IQ, intelligence an such

[Paintzee]

A high IQ is like a running motor unless it is attached to something, (education), it's not doing much.

Remember half the population has a 2 digit IQ, scary. 97.725% of the population are less than 130.

 

[WanderMind]

I got a 99th-percentile(iq135, 15sd) from our local Mensa test. It didn't even measure higher iq-levels than that. Im waiting to get reservation for Wais test to get it accurate. Its possible i wont score any higher, its possible i will. Shall see.
Iq doesnt mean anything else than potential to do something. If its not used its ofcourse useless. Some people are not aware that they have higher iqs than average and cant stop wondering why things go so difficult with other people. People who live happily with correlating to their iqs have no problem with it.
Knowing ones iq is just part of selfknowledge that I personally find very interesting thing to know.

 

[snafupants]

A high IQ is like a running motor unless it is attached to something, (education), it's not doing much.

Remember half the population has a 2 digit IQ, scary. 97.725% of the population are less than 130.

That sounds like Emerson. Yeah, the situation in the United States is mildly disconcerting when, hopefully, in your late teens you realize, instead of a streamlined democracy, the United States resembles two seven year old boys, past curfew, one working the pedals and the other on the steering wheel, using a phonebook for visual support, haplessly navigating dad's old pick-up truck. If there's someone truly in control of the situation, I haven't seen it yet. In respect to the thread's main theme, my IQ has tested at four standard deviations above the mean (IQ 160), though I find that information mildly embarrassing. The anonymity of the forum provides me the only shadow under which I would admit this. For those who say the score means little, I'm increasingly in your camp.

 

[RaBind]

You can't possibly say INTPs are the smartest just because the usually have high IQ scores. I mean what about emotional intellect, sorry if I am stereotyping but INTPs in my picture are quite retarded when expressing emotion. Hell I will even go so far as to say I am quite socially retarded because I can't read other people emotions even when it is obvious to other people.

I took an IQ test, it was rated 5 stars out of 6 so I am betting that it is up to standards. I got 124, which is it translated to "High" but it could be the test itself was faulty. The test mostly consisted of patterns and if I am correct INTPs thrive on patterns therefore making the majority of INTPs good at prediction.

There are lots of different kinds of smart and the IQ test only identifies a specific one. People are not smarter or more stupid, they are only different in their talent.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

 

[snafupants]

You can't possibly say INTPs are the smartest just because the usually have high IQ scores. I mean what about emotional intellect, sorry if I am stereotyping but INTPs in my picture are quite retarded when expressing emotion. Hell I will even go so far as to say I am quite socially retarded because I can't read other people emotions even when it is obvious to other people.

I took an IQ test, it was rated 5 stars out of 6 so I am betting that it is up to standards. I got 124, which is it translated to "High" but it could be the test itself was faulty. The test mostly consisted of patterns and if I am correct INTPs thrive on patterns therefore making the majority of INTPs good at prediction.

There are lots of different kinds of smart and the IQ test only identifies a specific one. People are not smarter or more stupid, they are only different in their talent.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

The gold-standard is an actual proctored, standardized and professionally administered aptitude test. For those who dispute the value of IQ tests, there is more to question in the validity of online batteries and ecological applicability, forget about reliability. So, if you're going to ponder these things, why would you subject yourself to a cut-rate exam that someone with a fleeting and feeble knowledge of psychometrics haphazardly constructed in their basement? There isn't one smartest type, agreed. However, I would like to point out the dissonance between your beginning and ending: in the beginning you seem to suggest intelligence is within the grasp of some human testing agency, and then later you seemingly disabuse yourself of that notion.

 

[RaBind]

The gold-standard is an actual proctored, standardized and professionally administered aptitude test. For those who dispute the value of IQ tests, there is more to question in the validity of online batteries and ecological applicability, forget about reliability. So, if you're going to ponder these things, why would you subject yourself to a cut-rate exam that someone with a fleeting and feeble knowledge of psychometrics haphazardly constructed in their basement? There isn't one smartest type, agreed. However, I would like to point out the dissonance between your beginning and ending: in the beginning you seem to suggest intelligence is within the grasp of some human testing agency, and then later you seemingly disabuse yourself of that notion.

Sorry I really could not make much out of this paragraph. Maybe I need to simplify my paragraph and you can simplify yours.

INTPs are not smarter than other types because high IQ does not necessarily equate to being smarter. I took an IQ test and most of the questions/tasks were to do with patterns, so if you got high IQ in this test it means you are smart on the subject of patterns. If the questions/tasks were on emotion than I think INTPs would be more likely to get lower scores.

I get the impression that there is a test that takes all this into account, from what your saying, and it is called the The gold-standard IQ test? If there is such a test I am willing to bet, quite confidently, that there is no type that is smarter than every other type, in all aspects. The results would be like different types of cars, in racing games, some cars are fast but, because of this extra speed, they have bad handling, while other cars have the exact opposite advantage and disadvantage.

Then I stated that no type is smarter, they are just different in their ability, just as no one person is smarter than another they are just different in their ability.

 

[Amagi82]

For what it's worth, I average around 145 on IQ tests, and I do think INTPs typically have a very high IQ (which is backed up by the responses in this thread, provided they are accurate). That said, IQ is only one small aspect of intelligence, mostly consisting of the ability to find and recognize patterns.

INTPs are often quite terrible when it comes to other forms of intelligence, especially relating to the kinesthetic and interpersonal. I can kick the hell out of an IQ test, but ask me to dance, or catch a ball, and I'll trip over my own feet, miss by 30 yards, and look like a complete moron. It's easy to be arrogant and use your IQ as a badge of pride, but everyone has their strengths and weaknesses.

 

[BigApplePi]

I like to think of I.Q. as representing a certain kind of intelligence. The skills have been already named, but I'd add it shows a kind of power ... where one is now plus the ability to grow one's knowledge in favored areas. A greater intelligence can reach higher peaks of knowledge and power. A lessor intelligence can't acquire enough knowledge to get there. An interesting question is, how does knowledge relate to intelligence? Knowledge is the foundation from which we start. Intelligence is the ability to work with that knowledge. Raise the knowledge and intelligence has a larger base on which to work.

 

[snafupants]

Sorry I really could not make much out of this paragraph. Maybe I need to simplify my paragraph and you can simplify yours.

INTPs are not smarter than other types because high IQ does not necessarily equate to being smarter. I took an IQ test and most of the questions/tasks were to do with patterns, so if you got high IQ in this test it means you are smart on the subject of patterns. If the questions/tasks were on emotion than I think INTPs would be more likely to get lower scores.

I get the impression that there is a test that takes all this into account, from what your saying, and it is called the The gold-standard IQ test? If there is such a test I am willing to bet, quite confidently, that there is no type that is smarter than every other type, in all aspects. The results would be like different types of cars, in racing games, some cars are fast but, because of this extra speed, they have bad handling, while other cars have the exact opposite advantage and disadvantage.

Then I stated that no type is smarter, they are just different in their ability, just as no one person is smarter than another they are just different in their ability.

Right, you probably took a test akin to the Wechsler matrix reasoning subtest or the Raven's Progressive Matrices test. Ostensibly both of these sub/tests are merely testing patterns, but closer inspection and factor analysis reveal that these tests are tapping into fluid intelligence, which is basically raw intellectual horsepower and the ability to reason with novel information; one could argue that these puzzles are no longer novel after so many decades, but that discussion will have to be postponed. Fluid intelligence, under CHC-Theory, loads extremely heavily with Spearman's g or one's overarching general intelligence.

That car analogy is awesome: I find it quite useful. CHC-Theory is a triple tiered intelligence theory that seeks to consolidate general intellectual ability, at the top, nine broad abilities feeding into that like a river or vein-system and seventy narrow abilities feeding into those broad abilities. So, for instance, a subsidiary and narrow ability feeding into the broad ability of short-term memory may be working memory and for crystallized intelligence, another broad ability putatively testing one's breadth and depth of cultural knowledge, we might see lexical knowledge as one constituent component. Most modern adult intelligence tests, even the Wechsler finally, are attuned to CHC-Theory and, thus, modern statistical research and factor analysis germane to intelligence testing.

Getting back to your brilliant car analogy, though, that fits right in with CHC-Theory. Fluid intelligence might be horsepower, processing speed might be top speed of the car, visual processing might be handling ability and so forth. When we look at the human mind as an information processing machine, isolating salient factors from the environment and manipulating and extracting those stimuli for an advantage, then the car analogy makes a tad more sense. The human mind is a fantastically complex vehicle, and at the moment I believe IQ tests are the best medium for gauging its functioning. I agree, however, with your assessment that we should look at entire profiles (the car's speed, etcetera) and refrain from making large decisions based on one test administration.

 

[UseHerName]

What is needed is a structural model for intelligence. Intelligence is like an organism. It can be very large, yet break at any time or any place.

Yeah, I see what you mean. It would be hard to say who's more intelligent than who when it comes to stuff like memory, anyone can know anything.
If intelligence is only logic than that means that imagination isn't intelligence, and vice versa for imagination.
If we say that total comprehension is intelligence than it can vary from person to person depending on how we test them, test results can be varied by things like talents. If we use words to test comprehension people who are good with words will seem smarter; if we use pictures, people who are good with images will be smarter; if we use common sense anti-socials will seem retarded; and so on.
Being able to adapt to surroundings is also just as bad for people who are slow learners.
Ability to learn and apply information almost means creativity is not intelligence.

So, what is the structural model?

It's ability to understand. Think about it, everything you ever do requires understanding first. Logic requires understanding of concepts to be able to predict results; creativity requires ability to understand a multitude concepts to combine, recreate, or fix things; amount of knowledge requires understanding to use (knowledge as in not just information); wisdom requires insight from knowledge and experience which you need to understand to use to any purpose; talent is a natural understanding of things; genius is understanding something that has not been understood. And so on...

It would be hard to test intelligence because you'd have to test someone on everything then compare the results and find the average on how fast and at how much depth they understand everything.

I hope this doesn't sound retarded.

 

[IdeasNotTheProblem]

I scored 114 when I was 15. Account for 13 years inflation + 4 years college / 10 years heavy drinking+8 years underacheiving= 1 bitter, wise cracking construction worker

 

[BigApplePi]

Yeah, I see what you mean. It would be hard to say who's more intelligent than who when it comes to stuff like memory, anyone can know anything.
If intelligence is only logic than that means that imagination isn't intelligence, and vice versa for imagination.
If we say that total comprehension is intelligence than it can vary from person to person depending on how we test them, test results can be varied by things like talents. If we use words to test comprehension people who are good with words will seem smarter; if we use pictures, people who are good with images will be smarter; if we use common sense anti-socials will seem retarded; and so on.
Being able to adapt to surroundings is also just as bad for people who are slow learners.
Ability to learn and apply information almost means creativity is not intelligence.

So, what is the structural model?

It's ability to understand. Think about it, everything you ever do requires understanding first. Logic requires understanding of concepts to be able to predict results; creativity requires ability to understand a multitude concepts to combine, recreate, or fix things; amount of knowledge requires understanding to use (knowledge as in not just information); wisdom requires insight from knowledge and experience which you need to understand to use to any purpose; talent is a natural understanding of things; genius is understanding something that has not been understood. And so on...

It would be hard to test intelligence because you'd have to test someone on everything then compare the results and find the average on how fast and at how much depth they understand everything.

I hope this doesn't sound retarded.

Not retarded at all. Intelligence would relate to all of those abilities you say. I like to use a working def: the ability to deal with stuff. What does that mean? I start with an issue in my environment and I have to interact with it in some manner to get somewhere in a timely manner. Something has to get done. This would make understanding not just observational but a step-by-step moving process. MOTION - UMS

But how to construct a model? I'd start with lots of examples of dealing and try to define them and then come up with some sort of organization. Here is one example: Say I am two year's old and the environmental issue is to build a house. (That may not be the best, but I'm just picking a random situation.) So is intelligence required here?

1. I have to learn about my environment.
2. I have to learn speech, need for protection.
3. I have to acquire knowledge of materials.
4. I have to get along with people to acquire materials.

See where I'm going with this? This may take years of learning and if I get stuck or slowed down along the way my intelligence is limited.

Other examples: I am thirty years old. I want to write a novel. I want to advance mathematics or solve a technical problem or run a fast race or get a good job. I want to fix my broken sink. I want to get a girlfriend. What intelligences are required?

Here is another issue. Intelligence is only a word like other words. Do we want it for comparison or as an absolute? Is it useless as one word or do we want to define lots of types as with logical versus intuitive versus sensational versus emotional intelligence (to steal from the MBTI)? The I.Q. test likes to use logical and literary tests because the results seem to correlate with most everything else. Yet it fails with things like motivation which could mean emotional intelligence.

 

[Coolydudey]

IQ

Almost everyone on this forum (rightly I would say) disputes the validity of IQ, but let's take a step back. First things first, realise that IQ doesn't measure intelligence:it measures IQ, a specific ability to reason with data and see patterns (and perhaps others for different tests). Look at this, a theory that discriminates between different types of intelligence:

Then, look at the correlation of IQ with other factors such as the ones mentioned in the next table:

One must wander how much living in poverty affects your IQ etc, but still the numbers are far too strong to be disregarded as meaningless.

So, if IQ measures something so specific, why do you think it has such important effects on our lives?

 

[Cognisant]

Re: IQ

The worst thing that you can ever do for someone is to tell them they have a high IQ.

 

[RockinLollipop]

Meh. I just took a couple of quick online tests a couple of hours ago and they range from average to above average. Can't say I've scored 130+, though.

That's it, I must be the shameful love-child of the INTP community! Oh, woe is me!

 

[ach003]

What does it even matter comparing these numbers...

There are so many ways to gauge intelligence, and no test is perfect. However, whatever we can perceive and recognize as intelligence is, in fact, almost a given in INTPs...Not to say all intelligent people are INTP-types. But in an effort to appease curiosity (who knows, maybe you have a useful application for this knowledge) I did take a "real" IQ test in 4th grade and I am definitely above 130. If you want an exact number, feel free to buy me a new test.

PS - Don't even bother with free online IQ tests. They aren't very good...and the way in which an IQ test is administered really requires a lot of interaction between the test-giver and the recipient in order to assess much more beyond the answer, and more about how the problem is solved...I feel true intelligence lies more in the process of developing solutions rather than the solutions themselves.

 

[snafupants]

What does it even matter comparing these numbers...

There are so many ways to gauge intelligence, and no test is perfect. However, whatever we can perceive and recognize as intelligence is, in fact, almost a given in INTPs...Not to say all intelligent people are INTP-types. But in an effort to appease curiosity (who knows, maybe you have a useful application for this knowledge) I did take a "real" IQ test in 4th grade and I am definitely above 130. If you want an exact number, feel free to buy me a new test.

PS - Don't even bother with free online IQ tests. They aren't very good...and the way in which an IQ test is administered really requires a lot of interaction between the test-giver and the recipient in order to assess much more beyond the answer, and more about how the problem is solved...I feel true intelligence lies more in the process of developing solutions rather than the solutions themselves.

Why would someone, totally hypothetically, discount or impugn IQ tests and then refuse to discuss their own score? What's the source of caginess if not silent mental concession that IQ tests assess something important to an individual, something approximating intelligence?

 

[Prometheus]

Everyone's intelligence is different. Some are spacial thinkers, others have a high emotional or linguistic intelligence. Not quite sure the exact number, but it was proposed by Howard Gardner. It pretty much says that the way we experience and interact with the world is different for everyone. What your intelligence leans toward ultimately helps define what you will do in your life.

As an example, ever since I was a child I was always interested in making things, from makeshift bridges out of K'NEX toys, to drawing buildings and cities. Even though I usually graded in those IQ exams (135-145) I always had propensity toward the engineering/architectural side of our world. I will say that even in college, my spatial reasoning capacities were ahead of nearly all my classmates and some professors. Though the problem with that is, all that thinking leads to trouble. As it is with being an INTP, you begin to second guess yourself, and then its a slippery slope.

(My mind is like that movie Inception, though not as edgy)

 

[snafupants]

Everyone's intelligence is different. Some are spacial thinkers, others have a high emotional or linguistic intelligence. Not quite sure the exact number, but it was proposed by Howard Gardner. It pretty much says that the way we experience and interact with the world is different for everyone. What your intelligence leans toward ultimately helps define what you will do in your life.

As an example, ever since I was a child I was always interested in making things, from makeshift bridges out of K'NEX toys, to drawing buildings and cities. Even though I usually graded in those IQ exams (135-145) I always had propensity toward the engineering/architectural side of our world. I will say that even in college, my spatial reasoning capacities were ahead of nearly all my classmates and some professors. Though the problem with that is, all that thinking leads to trouble. As it is with being an INTP, you begin to second guess yourself, and then its a slippery slope.

(My mind is like that movie Inception, though not as edgy)

With that in mind, couldn't a psychologist provide qualitative descriptions of ranges (e.g., very superior and very low), confidence intervals, and involved profile analysis? Such a plan would impart valuable information and obviate the distraction of stamping one, summative number to an individual. Since traditional IQ tests tend to incorporate discrete spatial tasks, verbal tasks, quantitative reasoning tasks and so forth, what would be the problem? My qualm with Gardner's alternative theories is that they're concerned with something aside from intellectual functioning. Take his intelligences. Sure, interpersonal and kinesthetic skill or predilection is important for some things, but is that really subsumed under the intelligence banner? Perhaps not. We should employ other examinations (achievement tests, task performance, etc.) when our concern is non-intellectual functioning and fortes. The ambit is too vague and subjective otherwise; my inkling is that fostering this fuzziness is just what Gardner desires.

 

[scorpiomover]

As i read more and more into this forum i cannot help but notice that most of us are rather intelligent, independent, individuals
So to either confirm or eliminate my suspicion that the INTP personality type is linked to a high IQ (130+) i would like to know if any of you have taken IQ tests, whether government issued official ones or just quick online ones, and what your scores were
ive only taken online ones, simply because i cant find a full one, and generally score about 135-145
so what about you guys?

I have a highish score too.

However, INTPs are supposed to be about 6%-7%, or thereabouts, in the USA. The average IQ for the top 6%, is 124. We've got way too many people in the 130s, 140s and beyond, for our numbers. Then we have to remember that there are plenty of smart INTJs too, and that makes the problem worse.

I reckon most INTPs are not online at these sites, and that online forum sites attract people with higher IQ, and especially highly detailed topics that appeal to a scientific mind, like MBTI. So most of the INTPs here, probably happen to show a much higher IQ than normal, because we are on an MBTI site.

 

[intpz]

I don't particularly like the emotionally intelligent people. In fact, I don't exactly know what that would mean. If it means the ability to control your emotions, I'm a genius, and so are most introverts. That doesn't make sense to me. Then goes the "really emotional" conception, however that somehow does appear very far from intelligence to me.

 

[lungs]

I don't particularly like the emotionally intelligent people. In fact, I don't exactly know what that would mean.

well right here you have identified and expressed a personal preference which is a part of being emotionally intelligent, congratulations.

in a nutshell it means being aware of your own and others emotions and being able to handle your own appropriately and deal with others sensitively.

what you're describing as being either controlled or histrionic is something else.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I don't particularly like the emotionally intelligent people. In fact, I don't exactly know what that would mean. If it means the ability to control your emotions, I'm a genius, and so are most introverts. That doesn't make sense to me. Then goes the "really emotional" conception, however that somehow does appear very far from intelligence to me.

Would you rather deal with someone that has Alexithymia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexithymia

 

[snafupants]

I have a highish score too.

However, INTPs are supposed to be about 6%-7%, or thereabouts, in the USA. The average IQ for the top 6%, is 124. We've got way too many people in the 130s, 140s and beyond, for our numbers. Then we have to remember that there are plenty of smart INTJs too, and that makes the problem worse.

I reckon most INTPs are not online at these sites, and that online forum sites attract people with higher IQ, and especially highly detailed topics that appeal to a scientific mind, like MBTI. So most of the INTPs here, probably happen to show a much higher IQ than normal, because we are on an MBTI site.

The variations in ability portion of this study, which endeavored to statistically harmonize the MBTI and giftedness (deviation IQ > 129), is perhaps the most compelling section. Basically they reported that the high verbal ability group was more apt to be intuitive, whereas the high math ability group was more likely to be sensing; it makes intuitive sense (hehe) that general giftedness would correlate with intuitive types, because a cause and effect of being gifted is being curious, which also happens to be part and parcel of being intuitive; also, per WAIS/WISC findings, vocabulary and general knowledge (comprehension, etc.) are extremely g-loaded abilities; a crucial element of becoming conversant on far flung topics is curiosity; the math/sensing finding also makes sense under the prism of math is detail-oriented and working memory-heavy, as a rule. Both of these findings (verbal/intuitive and math/sensing link) achieved statistical significance. Another cool finding was that four personality types (INFP, INTP, ENFP, and ENTP) comprised half of the gifted sample, in spite of only being about twenty percent of the norm group. There are two obvious flaws with this methodology. Only kids and adolescents were analyzed, and some types (INTJ and INFJ) may have been underrepresented in this particular sample. Anyway, the verbal/math dichotomy is plausible - I stink at math, and show a preference for feeling (in the wonky world of MBTI), while being highly verbal, and I (indeed) display a lopsided intuitive over sensing list. My younger sister is a computer science major and ESTP. That's flimsy science but decent face/ecological validity.

Spoiler

http://www.sengifted.org/archives/articles/a-synthesis-of-research-on-psychological-types-of-gifted-adolescents

 

[Susannah]

Intelligence is an opinion. Some people believe that intelligence is purely based on IQ, while others may take a Multiple Intelligences Theory approach. When I compiled my own definition of intelligence, I came up with the following qualities:
-The inclination to recognize the truth when presented with the truth
-The ability to manipulate a situation
-The ability to understand complex systems

By my own definition of intelligence, I do not consider the INTP as the most intelligent of the Myer-Briggs personality types.

 

[BigApplePi]

Intelligence Definition

This is not inconsistent with the rather vague definition of intelligence as, "The ability to do stuff."

Intelligence is an opinion. Some people believe that intelligence is purely based on IQ, while others may take a Multiple Intelligences Theory approach. When I compiled my own definition of intelligence, I came up with the following qualities:
-The inclination to recognize the truth when presented with the truth
Observation and check out of reality.
-The ability to manipulate a situation
Ability to interact and change.
-The ability to understand complex systems
Ability to do this in depth. (Note that slowness limits depth, so speed helps.)

By my own definition of intelligence, I do not consider the INTP as the most intelligent of the Myer-Briggs personality types.

"Stuff" is vague. How can it be expanded usefully? Picking activities at random? Dealing with life situations? Breadth according to some organizational standard?

My answer to this reminds me of this from the, "You know you're an Intp when..." thread:

...when you just know how to do something, have no idea why you know it, and don't have the patience to show anyone else how to do it.

The organizational standard for "stuff" is that of an organism. Note that a supercomputer can probably do very well on an IQ test with suitable programming. Is it intelligent therefore? No, because for one thing it can't defend itself it someone wants to blow it up. That makes it unintelligent.

 

[Susannah]

I like the vague standards because intelligence can take on different forms. The ones whom I find most intelligent are the ones who can take those standards and apply them to a variety of situations. But then again, they're only ones I thought of in a sitting and decided to write down. There's plenty of room to elaborate on them, but to a degree.

 

[BigApplePi]

An analogy for intelligence might be if someone wants to know how to deal with something, to look it up in an encyclopedia. They can find a basic answer or look to it in depth. Suppose I want to learn how to sow. I look it up. The encyclopedia tells me the basics and points me to the details. But this is not as simple as it sounds. It's me, an organism that wants to sow. One of the requirements is I be awake. So I need to get a good night's sleep to do the best sowing. I can't miss this when I look up how to sow. It's part of intelligence though at first it seems unrelated to the original intention.

 

[snafupants]

What you describe seems more akin to particular personality characteristics, fine motor skills, drive, curiosity, and orthogonal talents rather than intelligence per se. To the extent that sowing requires a modicum of interpretative ability, visual processing and fluid intelligence might enter the mix.

 

[BigApplePi]

What you describe seems more akin to particular personality characteristics, fine motor skills, drive, curiosity, and orthogonal talents rather than intelligence per se. To the extent that sowing requires a modicum of interpretative ability, visual processing and fluid intelligence might enter the mix.

Drive, curiosity indicates intelligence not? I tend to favor DEFINING generalized intelligence as, "The capacity to deal with stuff." But we don't have to define it that way. We can make it focus heavily on human verbal and math skills and cut it off. Those could describe what's at the top of intelligence if we are so disposed. But why not the supporting traits?

I suppose I'm fan of the scaled approach. A rock has zero intelligence. But does ANYTHING sentient have intelligence? If it's alive it can deal with stuff. A slug has less intelligence than a spider. A spider has fine motor skills, and it makes decisions based on those skills.

 

[HDINTP]

How could I have been so stupid...

 

[snafupants]

Drive, curiosity indicates intelligence not? I tend to favor DEFINING generalized intelligence as, "The capacity to deal with stuff." But we don't have to define it that way. We can make it focus heavily on human verbal and math skills and cut it off. Those could describe what's at the top of intelligence if we are so disposed. But why not the supporting traits?

I suppose I'm fan of the scaled approach. A rock has zero intelligence. But does ANYTHING sentient have intelligence? If it's alive it can deal with stuff. A slug has less intelligence than a spider. A spider has fine motor skills, and it makes decisions based on those skills.

@BigApplePi

Fortunately that preferred definition favors the definition of g purported by most practicing psychologists. There really isn't much dissension within the psychological community on the meaning of g and intelligence (a.k.a., abstract thinking ability and its manifestations); test construction, utilization, and psychometrics, in fact, relies on essentially universal operational definitions of these variables; debates regarding intelligence usually deal with sociopolitical repercussions of IQ among groups as well as general societal equality. There's at once a layperson fomentation and a professional consensus. To address another point, perhaps a slug or mosquito or rat has some amount of g but the IQ of these gastropods, insects, and rodents would be negligible. I believe Koko the Gorilla, however, enjoyed an IQ of around eight four, which approximates the black average in the United States. That said, quantitative and qualitative differences among g, IQ, and intelligence are best understood in the context of human intellectual enterprise and particular cultures; please note that Koko the Gorilla possessed a relatively sophisticated and humanlike sign language and reasoning capacity, greatly surpassing even the theoretical intellectual limits of a mosquito.

 

[BigApplePi]

please note that Koko the Gorilla possessed a relatively sophisticated and humanlike sign language and reasoning capacity, greatly surpassing even the theoretical intellectual limits of a mosquito.

@anyhuman.
I'm quite suspicious of any ratings of any kind (not just intelligence) made by human beings who as self-centered as they are tend to compare everyone else with themselves. Look at Koko. He gets compared to humans and comes off rather 2nd best furthering the conceit of us humans.

I never met a mosguito that I warmed up to though many have warmed up to me. Dare I therefore pass a judgment upon them whereby they come out 2nd? Most mosquitos I've been intimate with have flying skills way beyond mine. I don't think my very best score on some human aviation test could match their natural abilities. And I haven't covered reproductive abilities either.

I do admit any living creature possessing language does have the ability to create worlds of their own which may or may not be an advantage in dealing with the real world. Let them try their abstract verbal and math skills on those mosquitos and see who can achieve anything more than skin deep.

 

[intpz]

Somewhat on topic: today i have been called an idiot and various other terms implying that I have an incredibly low IQ (even literal meaning), because I believe in theory, not experience exclusively. In more detail - because I have formed opinions about things without trying them, simply by observation, analysis and knowledge, as well as because I don't believe in idols.

...So intelligence to some people is experience, it seems. The more experience you have (or the more you agree with other people, a.k.a. idols; or the more you rely on history), the smarter you are. The more you theorize and rely on logic, analysis and knowledge, the stupider you are.

Hm. To me, it actually is the other way around. Don't know about you guys, but I assume it would be the same due to the N-ness instead of S-ness.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Somewhat on topic: today i have been called an idiot and various other terms implying that I have an incredibly low IQ (even literal meaning), because I believe in theory, not experience exclusively. In more detail - because I have formed opinions about things without trying them, simply by observation, analysis and knowledge, as well as because I don't believe in idols.

Someone specifically said that you must have a low IQ?

 

[intpz]

Someone specifically said that you must have a low IQ?

That is correct. Every other sentence after comparing my IQ to some animal's IQ, or stating that X animal has higher IQ than mine, he mentioned that I'm an idiot/have a low IQ/my intelligence is low/etc..

 

[EyeSeeCold]

That is correct. Every other sentence after comparing my IQ to some animal's IQ, or stating that X animal has higher IQ than mine, he mentioned that I'm an idiot/have a low IQ/my intelligence is low/etc..

Who was this person?

 

[BigApplePi]

Somewhat on topic: today i have been called an idiot and various other terms implying that I have an incredibly low IQ (even literal meaning), because I believe in theory, not experience exclusively. In more detail - because I have formed opinions about things without trying them, simply by observation, analysis and knowledge, as well as because I don't believe in idols.

Theory is a potential evaluation of experience.

...So intelligence to some people is experience, it seems. The more experience you have (or the more you agree with other people, a.k.a. idols; or the more you rely on history), the smarter you are. The more you theorize and rely on logic, analysis and knowledge, the stupider you are.

Experience is data input. If one is going to be intelligent, they need to be intelligent ABOUT something.

Hm. To me, it actually is the other way around. Don't know about you guys, but I assume it would be the same due to the N-ness instead of S-ness.

Experience and theory need each other. Theory tells you what to do with experience else you repeat whatever what is done with experience either over and over or incorrectly. Theory alone is not intelligent if what is purports is not checked out. It is intelligent if one is looking for new possibilities.

 

[Coolydudey]

After reading through this whole thread, I established a few main points that needed reconciling (I will mention the ones I am interested in). First major theme that I noticed is that IQ is correlated with social position. Second, I notice that there isn't a causal relationship between IQ and social position in either direction. Third, I notice that people are unclear as to what intelligence is and what an IQ test measures.

I'm not going to insist on what intelligence is, but today I thought of an interesting new idea that reconciles points one two and three.
It's viewing IQ tests as testing the ability to see what the test-maker wants you to see, through increasing complexity/obscurity.
This means we can now view IQ tests as measuring the ability to understand what others want you to, and even broader, what the world is throwing at you. This establishes why a person with motivation and a high IQ should achieve a high social position, but that without motivation (as previously mentioned), a high IQ is just a fast-running engine not connected to anything and therefore not generating "useful" work.

 

[SLushhYYY]

Am I the only one who finds "emotional" intelligence to be somewhat of a low-tier intelligence? Haha...I mean, one does not need emotional abilities to prosper when you are capable of sustaining your own mental stability.

 

[Coolydudey]

Am I the only one who finds "emotional" intelligence to be somewhat of a low-tier intelligence? Haha...I mean, one does not need emotional abilities to prosper when you are capable of sustaining your own mental stability.

This is probably a phenomenon largely present in INTPs. I do agree actually...(please look up two posts though, I don't want to start a new thread and I had an interesting idea. I know this sounds childish, but oh well).