usually tell just be talking to someone and the depth and breadth of their points. Are they good listeners? Do they humbly concede points? How many things can they juggle mentally at one time? These are the right questions to ask.

But... but... You can't measure any of that! *head explodes*

That said, I agree. However, I think some people take this to an extreme and assume that to qualify as intelligent their every waking thought has to be wordy and philosophical and deeeeeeep.

This is virtually impossible, because it can be pretty difficult to find meaning in 'My toast is burnt' unless you are Douglas Adams or are willing to take several hours to a) Analyse the physical components of said toast or b) Construct a lengthy metaphor relating the burnt state of said toast to your futile existence.

So yeah. Another inferiority complex is born.

Though I might be wrong, as I can only speak for myself when I say that a large percent of my thought is fluff and filler. Perhaps I'm just shallow.

 

[baculou]

People tell me I am smart.
Usually after I do something stupid.
Their conclusion is contrary to evidence.
Which makes them stupid.
Which makes me smart by comparison.

 

[HarlanDe]

Given the heritability of IQ, perhaps they are subconsciously in competition with their uber smart parents. This is probably a crap thesis.

I feel my math skills have always been somewhat lacking. Pretty skilled with words, however. It is really hard to define intelligence; I dont even think it boils down to math, verbal, visuospatial, and logical skills which an IQ test putatively quantifies.

You can usually tell just be talking to someone and the depth and breadth of their points. Are they good listeners? Do they humbly concede points? How many things can they juggle mentally at one time? These are the right questions to ask.

Precisely.

 

[gregarian]

I think intelligence is a social construct. It's so hard to value one set of abilities over others. The way it is currently done is to call a certain set of mental functions that are valuable to our economic and cultural milieu valuable in general. I think that's wrong, but of course it's also helpful to society and isn't a big deal if people don't take it too seriously. Along these lines, I think IQ tests are a fine way of measuring intelligence as long as the limitations on the concept of intelligence are recognized.

I think I'm smart, but many of my friends are smarter. I've never figured out why things that are simple to me are difficult to them, and things that are easy for them are difficult to me, but I suspect it's because we have different personalities and values that make us looking at the world differently, and so different types of thought patterns come easier.

I think curiosity is somewhat important. It is definitely important if you consider knowledge an important part of intelligence. Even more important if you consider a particular set of knowledge an important part of intelligence, and even moreso if the curiosity has some property that pulls an individual towards that particular set of knowledge in some way.

I suspect NT's are considered intelligent because their function within a group is probably the "thinker," which would lead others to identify them with thinking, and also because NT's, or INTP's at least, tend to think of things others don't, which would foreground the "thinking" aspect of the contribution which, in time, is applied to the person himself.


So I guess my questions are: do people see themselves as being smart, intelligent, creative, etc?

Is intelligence something that can be measured in any way (IQ tests, GPA's, one's ability to play Jeopardy etc)?

Is curiosity a facet of intelligence? How about open mindedness? Or skepticism?
Are NT's really naturally intelligent?

Is intelligence something you're born with or is it something that can vary/grow on a daily/monthly/yearly etc basis?

And, ultimately, how does one even define intelligence? Are there a variety of different ways that one can be intelligent? Creativity; ingenuity; deductive/inductive thinking; memory; pattern recognition; ability to learn quickly or easily; holistic/reductionist thinking; strategic thinking so on and so forth.