Does IQ Do More Harm Than Good?

[Rudy]

I'm asking this as a serious question, not one aimed at a particular answer.

I myself can see the theoretical value in being able to judge potential students, for example, by their general intelligence. It may also be of aid in theorizing on the nature of intelligence itself.

However, I notice that whenever people start talking about their IQ, it never leads to anything good. It also engenders a feeling of pride, which is much like being proud of having blue eyes, and so makes very little sense to me. I say this as someone who has a pretty high IQ himself, so I'm not speaking out of any sense of bitterness.

So, the question is, does the study and analysis of IQ do more harm than good? Would we be better off without it? In what ways would it be better, and in what ways worse?

[JohnDoe]

Your just mad because your IQ is lower ;)
No in all seriousness IQ is a pretty crappy construct and isn't very meaningful at either tail, just like SAT's tend not to be very useful at either end of the scale. The difference between a 1540 and a 1600 (back when 1600 was perfect) is negligible. But the difference between a 900 and a 960.. is a bit more important. IQ has the same problems in that its almost impossible to test on the tails.

[ToC]

Mine's consistently tested in the 140s since I was a kid. Admittedly, knowing I was smart made me lazy, and as a result I think I never reached my full potential.

[azelismia]

eh, when I was younger I went thru a year or so where I had the opinion that everyone in the world was dumber than me, but then I got a really harsh comeuppance or three. I don't remember what it was. I probably blocked it but I've been far more humble since that event and I've also figured out that actual IQ doesn't mean much. I think recognizing intelligence is useful.... but I don't think we have a good tool to do it as it stands.

uh so anyway, It's like a gun. murder isn't the guns fault, it's the fault of the person wielding it.

it can be used for a number of purposes, some constructive some destructive. there's no way you could honestly quantify if iq tests as a rule do more harm than good imho.

although, I'd rather be stupid than smart..

[Thinker]

It is just a measurement of a very specific trait.

Like any measurement about humans its value is in how it is used.

I must admit that IQ is rarely used in Australia these days in any field that I am aware of.
It was used in the 1960's and 70's to test school aged children.
I haven't seen it mentioned for many years.
This forum is actually the first place I have seen anyone refer to it in 20 years or more.

[Vagrant]

I think IQ is a very crude measurement of intelligence -- everybody is intelligent in certain ways. To simply assign a blanket statement of intelligence is primitive, in my opinion.

I ascribe to the theory of multiple intelligences (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). It is my belief that some people are "smarter" in certain things, but "dumber" in others. Everybody is given a set amount of "points" to work with, and those points are assigned randomly. However, the number of base points given varies from person to person. Geniuses or savants have a disproportionate amount of points in a specific intelligence. Mental ailments, such as autism, also skew where the points go.

[daydreamer]

i think it is good for identifying potential problems with children, or to identify gifted children who may need a little more to keep them engaged. as far as older kids, or adults, i don't think it's very helpful immediately. it may be more like census data, it might be interesting to see trends over time.

never leads to anything good? lol ancedotal: i dated a guy in high school whose mother, being a substitute teacher, somehow had access to my iq (?) and i remember her saying to me that i wasn't smart enough for her jeffrey. lol. it's ok she was insane anyway so i think her insanity bothered me more than the comment.

it is interesting to me though that my husband and i are one iq point apart (his is the higher number ! argh ! lol) but we didn't find that out until we were older. i guess it could be said that people of similar iqs may at least appreciate each other. so it might be interesting on a personal level; but i don't think an average-to above average adult's iq "number" means anything else as far as representing that person to society.

[Rudy]

i think it is good for identifying potential problems with children, or to identify gifted children who may need a little more to keep them engaged. as far as older kids, or adults, i don't think it's very helpful immediately. it may be more like census data, it might be interesting to see trends over time.

...

it is interesting to me though that my husband and i are one iq point apart (his is the higher number ! argh ! lol) but we didn't find that out until we were older. i guess it could be said that people of similar iqs may at least appreciate each other. so it might be interesting on a personal level; but i don't think an average-to above average adult's iq "number" means anything else as far as representing that person to society.
This is pretty close to my view of the issue. Don't worry about your husband, though. 1 point is basically meaningless given margin of error in any test. Unless each of you took something like 20-tests multiple times, the difference has no significance.

[Zer0]

IMHO, the IQ testing is just another trial to do a measurement for human capability... merely a tool. Now what do we judge of a simple ruler?
"This ruler is so evil!!??" Not in my opinion.
For better or worse even if it has flaws, it shows that at least it could measure something in us human (although substantially debatable that the test process and scoring favored heavily towards us INTJ thinkers).
The problem is how do you use the tool.

[josephine]

It makes more sense to measure performance in classes or at specific real-world tasks. This type of measurement would enable you to asses multiple types of intelligences better than the standard IQ test. Taking a paper and pencil IQ test isn't that useful in determining intelligence if you want a highly accurate measurement (it can only give a general ballpark estimate of capabilities in the math and logic areas). I don't even see the point in measuring intelligence. If a kid is struggling in class, it will be evident even without an IQ test. If they're very smart, the teacher will probably notice that as well.

I don't think, however, that IQ measurements do much harm. In the real world, accomplishments count for a lot more than IQ. Anybody who brags about a high IQ without very impressive accomplishments to back it up will probably get laughed at. If a person gets cocky just because of his/her IQ and thinks that no accomplishments or effort are needed in life, they're basically sabotaging themselves. So it's not the IQ test doing the harm - it's the person.

[schwartzie]

However, I notice that whenever people start talking about their IQ, it never leads to anything good.
Oh? in what sense? What people and what sort of talk? Like-casual chat? or some sort of analysis?


It also engenders a feeling of pride, which is much like being proud of having blue eyes, and so makes very little sense to me.... So, the question is, does the study and analysis of IQ do more harm than good?

hm... it might do this for some people, but at least among some, maybe most people, the feelings engendered are not garden variety pride; they even are more typically shame or fear. For the typical female, aged 12 to about 17, for example, concealment of most kinds of intelligence is... near paramount, lest your social status be attacked, which is not fun. And the feelings associated with hiding your personality and physiology can be complex; "pride" is too simplistic a term. And, anyway, this sort of "talk" that triggers a social response is casual, too, not study or analysis.

I can't imagine that it is reasonable to suggest that knowledge-and the study and analysis of a topic -- is best suppressed because the topic in casual conversation has an emotional aspect. Lots of topics trigger complex emotions: sex, children, religion, war, peace, medicine, taxes, dancing, whatever...

it seems to me that the solution is more, not less, study and analysis, to understand the complexity of the social/emotional responses, along with understanding other aspects of the topic.

and having said all that, yes, sometimes people get messed up along the way and their intelligence or lack thereof becomes something that they use to injure others or that others use to casually injure them. People who aren't very bright and who have authority over bright kids, for example, can do some real harm to them, ...

[demvesalius]

So, the question is, does the study and analysis of IQ do more harm than good? Would we be better off without it? In what ways would it be better, and in what ways worse?

I had one professional test which placed me in the 150s; however, I never scored more than a 1050 on a SAT. I'm an interesting specimen. If something doesn't interest me I'll be average or below average at it; but, if something catches my attention and I go at it at full throttle you better watch out. So I suppose if I was tested on something that I was not interested in, or was not my forte, I would be considered a dunce. When I took the SAT I really wasn't interested improving my vocabulary or learning math.

I think we'd be better off without an IQ test. The SAT measures acquired knowledge, when the IQ tests "ability". Someone who has studied their ass off is better equipped then someone who simply can if they wanted to, but has no motivation.

[Zer0]

I had one professional test which placed me in the 150s; however, I never scored more than a 1050 on a SAT. I'm an interesting specimen. If something doesn't interest me I'll be average or below average at it; but, if something catches my attention and I go at it at full throttle you better watch out. So I suppose if I was tested on something that I was not interested in, or was not my forte, I would be considered a dunce. When I took the SAT I really wasn't interested improving my vocabulary or learning math.

I think we'd be better off without an IQ test. The SAT measures acquired knowledge, when the IQ tests "ability". Someone who has studied their ass off is better equipped then someone who simply can if they wanted to, but has no motivation.

IMHO, that last paragraph is a solid reason why IQ test has to stay.
With right usage maybe in conjunction with other tests and practices, we could tap into the currently "unused" potentials of said type of people.

[demvesalius]

IMHO, that last paragraph is a solid reason why IQ test has to stay.
With right usage maybe in conjunction with other tests and practices, we could tap into the currently "unused" potentials of said type of people.

Yes, but you're never going to "tap" into them if they don't care.

How do you test passion? Or heart? Why give someone a false sense of confidence even if they are gifted in their passion?

[Zer0]

Yes, but you're never going to "tap" into them if they don't care.

How do you test passion? Or heart? Why give someone a false sense of confidence even if they are gifted in their passion?

Of course they won't care. But that pave our way to another question about how to brought the untapped talents into good use which is out of this question's scope. :)
But for the possible answer of that question might be a specialized education system based off IQ result test + personality type tests.
Instead of throwing up the kids altogether and let the nature works them out.
At this point you probably know already that we INTJ aren't fond of taking up the lead unless necessary and there's less chance we'll be likely to develop this skill given we're mixed with the general public.

So in short, we might be able to develop a more sophisticated educating system based on the best approach teaching method for each categorized group of student. Which IQ test is one good candidate as one of the measuring tool for categorizing.

[aperson]

I have only done IQ tests for fun and I think that they do not have a practical application in 'the real world'. Every test has provided a different score (The lowest was 100 the highest was 169). It is the same as having loads of qualifications - a piece of paper is useless unless I can demonstrate that I can do all the things that the piece of paper states I can. Having a high IQ does not mean that a person would be better at a certain job than another with a lower IQ.

[SiMey]

I think IQ is a very crude measurement of intelligence -- everybody is intelligent in certain ways. I ascribe to the theory of multiple intelligences. It is my belief that some people are "smarter" in certain things, but "dumber" in others.

I like this way of seeing things too and fits my view that every person can do something better than me and I can learn something from everyone.

[schwartzie]

I think we'd be better off without an IQ test. The SAT measures acquired knowledge, when the IQ tests "ability". Someone who has studied their ass off is better equipped then someone who simply can if they wanted to, but has no motivation.

I agree w zer0. IQ is a human attribute-like eye color. It is irrational to say we should not be able to determine a person's eye color, because they don't use their attribute for my benefit, or even for their own benefit. "All they do is sit about with their blue eye, playing with their color charts and such. grumble. They may as well be green eyed like the rest of us and forget that there is any such thing as colors of eyes." Damn color isn't exploitable. pah.


It is a touch disturbing that people--even bright people commenting here-- are treating their own physiological and emotional attribute as being somehow only of value if it is harnessable for some sort of labor.

One poster was correct that in interpersonal relations, we typically end up coupled to someone whose IQ is within 10 points of our own. (We just don't talk about it in those terms; we talk about the things that flow from that, like having a shared sense of humor or having similar tastes for reading, or the ability to talk to one another--stuff that varies with IQ.)

For myself, learning that there was a name for my condition was liberating. A damn puzzle solved, if nothing else. I was an "INTJ." aha. And there are more like me. How nice! And La! they are amusing!
It's pretty much the same for IQ. It explains so much -- it makes coherent a group of phenomena that otherwise didn't make sense.

I wonder if the notion that IQ would be better ignored is gender-influenced? Like... does the "smart is only good if it can be used" kind of thinking disproportionately affect men, who are valued mostly--or at least moreso than women-- for their ability to compete and produce?

Poor men; all the bright male intjs should be given 3-week holidays when they get to be intps.

[Harmony]

I believe for some people having a very high IQ is a curse. I went to school with a brilliant kid, truly brilliant. As a result, no one understands him. He's become a complete recluse, and has now moved to Alaska. The problem he faces is he can't make it through college. He's not motivated because there is no challenge for him.

And one of my ex's has a genius level IQ... He's flat out crazy, and he'll tell you that. He just can't stop thinking, and it drives him crazy. His intuition is through the roof too...

[Monte314]

The one value I've found in IQ is that it provides a great set of lecture examples about the normal distribution. Beyond that, it doesn't seem to be consistently highly correlated to anything worth predicting.

I've mentioned Dr. Richard Feynman on the Forum before, Nobel Prize winner in physics, head of the Challenger Investigation, and author of the highly acclaimed Feynman Lectures in Physics. This man was a genius by any meaningful standard, yet his measured IQ was 121.

[schwartzie]

Monte--be careful about trying to use Feynman as proof that IQ is meaningless for predicting things "worth" predicting.

Richard Phillips Feynman was born in 1918, and had an IQ of 124, according to an IQ test that he took in his childhood.

"On the trip home from the Nobel ceremonies in Stockholm, prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman stopped in Queens, N.Y., and looked up his high-school records. 'My grades were not as good as I remembered,' he said, 'and my I.Q. was 124....' " James Gleick. (1992). Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman. New York: Pantheon.

Even assuming the test was accurate, an IQ of 124 was well above average for high school graduates and even college graduates. The average IQ of PhD/MD degree recipients at the time was purportedly about 125, which was higher than 95 percent of the general population.

Moreover, it is fairly llikely that the test was not accurate. Only the Stanford Binet LM tested with reasonable accuracy IQs above the 130's. Even today, the current version of the stanford binet is the only iq test accurate more than a couple standard deviations from the norm. (Perhaps more interesting is that the curve for IQ is not bell shaped. There is a second "bump" at around 165ish.)

I too have only taken one formal IQ test-- administered as a kid -- and it put me in the same range as Feynman. I know that it was not accurate because I have only ever been in love with men in the 165+ range. And only people in that range find me endearing (or, really...tolerable...meh...).
Now that my last love has passed away, that knowledge -- that I'm a mental freak -- is helpful, as I contemplate who might become my final life partner. There is an extremely high probability that Mr. Charming will be some really really smart, amusing guy. Or noone...

[Urania]

Mine's consistently tested in the 140s since I was a kid. Admittedly, knowing I was smart made me lazy, and as a result I think I never reached my full potential.

Same

[Medicine Man]

Some points to consider.
1. High Quality IQ tests are consistent, ie, they produce similar results over multiple administrations.
2. Most IQ tests don't do well differentiating between the top 2% of the population, which is anyone with an IQ of around 130-134 (or above)-edit
Check out this website for hard (and good) IQ tests
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
3. IQ tests do predict academic success all other things being equal. I don't have hard evidence to back it up, but I would bet that if you administered IQ tests to my medical school classmates (who are all "hard-workers" compared to the gen. pop) and compared them to how we do on our real tests, there would be a pretty good correlation between IQ and grades. Now does this mean that someone with a higher IQ will be better at their profession? I would say that all other things being equal, people with higher IQs will excel at professions demanding a high level of intellectual proficiency. However, even the VAST majority of white collar jobs don't require mental abilities beyond an IQ of 120 (in fact most jobs don't require an IQ higher than 85). So I would say that in the everyday workings of society, IQ is somewhat meaningless.
4. I would be hesitant to believe that anybody on this thread has an IQ 15SD of above 160, there are probably only 5-15 people on this message board with that high of an IQ. This IQ has a 1/30000 rarity. 33/1million, 10k total in America. However, this board does have above average IQ. How much higher? I would be interested to find that out.

[Acextreme]

4. I would be hesitant to believe that anybody on this thread has an IQ 15SD of above 160, there are probably only 5-15 people on this message board with that high of an IQ. This IQ has a 1/30000 rarity. 33/1million, 10k total in America. However, this board does have above average IQ. How much higher? I would be interested to find that out.

Sorry, dude, I highly doubt you really mean 15 standard deviation, or did you? Taking Binet's SD of 15 IQ points, at 15SD above 160 would mean IQ of 385! And you mention 5-15 people? Are you nuts? :p

But seriously, if someone with that kind of IQ does exist, there will probably be only 1 or at most 2 in the entire world history since the beginning, maybe. Definitely not your 5-15 people on this message board alone. For your info, you got your rarity wrong; check here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[demvesalius]

Of course they won't care. But that pave our way to another question about how to brought the untapped talents into good use which is out of this question's scope. :)
But for the possible answer of that question might be a specialized education system based off IQ result test + personality type tests.
Instead of throwing up the kids altogether and let the nature works them out.
At this point you probably know already that we INTJ aren't fond of taking up the lead unless necessary and there's less chance we'll be likely to develop this skill given we're mixed with the general public.

So in short, we might be able to develop a more sophisticated educating system based on the best approach teaching method for each categorized group of student. Which IQ test is one good candidate as one of the measuring tool for categorizing.

I've seen the eye color with IQ analogy used a few times in this thread. The difference between eye color and an IQ is that everyone is going to know your eye color when they see you. Your eye color is insignificant to what kind of job you get or how far you go in life (taking racism out of the equation). An IQ, on the other hand, measures a specific kind of intelligence and is a perception in the culture of what intelligence is. It's the same thing as saying a man with blue eyes has the potential to go farther than someone with green eyes. Only now, instead of having categories of something you can see, you create an invisible classification system only relative within the context of the given culture. People are given numbers and treated in specific ways based on a narrow scope of thought; as mentioned before, IQ is only one kind of intelligence.

You then want to create a specialized education system based off IQ results and personality type tests? (You use this as an example). Personality is a very vague concept. I've come to know many INTJ's and each one is very different from the other despite their strong functions. There is a lot more to them then Ni Te Fi Se. Some are inherent losers, while others are winners. Some can get laid, while others are still virgins. Some are not that intelligent, but are smart enough to know how to study and regurgitate information and get A's; while others are highly intelligent, but just scrape by; hell, some are highly intelligent and go very far in academia. Personality theory may still be very primitive.

A specialized education system is a form of socialism because a governing body artificially proclaims the value of intelligence instead of letting it be what it is. I don't believe humans are capable of understanding what the value of intelligence is, or perhaps any intelligent being for that matter. A computer cannot be smarter than itself. It’s limited to the confines of its very essence. A two dimensional creature is not capable of understanding a three dimensional universe; although, it can see parts of it, it still cannot understand it. To place a value on intelligence is rather arrogant or presumptuous.

Sure, you've got a PHD or high IQ, so what? How does this give you a license to truth? What can you do tomorrow? Will you do anything tomorrow? And what is success? (Isn't success relative?)

[Rudy]

Sorry, dude, I highly doubt you really mean 15 standard deviation, or did you? Taking Binet's SD of 15 IQ points, at 15SD above 160 would mean IQ of 385! And you mention 5-15 people? Are you nuts? :p

But seriously, if someone with that kind of IQ does exist, there will probably be only 1 or at most 2 in the entire world history since the beginning, maybe. Definitely not your 5-15 people on this message board alone. For your info, you got your rarity wrong; check here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No, he means using a standard deviation of 15, not 15 standard deviations. 160 is then 4 standard deviations above average, which is what he is referring to.

[Anreader]

In Kindergarten, I was removed from my class room for all but 2 hours a day based on standardized testing (and annoying personal behavior), not an IQ test. I changed schools in 2nd grade and was not given a special teacher. In 4th grade I was IQ tested for the first and only official test. I conveniently tested at 125, as did the other 6 children who were tested. Our school did not have a gifted program and the state required one be formed if even one student had tested above 130. The boys tested 127 or 128, all except the one black boy tested, and the other girl tested 125 also. We had a "Children of the Damned" meeting and decided they had "fixed" our results. Which may or may not have been true. The school requested that we not be told what our results were. Does this sound feasible?

Anyway I moved to a different county and in HS the students were divided into "Honors," "Standard," and "Resource" tracks according to IQ scores... Although I was never tested and I do not know how they determined who to test. This segregated invironment was very odd and also seemed at least partially racially segregated also. Only whites and Asians were represented with any kind of regularity in those Honors classes. I was permitted to take Honors classes but was not permitted in the Honors "program" due to the fact that no official test was on file, and a few other incidentals. The Honors track required an IQ of 135. Does this make sense? Im not really up on the whole standard deviation thing or any of it really.

Im going to check now but just wanted to add my 2 cents worth.

[Rudy]

The Honors track required an IQ of 135. Does this make sense? Im not really up on the whole standard deviation thing or any of it really.

Im going to check now but just wanted to add my 2 cents worth.

135 or higher is 2 & 1/3 standard deviations. It's about 1% of the population, which sounds about right for a gifted program.

[daydreamer]

I've mentioned Dr. Richard Feynman on the Forum before, Nobel Prize winner in physics, head of the Challenger Investigation, and author of the highly acclaimed Feynman Lectures in Physics. This man was a genius by any meaningful standard, yet his measured IQ was 121.

that's bizarre ! feynman is my hero ! i've always considered him a genius at minimum. he must have had no patience for the test? lol i believe you but it's hard to imagine, isn't it? lol

[Rudy]

that's bizarre ! feynman is my hero ! i've always considered him a genius at minimum. he must have had no patience for the test? lol i believe you but it's hard to imagine, isn't it? lol

That's apparently based on a single, childhood IQ test that he took. There is no record, that I can find, of him ever being tested again. So, it's hardly a reliable measurement.

[phantasma]

IQ tests are kind of fun to take, but worthless. No test can know enough about you to know if you're overall "smart".

And I'll agree that having a high IQ, being smart, or whatever, often harms more than it helps. I'm not a genius. I usually don't get an IQ much higher than 140. I have a life outside my head. Even then, I'm just bored with almost everything I encounter. I usually can't take interest in people's conversations, classes are boring, and I'm bored with most people. No wonder I'm introverted if the "outside world" is so boring. For that reason, I sometimes wish I was less smart. Intelligence results in social boredom.

[Storm]

I'm not sure how reliable the IQ test are, although I've noticed they can be used to very generally tell how intelligent someone is. Someone with an IQ of 130 isn't much different from someone with an IQ of 140, but it's not totally meaningless since someone with an IQ of 70 is very different mentally from someone with an IQ of 95.

But, as has been stated by a previous poster, you don't need a test to tell someone with an IQ of 70 needs some special help. However, it is nice to have such a number so that standards can be set in a system - makes things more objective and efficient. Of course, appropriate exceptions should be allowed. Same with gifted programs. A program that sets a hardline rule of 130 may leave out some gifted children who just can't concentrate on tests.

But, besides special considerations like the above, I think the study of IQ is a bit futile. No matter how smart you are, you'll reach a time if in your life when smarts aren't going to cut it anymore and you are going to need to pony up and work hard to get ahead.
This isn't just career stuff. If you want to raise kids, you can't just sit back on rely on your IQ to carry you through the day.

Another pitfall with IQ is when people stop listening to those they consider "less smart" than themselves. Everyone can offer insights into life.

So to sum: Besides diagnosing mental conditions, the study of IQ is rather useless for everyday life. I don't need a test to tell me when I'm talking to someone how intelligent they are.

[Urania]

IQ tests are kind of fun to take, but worthless. No test can know enough about you to know if you're overall "smart".

And I'll agree that having a high IQ, being smart, or whatever, often harms more than it helps. I'm not a genius. I usually don't get an IQ much higher than 140. I have a life outside my head. Even then, I'm just bored with almost everything I encounter. I usually can't take interest in people's conversations, classes are boring, and I'm bored with most people. No wonder I'm introverted if the "outside world" is so boring. For that reason, I sometimes wish I was less smart. Intelligence results in social boredom.

Yes, yes, and a thousand times yes.
All my IQ ever got me in school was to raise expectations of my teachers of what I COULD do, and what my "true potential" was. They then tried to get me to perform at MY best, which translated to a 6 year old me, as never doing good enough, although I consistently did better than everyone else.
I lost interest in school by the time I was 7.

In life, all it got me was a high level of boredom, like you say...
And boredom lead me to depression.

So no, I am not a fan of IQ tests. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with the tests themselves, but clearly we have not yet learned how to properly interpret the results.

[schwartzie]

... Intelligence results in social boredom.

hmm...idk... some of the brightest people I know are intps who, if one asks, always have long, diverse lists of things they are interested in. The interests are not particularly purpose-driven. Just stuff that is intrinsically interesting. Some of the items are purely social.

Social boredom comes, i think, more from whatever it is that makes us "INTJs." (the smarts part probably makes you more aware/sensitive to it.) Personally, i suspect that the 'whatever' probably is physical--chemistry and neurological design perhaps, somewhat influenced by one's experience and how we deal with experience.

Because situational stuff can modify the design of one's neural system, I suspect one can choose to change even fundamental characteristics. I've known intjs who've chosen to, and did, lead socially rich, engaged lives. It really helps to have a mentor/counselor/friend involved tho, because it usually hurts to change.:knife:

[Zer0]

An IQ, on the other hand, measures a specific kind of intelligence and is a perception in the culture of what intelligence is. It's the same thing as saying a man with blue eyes has the potential to go farther than someone with green eyes. Only now, instead of having categories of something you can see, you create an invisible classification system only relative within the context of the given culture. People are given numbers and treated in specific ways based on a narrow scope of thought; as mentioned before, IQ is only one kind of intelligence.


Aye-aye. The quality is measured. The result is used to abuse people. OK, we should get rid of the measuring process.

You then want to create a specialized education system based off IQ results and personality type tests? (You use this as an example). Personality is a very vague concept. I've come to know many INTJ's and each one is very different from the other despite their strong functions. There is a lot more to them then Ni Te Fi Se. Some are inherent losers, while others are winners. Some can get laid, while others are still virgins. Some are not that intelligent, but are smart enough to know how to study and regurgitate information and get A's; while others are highly intelligent, but just scrape by; hell, some are highly intelligent and go very far in academia. Personality theory may still be very primitive.

Are you sure you are not confused between individuality and personality?
You mentioned the result of each individual after the old education process and of course we all know people are not equal and there will always be winners and losers. Shouldn't we stay focus on the topic of how changing the education process(by elimination of IQ test) could or could not change proportion/efficiency/overall score of the result?


To place a value on intelligence is rather arrogant or presumptuous.
Well I hope you good luck in your life. I would rather be selective about my friends and coworkers. (Not that I don't want to befriend anybody who's not smart but you see we've got limited time in our life, I cannot befriending everybody equally without selecting somebody who seems to be more intellect and more likely to mutually help each other in career/future)


The IQ test process is not at fault here, IMHO. It's the people who abused the results. Ever since the beginning day of mankind, we have learnt how to exploit many things, some of them don't have only just beneficial side. Even toxins have their uses.

Now, supposed the IQ test is really crappy. What would you suggest to measure this quality of human?
Let's make a simple hypothetical situation :
We have a bunch of student. We could just make 1 big class. OR we could split into 2 classes : Fast learner and Slow learner
Now if you could select it yourself what would you prefer? I myself would prefer to be in System B. If I can grasp the idea faster than other people, I don't want to spend my time sitting idle in the class waiting for the teacher to repetitively explain that lesson to slower learning guys. (also if I learn slower I would be very upset if the teacher keep skipping the lesson because everybody else seems to understand except me)

Now... how could we separate "Fast learner" from "Slow learner"?





Zer0 added to this post, 26 minutes and 28 seconds later...

Well, I think my post's getting long so I think it might be better to split into 2.

Yes, yes, and a thousand times yes.
All my IQ ever got me in school was to raise expectations of my teachers of what I COULD do, and what my "true potential" was. They then tried to get me to perform at MY best, which translated to a 6 year old me, as never doing good enough, although I consistently did better than everyone else.
I lost interest in school by the time I was 7.

In life, all it got me was a high level of boredom, like you say...
And boredom lead me to depression.

So no, I am not a fan of IQ tests. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with the tests themselves, but clearly we have not yet learned how to properly interpret the results.

There is more to this story. It seems you have suffered from the presence of IQ testing and it's result. Now let me tell you the other side of this story.
Before that I would like to disclaim first that I'm not really any kind of prodigy. My IQ score is about a humble 135. (ok, maybe not so humble comparing to the general public, but it seems like there are so many people with much better score than me in this forum)

I'm from Thailand, the education system sucks here. In most(almost all) school here the concept of IQ/gifted people are unheard of. The simple system here is grading the student according to the exam score.
Back then I was a very passive and lazy person, I don't really have any urge at all to study. Through the 12 years of studying in school before the university the only preparation for exams is to skimp the textbook for 15 minutes before I enter the exam room. That is enough for me to score "good" in every exam. Nothing is rewarding and I have no drive at all to move it to "exceptional" level. After I grasp the idea being taught I'll be left idle waiting for the class to be over. Repeat that almost every class for many years. It's another kind of boredom and that sure puts out my fire in studying.
(Please note that I'm not bragging I'm smart or anything, please remember that I am in Thailand where the average kid's IQ is substantially lower than in developed country. Therefore I have told my story and my experience in relative manner (to kids around me back then), not quantitative)

Now if you says you have suffered from the presence of IQ testing. I could say I have suffered from the lack thereof!

Sorry if my post sounds kind of confusing, English is not my native language. It's 3 am in the morning here and I have just returned from the party.

[mutebim]

If one's IQ can improve, then it is just a matter of time until everyone starts scoring highly, which makes it pointless.

[Rudy]

If one's IQ can improve, then it is just a matter of time until everyone starts scoring highly, which makes it pointless.

No, the average IQ of the world has been improving, at a slow but steady rate, since the test was first introduced. It has been re-normalized (the score standards reset to different levels) on several occasions. That does not invalidate its potential use.

[True Rune]

It helps classify so overall I wouldn't say it does more harm than good since human intelligence is an interesting subject. Fun thing to notice that even in those who say it's (IQ) worthless, they still seem put some worth in it. I've never actually taken a formal IQ test, so I can't say where I land on the scale.

[Nomadofthehills]

I think IQ is useful.

In elementary school, we were split into 3 levels for reading. I don't know what the others were actually called, but we (honors) called them "regular" and "stupid." Looking back, this was mean, but whatever.

Honors read books more quickly, and we had more books to read. We also went deeper into the meanings of the books.

Now, I would have HATED to be stuck at the "normal" or below level. This was not based on IQ, but you can't "study" to be a good reader in elementary school. I bet if you gave us IQ tests, with some exceptions, the honors group would have higher scores.

In 5th grade, we either took 5th grade math, or skipped it, and did 6th grade math. Normally, but not always, it was the same people in honors reading who were in honors math.

[phantasma]

hmm...idk... some of the brightest people I know are intps who, if one asks, always have long, diverse lists of things they are interested in. The interests are not particularly purpose-driven. Just stuff that is intrinsically interesting. Some of the items are purely social.



I have tons of interests myself, it's just that many are not social, or that the social aspect is for collaborating purposes. I just don't engage in socializing for the sake of socializing because I get bored so easily. However, I often join groups for the sake of talking to like-minded people.

[Acextreme]

No, he means using a standard deviation of 15, not 15 standard deviations. 160 is then 4 standard deviations above average, which is what he is referring to.

Hmmm, thanks for your more correct interpretation; at least it is more reasonable.

I would be hesitant to believe that anybody on this thread has an IQ 15SD of above 160

But just for fun, if you look at the way he wrote, 15SD appears to be 15 standard deviation! It's incredibly misleading. Gosh, he should have just used "15 IQ points" or 1 standard deviation of 15 points to convey it across without confusion.

[Rudy]

It's true that what he wrote wasn't the clearest. The meaning of his sentence is:

"I would be hesitant to believe that anyone on this thread, using a standard deviation of 15, has an IQ of above 160."

[Acextreme]

Well, here's my take on IQ tests. Firstly, this has been one of the more successful predictor for job performance and it has been proven. Unless you really want citations, I am too lazy to go take those work psychology textbooks of mine off the shelf just to justify a simple claim. Therefore, it has its use. The advantage is that its use is less controversial than using personality test for predicting job performance.

Secondly, it also have high correlation with academical learning. Well, it's a given since IQ as a tool measures one's smartness, and smartness defines how fast one can learn or understand new things/concepts.

Furthermore, it's probably the only more objective quantification tool for measuring smartness that's available and based on the use of scientifical approach such as the use of statistics for interpreting the scores.

However, as with all tools, IQ tests should be interpreted with care. For one, the points are not absolute. 1 point more or less does not speak for anything. And there are many circumstances where IQ scores can be affected, for example, a person who is tired will naturally have a lower IQ score when tested. So the scores need to be interpreted with care.

[AnotherNormal]

I met a guy that was tested at 6 years old, IQ of 181.

When I met him, he was 15 and in his 2nd year of collage. Seemed pretty bright to me.

[Moriarty]

I've never had a formal IQ test administered. I've taken a couple of them online and with a grain of salt, of course. In both cases, they said very complimentary things and for the low, low price of (whatever), I could get the full results explaining how I am a super genius par excellence. I laughed.

[brainysmurf]

So, the question is, does the study and analysis of IQ do more harm than good? Would we be better off without it? In what ways would it be better, and in what ways worse?

I'm not a fan of IQ testing just to inflate egos.

There are a lot of situations where IQ testing is important. I know that IQ testing is usually one of the first step in diagnosing learning disabilities (e.g dislexia). There are a lot of prejudices against people with learning disabilities (dumb, lazy etc.) and if you make sure that IQ is not the cause for the learning disability, it helpes to focus on the real issue.

[Medicine Man]

Yes, I did mean what Rudy said. If you go to the very link that you sent me, the top of the chart lists the stanford-binet test as "15 SD". I have seen it referred to this way several times. I guess it could be "incredibly misleading" if you were unfamiliar with the fact that stanford-binet has a standard deviation of 15, whereas other IQ tests have SD's of 14 or 16. I would surmise that you were probably the only one who did not understand what I was saying. I think the only person who had an IQ of 385 was Jesus.

[Hinun]

I think IQ tests do more harm than good, speaking as a person with a high IQ like yourself. The thing is it places people on a very flawed scale, and a lot of humans feel entitled to more if they feel superior. It is very unhealthy to put kids on a pedestal purely for being "more intelligent." I pretty much agree with you on it all, however I would say some parents, if the child is struggling in school, might want to look into getting an accurate intelligence test assessment (to some extent IQ tests work). Also a child with learning challenges, such as myself, can be appropriately documented as gifted with certain learning impairments and in need of accommodations... but I think this is a very specific case and i suppose in general IQ tests should not be used to assess anyone.

[Zer0]

I think IQ tests do more harm than good, speaking as a person with a high IQ like yourself. The thing is it places people on a very flawed scale, and a lot of humans feel entitled to more if they feel superior. It is very unhealthy to put kids on a pedestal purely for being "more intelligent." I pretty much agree with you on it all, however I would say some parents, if the child is struggling in school, might want to look into getting an accurate intelligence test assessment (to some extent IQ tests work). Also a child with learning challenges, such as myself, can be appropriately documented as gifted with certain learning impairments and in need of accommodations... but I think this is a very specific case and i suppose in general IQ tests should not be used to assess anyone.

You have raised some interesting points here and which I would like to discuss :

- The thing is it places people on a very flawed scale, and a lot of humans feel entitled to more if they feel superior. It is very unhealthy to put kids on a pedestal purely for being "more intelligent."

I take it that your concern is about the self-esteem and feelings of the other "ordinary" kids. Now the question is that what could be more beneficial to overall human society's improvement at this current point?
1. We could "normalize" people. To by not promoting the importance of gifted people too much, we probably keep the ordinary kids more happy. But we will surely lose some top edges from this process.
2. We could "leverage" people. Heavily promoting gifted programs. We might discouraged some ordinary kids thus might actually leading to some kids in ordinary section not developing to their full potential.

But now that the human society has evolved quite far comparing to our beginning days, the way I have seen is that lesser need for the talent of mediocre people but more of the top gifted people to drive the scientific and society's edge . To put it simpler, if it's up to me I would trade the possibility of developing 15% of ordinary people to full potential with possibility of developing 2% of gifted people to full potential. But then again, this is just a personal view from a not-so-matured INTJ. I would love to hear discussion on this matter from a more experienced older and matured people.

- however I would say some parents, if the child is struggling in school, might want to look into getting an accurate intelligence test assessment

This is one point I forgot to mention in my previous post. Back when I was schooling I didn't show any sign of struggling at all owning to how extremely passive and lazy I was. In the eyes of the teachers and parents I was a polite, quiet and contented kid back then. It maybe due to many reasons including my emotional was not really being developed (I could say the emotional side in my head was really hollow back then), I was really a simpleton back then and I don't even notice about other people's feeling.
If I were to be challenged into thinking and improving steadily on the scientific subject I would probably be a scientist right now. (I used to dream I would like to be a scientist since when I was very young, but the dream faded after I reach middle school)
One might say that this is due to the parents' wrong way of raising a child, well it might just be so but then again saying that would mean we are discussing outside of our scope and I would say that for a well-structured education system we should be able to handle this kind of trouble too.

[Sesquipedalian]

I don't know and I'm not sure it matters.

My IQ is very high and knowing this fact has probably caused me more mental torture than anything else. Although I don't use it as a crutch or as a proud pedestal to place myself upon, it has often been a thing that I question as a source of my problems.

I really do think that people who are highly intelligent are far less happy in life. Stupid people somehow stumble through life decently well and seem to be pretty happy overall.

So, would I rather be stupid and ignorant?... The longer I live, the more I lean toward "Yes."

[Zer0]

I don't know and I'm not sure it matters.

My IQ is very high and knowing this fact has probably caused me more mental torture than anything else. Although I don't use it as a crutch or as a proud pedestal to place myself upon, it has often been a thing that I question as a source of my problems.

I really do think that people who are highly intelligent are far less happy in life. Stupid people somehow stumble through life decently well and seem to be pretty happy overall.

So, would I rather be stupid and ignorant?... The longer I live, the more I lean toward "Yes."

What is the main reason for the people with high intelligence to have less happiness in life?

[Rudy]

I don't know and I'm not sure it matters.

My IQ is very high and knowing this fact has probably caused me more mental torture than anything else. Although I don't use it as a crutch or as a proud pedestal to place myself upon, it has often been a thing that I question as a source of my problems.

I really do think that people who are highly intelligent are far less happy in life. Stupid people somehow stumble through life decently well and seem to be pretty happy overall.

So, would I rather be stupid and ignorant?... The longer I live, the more I lean toward "Yes."
I certainly can't agree with this. My IQ score has never caused me any anguish, though it perhaps swelled my head in my younger days (read: 18 through 20 or so,) when I was even more egotistical than I am now.

I can understand how being very dumb can make it easier to be happy, as you can't really grasp any of the larger problems, but I am at a loss as to understanding how high intelligence would make it more impossible to be happy. I credit my intellect with the personal discovery that being happy is, in large part, merely a decision, rather than something that has conditions.

As for wishing for ignorance, I find that nearly blasphemous. At least, as far as I find anything blasphemous.

[Zer0]

I am at a loss as to understanding how high intelligence would make it more impossible to be happy. I credit my intellect with the personal discovery that being happy is, in large part, merely a decision, rather than something that has conditions.

+1

[zibber]

I think that what makes IQ such a son of a bitch is that it exposes the inequality (in terms of mental "capability") inherent to any random population. Then again, this is only an issue if one insists (arbitrarily, of course) to assign value judgments to variable traits.


I can understand how being very dumb can make it easier to be happy, as you can't really grasp any of the larger problems, but I am at a loss as to understanding how high intelligence would make it more impossible to be happy. I credit my intellect with the personal discovery that being happy is, in large part, merely a decision, rather than something that has conditions.

I don't know.. I've certainly experienced what Sesquipedalian has, so I know where he's coming from. Recently, I've been thinking that true happiness is just feeling happy, without necessarily being conscious of it (on some meta-level) the whole time. Sometimes I get the idea that deliberate happiness like you describe can become so engineered/contrived that it loses its meaning.

Then again, I'm also starting to suspect "happiness" is an obsolete term. Hah. The joys of philosophy.

[Rudy]

I don't know.. I've certainly experienced what Sesquipedalian has, so I know where he's coming from. Recently, I've been thinking that true happiness is just feeling happy, without necessarily being conscious of it (on some meta-level) the whole time. Sometimes I get the idea that deliberate happiness like you describe can become so engineered/contrived that it loses its meaning.

Then again, I'm also starting to suspect "happiness" is an obsolete term. Hah. The joys of philosophy.

Heh. The "joys of philosophy" are what led me to decide that "contrived" happiness is the only happiness worth anything =D. I don't value anything that is not reached through conscious decision.

I've struggled against such things too, but I didn't think it was something unique to intelligent people. Honestly, I think it has more to do with being reflective, or "N", than it has to do with having a high IQ.

[Medicine Man]

I think more intelligent people have the tools to make themselves very happy. I believe it is instead the society that most intelligent people live in that causes unhappiness. If I look at my own life, my intelligence has gotten me to places I never would have been with an "average" IQ. I think a component of unhappiness is not being able to communicate with kindred spirits. In addition, I think many very intelligent people have trouble finding a mate who is compatible on a intellectual level. This creates a sense of isolationism. I know that I feel a lot more open and happy when I am around people with similar intelligence. I also know that I am much more attracted to females who are more intelligent than average. Both of these criteria are much harder to achieve simply due to the fact that as an individual goes up in intelligence, the number of peers he or she has goes down. A more simple way to look at it is to imagine that the average IQ is 135. Suddenly, most of the people on this message board are around average intelligence. You have plenty of people who think similarly to you, your teachers are much smarter, and you become just a normal everyday kid. You don't go through those dark phases of "I am all alone in this world".
I think we would all be much happier if we had a large group of peers. Perhaps INTJ's are social creatures just like most other people, who happen to become extremely introverted in their developmental years for the reasons I mentioned above.

[schwartzie]

Interesting discussion.

The concerns of bright posters with "negative" comments appear to involve abuse--people who treated them inappropriately as a result of the IQ information. I sympathize with people whose childhoods were not only screwed up by being different (like MMan points to), but then further screwed up by having the difference highlighted and mishandled by (maybe well-meaning) people.

A friend had a father who pushed him to be the things the father was denied--a great musician, competitive athlete, brilliant student, etc. They both were capable of these things; the father was of an age and place, tho', where access to these was denied; the child was pressed too hard and too young by the father, and, basically, blew up at age 14. Now in his late 20's, he's returning by choice to stuff he threw off in his effort to resist his (well-meaning, but) fxxked-up dad.

I suspect that bright posters who believe IQ should be whitewashed have had ugly experiences. I wonder if the damaged are over-represented on this forum? Or if, indeed, the unscarred are as rare as this thread suggests.

A second trap for some bright kids is being put in a box and liking it so well that they stay there; they wake up one day in adulthood and realize that they don't like it -- bright kids that got pigeon-holed as engineers or lawyers or whatever, and weren't encouraged to experiment with lots of different coats. Basically, they did well with the first one they put on and the adults guiding them didn't appreciate that, even if they were, say, great at math, they might be happier as a poet. One good friend is in this situation. He has triple degrees in physics, philosophy and math. He's happiest, tho, making bouncy experimental music, singing, and writing kid's stories. So, that's what he does.

Re the "happiness--found vs made?" discussion. For me, the best is when I listen attentively to my situation and that of my loved ones, and make some effort to live well in the present. Daoism is the closest philosophical expression of what works for me.

I agree w Roo re the N. My N/S is close to balanced-- usually the N is only 5 to 20 percent stronger than the S in testing... .The people I'm attracted to share this attribute of balance or near balance of N/S. I suspect that one's N/S makes a difference in how one finds happiness. I don't think I can be happy in the way Zibber describes. My brain is always switched on and self-aware.

[Krazy P]

I agree that it has limited utility - but not no utility.

I also agree that there are lots of different types of "intelligence".

That being said, an understanding that your "processor" is - perhaps "differently wired" is a good way to describe it - helps with understanding that you are different from others. It has helped me with my children, for example, who can become frustrated with others (especially when they were younger).

A good example is happening with me right now. The economy is tanking, businesses have to adapt and individuals have to process a lot of data, interpret it and make decisions. There are no roadmaps - or at least no obvious ones.

I talk with the leaders in my industry and am trying to help them see the implications for what is happening. I am able to put the pieces together faster, more accurately and predict outcomes much, much better. It takes me a long time to bring others along (my poor communication skills perhaps). Years ago, even 6-8 months ago I saw what was happening, tried to convince others - to no avail. I protected my business - and now these others are listening.

Is this IQ? I do think it is part of it. These things were as obvious to me as 2+2=4. But not to most people.

[Urania]

I think IQ is useful.

In elementary school, we were split into 3 levels for reading. I don't know what the others were actually called, but we (honors) called them "regular" and "stupid." Looking back, this was mean, but whatever.


…and there is also the reason why it was much less than useful for at least two thirds of your class.


Secondly, it also have high correlation with academical learning. Well, it's a given since IQ as a tool measures one's smartness, and smartness defines how fast one can learn or understand new things/concepts.

Correlation is not causation.
In this case I would argue that academic success is much more dependant on perseverance than IQ. Whilst it’s easier to understand various concepts the higher the IQ, I believe that advantage is in many cases absorbed by the boredom often experienced by high IQ’s in an education system designed for others.

I really do think that people who are highly intelligent are far less happy in life.

:) Some truth in that.





Urania added to this post, 89 minutes and 26 seconds later...

Can't remember who said IQ is growing over all, but I just saw this:

"Tests carried out in 1980 and again in 2008 show that the IQ score of an average 14-year-old dropped by more than two points over the period.

Among those in the upper half of the intelligence scale, a group that is typically dominated by children from middle class families, performance was even worse, with an average IQ score six points below what it was 28 years ago.

The trend marks an abrupt reversal of the so-called "Flynn effect" which has seen IQ scores rise year on year, among all age groups, in most industrialised countries throughout the past century.

Professor James Flynn, of the University of Otago in New Zealand, the discoverer of the Flynn effect and the author of the latest study, believes the abnormal drop in British teenage IQ could be due to youth culture having "stagnated" or even dumbed down."

full article @:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Antares]

IQ... Is a certain quality you're born with. If you wouldn't be proud to have blond hair or green eyes, then it doesn't make sense to be proud of IQ. I don't know if it does more harm than good, but quite frankly the discussions I have involving IQ in real life with my friends did not lead to competition at all. It does, however, create a problem with my mother, who is extremely disdainful of everything IQ-related. While she semi-believes in it, every time I fail to do something, she would bring it up ("Didn't you yap on about how you have 147 IQ all day? Why didn't you get an A on this test? What's IQ if it doesn't amount to anything?"). In my defense, I didn't "yap" about it all day. I told her my results once. Seriously. She brings up IQ about 70% of the time whenever she's mad.

As for whether IQ results have caused me any grief; I can't say so. My school doesn't know my IQ nor does it care. Everyone in the school is urged do be their best. We take honors and AP classes because we want to, not because we have 130+ IQ. Not being in honors doesn't mean you're 'stupid'. Nobody should technically feel pressured to take honor classes just to prove themselves. I agree that IQ is not useless. It has some use. It does describe moderately accurately (in my opinion at least) how 'intelligent' a person is, without looking at their grades. I've deemed some people 'stupid' in the past because of their grades, but looking past that and interacting with them, a lot of them are mentally quicker than I can hope to be. I have had teachers tell me that "you're not performing at your potential standard", and they only know that because they've seen what I can do. At times, I really doubted his (the most recent one) words, but after some effort and a new approach, I see it coming true now, and I'm grateful that he has faith in me. All this has nothing to do with IQ.

[Zer0]

I really do think that people who are highly intelligent are far less happy in life.

:) Some truth in that.

Some concrete evidence about this? I don't really believe being more intelligent will have anything to do with less happy life, but I'm listening.

[invicta]

IQ is as useful as a particular intelligence is valued. If being recognized as intelligent in something is helpful to someone, then yes, the test woudl be useful. If this score does nothing to change a person's life, then it is entirely useless.

An aside--I think differently now than I used to. I rely much less on analytical thought than I do on intuition, and as a result, my IQ scores have fallen. I do notice, though, that I feel more comfortable in my navigation of the world. I consider intuition to be a higher order of thought than analysis, so this doesn't bother me in the slightest.

[naughtysnail]

IQ tests cause crossness. Husband gets pissed off because they're timed, and he can't think quickly (bless), and I get cross because I'm a point off of MENSA. Stupid MENSA!

Also, it holds no relevance in the real world, where hard work is really just as important as intelligence.

[pocohauntus]

I think a component of unhappiness is not being able to communicate with kindred spirits. In addition, I think many very intelligent people have trouble finding a mate who is compatible on a intellectual level. This creates a sense of isolationism. I know that I feel a lot more open and happy when I am around people with similar intelligence.
Yeah, so do I but the problem is most of my friends are actually far more intelligent than I am. In terms of IQ, I would probably test as just about average but my friends would probably score in the upper range, ie, highly, highly intelligent. Now, I still don't understand how this came about, but it's always been that way. It seems as though I can neither relate to the general population whose IQ's are most likely similar to my own, nor can I relate to my so-called friends because they are very gifted in terms of IQ as well as being NTP's where Intuition and Perception give them an advantage in social circles which I certainly do not have. So, finding people with similar intelligence is difficult, almost impossible it seems. Being able to communicate with kindred spirits, I agree, is definately a component of happiness, at least in my opinion, and is something I long for at times yet can't seem to find.

[sagewolf]

I think IQ is useful.

In elementary school, we were split into 3 levels for reading. I don't know what the others were actually called, but we (honors) called them "regular" and "stupid." Looking back, this was mean, but whatever.


…and there is also the reason why it was much less than useful for at least two thirds of your class.

Just because they weren't part of the more advanced program doesn't mean that they were short-changed. In my school we have bright students and not-so-bright students, and we have honors and ordinary level classes in most subjects. While the students that can do them benefit from the work and understanding required in the more advanced programs, the students that can't manage them benefit from the less advanced programs, because they'd just be completely lost in the more complicated classes and they'd do far worse than they do in the ordinary level classes.

I think that IQ is useful as long as it's not seen as an elitist credential or an excuse to push someone too far (or not far enough) and ignore what they actually care about. Intelligence is a tool and no more, and you don't see people bragging about their pencil if they've drawn a great picture: it's the work that goes into it that makes it good. (For the record, I have a high I.Q.-- My mother and I are both in Mensa. I can't remember it, though, which might give a good indication of how useful it is to me. :p)

[Urania]

Some concrete evidence about this? I don't really believe being more intelligent will have anything to do with less happy life, but I'm listening.

None to share, sorry :)





Urania added to this post, 14 minutes and 4 seconds later...

Just because they weren't part of the more advanced program doesn't mean that they were short-changed. In my school we have bright students and not-so-bright students, and we have honors and ordinary level classes in most subjects. While the students that can do them benefit from the work and understanding required in the more advanced programs, the students that can't manage them benefit from the less advanced programs, because they'd just be completely lost in the more complicated classes and they'd do far worse than they do in the ordinary level classes.

I think that IQ is useful as long as it's not seen as an elitist credential or an excuse to push someone too far (or not far enough) and ignore what they actually care about. Intelligence is a tool and no more, and you don't see people bragging about their pencil if they've drawn a great picture: it's the work that goes into it that makes it good. (For the record, I have a high I.Q.-- My mother and I are both in Mensa. I can't remember it, though, which might give a good indication of how useful it is to me. :p)

I didn't say the two thirds of the class suffered because they were not given access to extra classes.
I said that about them getting called the names they did. I cannot imagine they enjoyed that.

Membership of Mensa IMHO serves no purpose other than elitist.
Everyone here that claimed they are not proud of their high IQ, has conviniently managed to slip the number in sooner or later. Or the fact that they are Mensa memebers (as if anyone who has an IQ below a certain treshold does not deserve to have an opinion on the matter, as if high IQ was sour grapes for anyone who does not have it - thus confirming the stereotypical idea that a high IQ is a desirable thing to have in and of itself... That is a matter of opinion, as we are discovering...).
Pardon me for not buying it.
Mensa charge a yearly fee for their membership, so I doubt you, or your mother, forget it.
I tried the tests, passed and declined membership (my sour grapes jump).
What would I do with it?
Tell a bunch of strangers online that I am a memeber?
Wear a tee shirt about it?
Put it on my CV?
?

In fact, I would love to hear what purpose Mensa membership serves in the life of any member, what it has done for them, and their reasons for joining that aren't self serving or elitist?
Why was it not enough just to take the test?
Why should one join?

[Monte314]

I suppose I can see some utility in IQ scores as part of an admissions or evaluation process; but some people get "the number" all mixed up with their self-image, and it causes problems for them. We see some of that here on the Forum.

My wife is the principal of a school, and she and her staff are reluctant to discuss IQ scores (they do standardized testing every year) with parents because of the weirdness that ensues. In some cases, it really helps people with goal setting (IQ=75, career choice=chemist; IQ=150, career choice=janitor); in other cases, it just isn't helpful.

[sagewolf]

@Urania: Well, it got my Mom off my back about taking the bloody test, for one thing. As far as membership goes, attending the events is fun (and a good way to get my mom to spend time with me), especially considering the severe lack of entertainment available where I live. I doubt many people who actually know me IRL-- even most of my family-- know that I'm in it, actually, because I just never talk about it. Like I said, it's not an elitist credential, and I don't see it as such. No, I wouldn't wear a T-shirt that said 'I'm in Mensa', although I will wear a t-shirt I bought from a webcomic store that proclaims me to be angsty and miserable.

In fact, I would love to hear what purpose Mensa membership serves in the life of any member, what it has done for them, and their reasons for joining that aren't self serving or elitist?

Huh. Okay. There's an IMAG event that's being held by British Mensa, where members are encouraged to submit short films; this year, my mother and I are collaborating on one to submit for the event. A) This is called family time, and B) actually getting the opportunity to work on a short film before I leave home to study animation will be useful to me, especially if I can show it to people and get feedback, whether they're in Mensa or not.

And is there a deciding reason for joining any club/society/group that isn't self-serving? ...Other than things like charities, I guess, although you could argue that people joined those to feel good or to feel that they're making a difference in the world.

[Maayan]

Silly story time! In Grade 3, I wrote my first standardized test of intelligence, and I distinctly remember being confused as hell by some of the questions. Namely:

1. A math question regarding a nickel. I'd never heard the term before. In my household, we referred to coins by their monetary value -- 5 cent, 10 cent -- and I hadn't yet gone on a field trip to the National Bank to learn about this expression and its origins. I ran too far with some association between the ck-sound and quarter, which I knew meant 1/4 (of a dollar). Even though I was good at maths, I got the question wrong. So horribly wrong. :)

2. Those "x is to y as a is to b" questions were killer. The first interpretation that sprung to mind was valid, but nowhere near the proximate meaning. It never occurred to me to think that these questions weren't a test of creativity.

[maxpot46]

One way in which I think a high IQ can be harmful is that, in my experience, people with high-IQ's are prone to be political/economic interventionists. It's my theory that smart folks go through life knowing that things work better when they make the decisions. This biases them towards embracing political systems in which the elites make the decisions for the masses, who are often viewed as too stupid to know how to do anything, or even know what is best for themselves.

[Rudy]

In some cases, it really helps people with goal setting (IQ=75, career choice=chemist; IQ=150, career choice=janitor)
Did you mean that the other way around? =D

One way in which I think a high IQ can be harmful is that, in my experience, people with high-IQ's are prone to be political/economic interventionists. It's my theory that smart folks go through life knowing that things work better when they make the decisions. This biases them towards embracing political systems in which the elites make the decisions for the masses, who are often viewed as too stupid to know how to do anything, or even know what is best for themselves.
Agreed. This elitism among many of my peers really pisses me off. Even if you do know better (which you often do not,) you don't have the right to tell other people what to do with their money, or how to live their life!

[reb]

as with many things 'human', the 'love' or emphasis assigned to iq is 'a value judgment'. in fact, there are so many things that are 'value judgments', this addictive, self absorbed human process has lost most of its validity. are you content? that's the essential question...if you are not content with who you are and what your life is, then iq does you no good at all, whether low or high. if high iq is to be of any benefit, then one must use it to achieve understanding, and thence satisfaction. the silly judgment of 'this person has less value because of _________' (you get to fill in the blank) is prejudice. some prejudice is necessary in life-this is simple fact; however, the overuse or misapplication of prejudice leads to persecution. so much prejudice, so little time.

i really don't care if a person is intelligent or not. neither their iq, money, looks or bodily hygiene or any other factor will impress me if they are consistently a dork (a specific technical term developed utilizing my own empirical methods).

having said that, were i hiring for positions to do x, i might consider iq. i would also consider my gut feeling about the applicant, and a lot of other factors. absent hiring for something needing done, i see so many factors used in life to set one group or person against another, i think the isolation of single factors in evaluating people is a terrible mistake. it leads to repeated uproar and contentiousness, which leads to the life drama we all seem to love so well. 'as the world turns' has been a long term hit for good reason. 'as the iq is measured' would be another long run. now convince the major networks or hbo...

my iq was measured in the low 130s....somehow, i got into mensa. this was eventually transparent to me, as the $50 annual dues were the obvious reason for my acceptance. economic times are hard. i have known personally one individual with a measured iq of 160+. this gentleman dealt with his affliction by drinking alchohol regularly. i have suspected several of the people i have known in rl of having a rather high iq; their methods of coping were as diverse as their opinions and social measure....i cannot see that a correlation at the edges of 'the bell curve' has meaning if one factor is used to evaluate the data point or even 'the grouping'....those data points, i presume, are people. what/who are they? are they useful, happy people, or are they sad, sociopathic malcontents? i don't think we shall 'know', as the evaluation itself is fraught with our own value judgments...as is this post fraught with mine.

[JohnDoe]

I certainly can't agree with this. My IQ score has never caused me any anguish, though it perhaps swelled my head in my younger days (read: 18 through 20 or so,) when I was even more egotistical than I am now.

I can understand how being very dumb can make it easier to be happy, as you can't really grasp any of the larger problems, but I am at a loss as to understanding how high intelligence would make it more impossible to be happy. I credit my intellect with the personal discovery that being happy is, in large part, merely a decision, rather than something that has conditions.

As for wishing for ignorance, I find that nearly blasphemous. At least, as far as I find anything blasphemous.

Theres a thread somewhere where Nikita and I went back and forth on all the shitty stuff that comes along with being gifted. (And maybe I should split this to another thread), but having a high IQ sucks. Not being able to date who I want without having people attacking me for dating someone who isn't as smart as me sucks. And its not just parents who do this. Lots of people will condemn someone smart if they arn't dating someone who isn't a doctor or what not (If I'm not dating a PhD people somehow assume I just want sex). Furthermore if you have a really high IQ your expected to use it. You have responsibilities to use what god granted you and all that. You should be studying 8 hours a day because you can do things people can't. And its not just parents who do this. Lots of people do this. Oh yeah, and then there's the problem that when people find out your smart alot of them will immediately become submissive, because why would you possibly find someone who isn't as smart as you interesting. So no, having a high IQ quite frankly does suck at times, and anyone who doesn't occasionally find themselves wishing they had 30 less IQ points doesn't have enough IQ points to have this problem ;).

Edit: Are you saying that no one else was admonished for not taking certain/enough AP classes in high school? Where I went there was a very strong expectation that if you could take AP classes you were a failure if you didn't.

[Rudy]

So no, having a high IQ quite frankly does suck at times, and anyone who doesn't occasionally find themselves wishing they had 30 less IQ points doesn't have enough IQ points to have this problem ;)

Hmm. Well I can confidently assert that I have enough IQ points to disprove this little thesis of yours as it stands. =D I've never, not even once, wanted to be less intelligent than I am. It may just be a matter of me not having enough life experience, though.

[JohnDoe]

Hmm. Well I can confidently assert that I have enough IQ points to disprove this little thesis of yours as it stands. =D I've never, not even once, wanted to be less intelligent than I am. It may just be a matter of me not having enough life experience, though.

Yes it was somewhat in jest. But in general I find there are alot of doors that are closed to people who are really smart, if for no other reason then you don't think like the rest of the world.
Edit to clarify:
This is sort of problems of the "I don't find this show interesting because I can already predict the entire plot." sort.

[Rudy]

Yes it was somewhat in jest. But in general I find there are alot of doors that are closed to people who are really smart, if for no other reason then you don't think like the rest of the world.
Edit to clarify:
This is sort of problems of the "I don't find this show interesting because I can already predict the entire plot." sort.
I concede the point that intelligent people face many difficulties that others do not. I maintain that it's worth it, and not something to be regretted. *shrug* Maybe I'll change my mind in time.

[Jonathan Brewer]

I believe IQ testing is extraordinarily damaging and I am someone who has been labeled "favorably" by such tests. I think to begin with IQ scores place inappropriate expectations on the subject. For instance an "above average" is expected to excel in virtually everything without effort. An "average" is expected to do well through effort but shouldn't set their sights too high. A "below average" is expected to do virtually everything poorly in spite of any efforts. This often damages self-worth in "above average" subjects who struggle, "average" subjects who dream too big, and "below average" subjects who once believed anything was possible.

Even when testing is not revealed to the subject those who administer the tests and are privy to the results will be likely to "compensate" with the subject unconsciously. No matter how hard you try it is nearly impossible to believe in someone else's child if they have received a damning score on an IQ test. It is equally difficult to accept your child wants to be an auto mechanic in spite of a 99th percentile score.

I say intelligence testing is inconclusive and thus does not serve a practical purpose. Unless you have the highest IQ how can you be sure the test you create is effective in grading the IQ of those more intelligent than you? You may present me with a problem to which you know the answer and then say I am incorrect for providing a different one. The irony is not that your answer is wrong but that perhaps the problem was wrong. The perception of subjects at the extremes of the IQ spectrum is often displayed this way.

[talkingbird]

People with a higher IQ usually have a lower EQ and visa versa.

[Rudy]

People with a higher IQ usually have a lower EQ and visa versa.

I'd say that people of average intelligence tend to have the higher EQs, because they can relate the most easily to the greatest number of people. Are there tests to measure EQ, by the way, because I'm somewhat curious as to how I measure up... If there are no tests, how is it a useful measurement?

[Jonathan Brewer]

Though statistically things may be apparent one way or the other, correlation is not constant in human behavior. While it may seem true that low IQs "usually" relate to high EQs it is not without exceptions. There is always the exception and thus always the danger of damaging their potential... in my opinion.

[qwerty123]

what if you know that you're not IQ test problem-solving clever, but you like any good INTJ quest to solve complex moral and social issues.

You attended an ivy league university (Cornell) and one of the best boarding schools in the world (Exeter), and you have a gift of assembling convincing prose.

I've never taken an IQ test, but I don't think that I would do well on it. I've always thought of it as an example of a golden hammer. I think that a very good test is to go on a several hour drive with an individual. the conversation and reactions to other drivers have shown me how that individual will respond in a vast array of situations.

hmmm

[Jonathan Brewer]

I personally see testing for the purpose of measuring someone's intelligence as a bad thing. Better I say to let genius reveal itself in due time. It will reveal itself.

[Zer0]

I personally see testing for the purpose of measuring someone's intelligence as a bad thing. Better I say to let genius reveal itself in due time. It will reveal itself.

Let's say if we have a child with extraordinary intelligence but we weren't aware of his presence at all and he somehow by himself lacks the drive to be progressive. Is it possible that we will forever lose this child's talent without even noticing?

[JohnDoe]

Let's say if we have a child with extraordinary intelligence but we weren't aware of his presence at all and he somehow by himself lacks the drive to be progressive. Is it possible that we will forever lose this child's talent without even noticing?

Happens all the time, even with tests.

[Jonathan Brewer]

I would say the problem is not that the child is lacking the drive to be progressive but rather that those surrounding him have the wrong motivation. We should encourage and work with all children regardless of their abilities and let them do the exploration necessary to succeed. Still I understand what you mean, I just don't believe a highly intelligent individual will not want to progress unless they have been exposed to poor environmental factors.

By the way, THIS ARTICLE (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) was published on Time.com last Friday. I feel it is both interesting and relevant to this discussion.

[Brittle]

I think there's a huge problem when those with high IQ's somehow see themselves a superior to others. I worked as a receptioninst for an older man who was very happy to declare he had an IQ of 144, but he seemed to think just because HE had a high IQ, nobody else did. I found it infurating because he would treat me like a complete moron; for instance, if there was a typo in something not only would he circle it in red pen, he would also write the "correct" version on the side complete with arrow pointing to the encircled word (just in case I missed it!) and just to make sure I really got it, he would also come and explain it to me. Puh-leeeze!!!!

For the record, I'm a fairly bright gal myself, but hey - I'm also human and make mistakes. I don't need some guy with an ego over-inflated by his IQ assuming this makes me the intellectual equivalent of a golden retriever. Sheesh - being so bloody smart and infallible must be such a burden for some people!!

But I digress..!

A high IQ doesn't make you more competant or able if you can't properly apply that knowledge. Frankly, I'd rather have someone who was better with people, able to ask questions and admit (and learn from) mistakes, than someone with a big IQ and no idea of how to relate to others or take advice on board (after all, what would anyone else know?).

I'm sure IQ testing has it's merits, but sadly there seem to be too many at the top end of the scale who over-estimate it's importance and relevance.

[Rudy]

I worked as a receptioninst for an older man who was very happy to declare he had an IQ of 144

Just couldn't manage that third standard deviation, could he? (145) ;)



You're right that high IQ does not necessarily mean high competence. Talking about your high IQ all the time, however, is almost always a sign of incompetence. I guess it's useful in that way. If someone tells you what their IQ is, you know to avoid them if possible.

[Brittle]

Just couldn't manage that third standard deviation, could he? (145) ;)


:p I had the same thoughts... perhaps that's why he felt the need to lord it over his supposed "inferiors" (.."see... I AM smart, no, really I am!!"..)

[Ntwadumela]

An IQ difference in 1 point does not reflect a meaningful difference.Test-retest on a single intelligence measure is likely to yield a score that deviates from your observed score by a couple points. How well you perform on any given day is related to a number of extraneous factors, and would be relatively unlikely that you would score EXACTLY the same.

Intelligence is NOT fixed. It makes sense too. Some of you noted that you quit trying once you were labeled as gifted. If you are not actively engaging yourself and constantly learning it will reflect in your IQ score.

IQ is an ordinal scale. Despite our best attempts to quantify this abstract concept, it remains that just by knowing your score does not indicate the magnitude at which you are smarter than another individual, but rather that you are just smarter.

I do agree that knowing an IQ is more detrimental than beneficial. This is based in my fear that people attach too much weight to their score.

Intelligence testing does have its place, which is what I use it for. Some people were saying that it should be apparent which students are failing and which are excelling, and then helping them accordingly. Well, in the real world that just doesn't work. You need to make distinctions and demarcations or there is just too much ambiguity. Which student is gifted enough or which student is impaired enough to receive special services? There needs to be some clear boundaries so that procedures can be standardized. Also, IQ tests actually do a pretty good job of identifying strengths and weaknesses in an individual, which is extremely helpful for diagnostic purposes. If you better know what the problem or gift is, it is that much easier to facilitate the proper learning environment.

[maxpot46]

Hmm. Well I can confidently assert that I have enough IQ points to disprove this little thesis of yours as it stands. =D I've never, not even once, wanted to be less intelligent than I am. Yeah, I'm with you. I quite value my intellect, and always have.

[Jonathan Brewer]

I don't need some guy with an ego over-inflated by his IQ assuming this makes me the intellectual equivalent of a golden retriever.

Cover your ears, Monte! :cry: How sad to pick on a poor DUMB dog! :cry: Let's slip away to the simplistic world of Algebraic Topology and forget all about this heinous comment aimed at man's best friend. :cry:

;D

Just couldn't manage that third standard deviation, could he? (145) ;)

I was thinking the exact same thing. Poor guy... ;D


I believe that intelligence testing MAY serve a more useful purpose in the future. At the time being though even if we are able to discern higher intellectual ability we are not able to clearly identify the subject's most promising areas of study. There have been plenty of geniuses who chose music over science. Aptitude is not always so easily determined.

That said, I too appreciate and enjoy my own intellect. I know I'm extremely intelligent but at the same time I glean a lot of knowledge from others. I don't mean this in a narcissistic fashion either. I am just of the opinion that experience is often as capable an instructor as the mind.

[Spite]

This is a good topic. It was fun reading everyone's responses.

I just wanted to ask, and maybe this should be a whole new topic, but...
I can almost always tell, just by greeting someone or being greeted by someone, how intelligent they are. I can also usually tell how intelligent they think that they are. Is this an INTJ trait? Do most of you feel that you can just "get that" too whenever you meet someone?

As for my IQ, it's decent, but I would not mind it being higher any given day. 15 years ago my IQ was professionally tested and scored 146 (I was 15). I had a brain surgery less than a year ago and a recent online IQ test scored me at 137.

I have a very low tolerance for stupidity, ignorance, and lack of common sense. However, I very much wish that I was more patient. Having stated that, I still wish that I was associated with more people of my own intelligence or higher more often.

So, is the online test B.S. or have I possibly lost ability having had brain surgery?

[Rudy]

So, is the online test B.S. or have I possibly lost ability having had brain surgery?
Both of these are the case. It's possible, but very, very unlikely that the brain surgery had anything to do with it. Most online IQ tests are B.S., and I would not rely on it. However, IQ can change over time; usually not by more than a few points, but it can.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 1 minutes and 39 seconds later...

I just wanted to ask, and maybe this should be a whole new topic, but...
I can almost always tell, just by greeting someone or being greeted by someone, how intelligent they are. I can also usually tell how intelligent they think that they are. Is this an INTJ trait? Do most of you feel that you can just "get that" too whenever you meet someone?

I find that I can tell when someone's an idiot very easily, but I have a harder time instantly determining the difference between someone of average intelligence, and a very smart person, just by their greeting. It generally takes me a bit more than that.

[Spite]

I find that I can tell when someone's an idiot very easily, but I have a harder time instantly determining the difference between someone of average intelligence, and a very smart person, just by their greeting. It generally takes me a bit more than that.

I agree. I can tell if they are "at par" enough for me to be interested in their level of intelligence. Most of the time I can "get them" head on. I think it may be an unconscious game that I play and I just didn't realize it until now.

The reason that I replied though (and I thank you for conversing with me), is because I may have sounded conceited, and I just wanted to clarify that in recognizing these things in others, I am in no way implying that I am more intelligent than them. For me to be able to "grasp" these things, it doesn't mean that I am smarter than every one else, I can recognize when I can easily be "outdone" as well.

[schwartzie]

spite--a friend has been a mensa proctor for years and can spot successful candidates (and has urged me to do so too) in a matter of a couple of seconds--it's the eyes, mostly. You can see when someone is home, pretty easily. Look for the sparkle.

I've worked as an editor for years, and can also call the number pretty closely (+/- 10 points or so) for native english speakers, based on how they write.

[Rudy]

I've worked as an editor for years, and can also call the number pretty closely (+/- 10 points or so) for native english speakers, based on how they write.

My ego could do with a good trimming, schwartzie: call my number? Send me a comment/PM if you like ;)

[Spite]

spite--a friend has been a mensa proctor for years and can spot successful candidates (and has urged me to do so too) in a matter of a couple of seconds--it's the eyes, mostly. You can see when someone is home, pretty easily. Look for the sparkle.

I've worked as an editor for years, and can also call the number pretty closely (+/- 10 points or so) for native english speakers, based on how they write.

Intriguing! I have already posted my old, and current (but unprofessional) results, but what would you call me at?

I wonder if I live up to my suggested IQ, exceed it, or slack in that area.

I don't think I would "hob-nob" well with most Mensa members in their club-setting. My style is to refrain from obvious boasting. Usually in face-to-face situations I attempt to play the "norm", sometimes "below average" (or what is below average in my opinion).

I don't like most "factual" conversations. I like opinionated ones. I like attempts at swaying my opinions/positions and I like to attempt to sway others as well.

I suck at trivia; it never interested me.

Someone else had mentioned "interest" earlier in this thread. They were talking about doing not-so-hot on their SATs (which I never took) because they weren't interested or motivated to have the results. That's the way I am with most "givens". If everyone else already knows something then I know that information is readily available from most other sources (people) so I want to learn things that are less accessible.

Plus, unlike most intelligent people, I HATE reading books. I don't hate reading, just reading books. It seems every time I am surrounded by intelligent people, books become of topic and I no longer feel "connected".

Here's one for you: Is talking in parenthesis a weakness in intelligence? I am often told it's such a big "No-no", but I do "quotes", (parenthesis), commas, and run-on sentences for days. I just tell people there's a German in my head that helps me write. :p

When I was in high school my English II DS (Distinguished Scholar) Teacher gave me many "F"s because she said I have "I" fever. I start off too many things with "I". This is true. I can't kick that habit because I like to write about myself. I am a subject that I know more about than anyone else and I am comfortable with that. I dropped out of that school after she failed me one semester and I completed high school almost one year early by taking Credit By Exams instead of classes and getting a Doctor's note to take other Electives than Physical Education.

So now you really have some material to work with on me.

That same Teacher later apologized to me. She informed me that she had brought some of my essays to her College Professor because she wanted help understanding why an intelligent person (that's me) could not learn proper writing structure. Her Professor explained to her that I could not be helped because I had already developed my own style.

I think that I was just too stubborn to care at the time. I hated writing and I wasn't using computers back then, so I had no idea that I would be typing every single day like I do now.

[Rudy]

Run on sentences are the only way to write; if I can make a paragraph out of a single sentence, all the better. Those rules taught in school about limiting your sentences to one subject, one verb, etc., are for lesser creatures than you and I, with limited capacity for creative structuring. ;) (I'm not actually this arrogant, but I meant what I said about run-on sentences.)

[Ntwadumela]

Although I am relatively new to intellectual assessments and by no means an expert, I do have a substantial amount of training in this area.

In working with children I am always surprised at how accurately I can approximate a child's IQ before I score their protocol (basically an embellished name for score card). It does not matter how old or young they are; to be honest, I am not all that familiar with developmental milestones of where a child "should" be, but I can reliably predict a score within the classification borders. Those are: mentally retarded (yes, this is the politically correct term), borderline, low average, average, high average, superior, and very superior.

I have never worked with a student with an IQ over 129 (almost very superior, but not quite), so maybe my perceptions about high IQs are distorted.

An IQ of 146 seems unlikely to me, but that is for the reasons I stated above. Statistically, that is the 99.88 percentile. At this end of the spectrum hundredths of decimals do not represent meaningful differences. The decimals make the measurements seem more precise than they actually are; the assessment tools are not sensitive enough to measure such small differences in scores.

Also, I caution others to be EXTREMELY wary of scores above 155-165. Not only are these scores nearly unheard of, but most every IQ test maxes out at this level. If you ever hear of a score of 175-185 or higher, these are simply extrapolations from statistical analysis. And this also begs the question, what is the point in testing the intelligence of a person who obviously has extraordinary cognitive abilities?

[Rudy]

More recent IQ discussions that I have read have suggested that the supposed normalized bell curve is actually slightly skewed towards the right. This would mean that there are more people towards the high end than are represented by the standard bell curve.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 7 minutes and 25 seconds later...

To clarify that statement, the first two or three standard deviations are pretty much a normal distribution, but the IQs above 145 are more highly represented than one would expect from such a distribution.

It's hard to be certain, since there is a scarcity of data about people in those groups, but more people test at 160, for example, than would be expected.

[Ntwadumela]

What you are referring to is called the Flynn effect.

Intelligence tests are "re-normed" every few years, say every 6 or 7 years. People generally score higher on the older versions of tests than their predecessors did, but this does not affect the bell curve.

mean IQ ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS = 100

100 is the arbitrary number for the mean number of correct answers exhibited across subtests (in any given intelligence measure). Tests such as the Stanford-Binet V, WISC IV, WAIS III, WJ III, KTEA, DAS, etc. etc. have standardization samples so that the mean can be computed and applied to the general population.

When this mean is computed, then we slap a big 'ole 100 to the average. The average is adjusted for age, with many tests making distinctions between just a few months of development (especially in children).

[Rudy]

No, I'm not referring to the Flynn effect, though I know what that is. I'm saying that there is some reason to think that intelligence is not actually Standard Normal Distribution on the very high end.

What I said earlier doesn't entirely detract from Ntwadumela's point, however. 160 IQ, for example, should be something like 1 in 31,250 according to the Standard Normal Distribution. While there is some evidence to suggest that it might be closer to 1 in 10 or 20 thousand, it's still extraordinarily rare.

[Ntwadumela]

Well, if you want to dabble in theory - intelligence is actually not normally distributed. In fact, very little - if any - distributions are normal.

We are able to make distributions appear normal by applying the principles of the central limit theorem, graphing sample means until it approximates a normal curve.

This would explain why there could be a disproportionate number of people 4 standard deviations above the mean. But then again, I don't actually know - I'm just generating a hypothesis.

[Rudy]

This would explain why there could be a disproportionate number of people 4 standard deviations above the mean. But then again, I don't actually know - I'm just generating a hypothesis.

Fair enough. Your general point about being wary of very high IQs still stands, however.

We are able to make distributions appear normal by applying the principles of the central limit theorem, graphing sample means until it approximates a normal curve.
The problem with the very high IQs is that there is not enough sample data to properly normalize it.

[Spite]

Honestly, unless someone is famous for their level of intelligence, I haven't believed anyone who has claimed an IQ over 155 either.

I certainly understand you being leery of my stated 146 IQ score as well. A lot has changed in my life in the last 15 years but, honestly, I was quite an extraordinary youth.

129 is still an impressive IQ for a child. One of my children functions below average (not confirmed) and another is gifted/talented (also not confirmed). My baby is too young to tell. I haven't had them tested because there doesn't seem to be a reason to test them. My 5 year old functions at a higher level than most adults. My 8-year-old functions at about the level of a 6-year-old.

It doesn't matter what my true IQ is now. I am a Stay-At-Home-Mom. I hate working for anyone and I am not motivated enough to follow through with my brilliant (joking) ideas. Any intelligence I do have is lost in my recent physical deficiencies and my obligations to my family.

If nothing else, I am competent at my current profession.

I still believe that my IQ is definitely "Superior" at some level on the spectrum.

[Rudy]

An IQ of 146 on this forum is quite easy to believe, actually. There are several reasons I say that.

1) INTJs do tend to have slightly higher IQs than average. They are not the highest ranked MBTI group (I think INTPs beat us,) but they're up there.

2) Coming onto a forum such as this one, which has a very high level of discussion among internet forums (as far as I've seen,) is a self-selecting process.

3) Actually posting on the forum, rather than just lurking, is another self-selecting process.

All three of these conceivably create an environment where the mean IQ is measurably higher than the general population.

That doesn't guarantee that you have an IQ of 146, but it does make it plausible.

[Spite]

An IQ of 146 on this forum is quite easy to believe, actually. There's several reasons I say that.

1) INTJs do tend to have slightly higher IQs than average. They are not the highest ranked MBTI group (I think INTPs beat us,) but they're up there.

2) Coming onto a forum such as this one, which has a very high level of discussion among internet forums (as far as I've seen,) is a self-selecting process.

3) Actually posting on the forum, rather than just lurking, is another self-selecting process.

All three of these plausibly create an environment where the mean IQ is measurably higher than the general population.

That doesn't guarantee that you have an IQ of 146, but it does make it plausible.

:thumbsup: I thank you for "having my back"! I can easily imagine getting flamed on any average forum for boasting a 146 IQ score.

Even if my "true" IQ is closer to 137 (like the online test), that's still impressive in my book.

[Rudy]

:thumbsup: I thank you for "having my back"! I can easily imagine getting flamed on any average forum for boasting a 146 IQ score.

Even if my "true" IQ is closer to 137 (like the online test), that's still impressive in my book.
No need to thank me; I said it because it was true. However, I don't recommend you make a habit of giving your IQ score, even on this forum, unless it's specifically asked for. Depending on the context, it can be a bit gauche. ;)

[Ntwadumela]

:thumbsup: I thank you for "having my back"! I can easily imagine getting flamed on any average forum for boasting a 146 IQ score.

Even if my "true" IQ is closer to 137 (like the online test), that's still impressive in my book.

I will invariably go on a rage some day about online IQ testing. Look no further than ESPN or Facebook to see how inaccurate these perceptions and tests are.
ESPN displays in their margins that read, "Avg Chicago Bulls IQ=140" or "the avg IQ is 97, see if you can beat it!"

What the hell?! Could you imagine if the average bulls fan's IQ was 140?! The stands would be littered with Nobel prize laureates and physicists. This image has me laughing hysterically when combined with the Superfans (an old SNL skit).

[Rudy]

All online IQ tests are questionable, but some are better than others. The ones that produce those kind of scores are usually the ridiculous 5 or 10 minute tests.

There are more reliable half an hour/hour long tests available online, though their results still should not be taken as gospel.

[Spite]

I agree. I did think twice about doing it too. Although I was confused about the scores since my brain surgery and the free internet test versus professional testing.

That, and even though I am intrigued by IQ and other defining tests, I don't feel that IQ tests are very important in my personal life.

Having a good IQ score didn't help me to impress my Teacher. I failed History in high school a few times as well. I made poor decisions in choosing romantic partners. I dropped out of college because I ticked off a Professor so bad that he was whipping electrical wires at me! lol Yes, it was funny.

Also, I have known some strange people of very superior intelligence. I don't believe having a higher IQ makes you any better of a person or any better of a contribution to society.

[Ntwadumela]

All online IQ tests are questionable, but some are better than others. The ones that produce those kind of scores are usually the ridiculous 5 or 10 minute tests.


I think you would tend to agree that irregardless of format that the validity of IQ tests - online or formal - are shaky at best.

[Rudy]

I think you would tend to agree that irregardless of format that the validity of IQ tests - online or formal - are shaky at best.
:laugh: Yes; a lot like MBTI tests in that regard!

[Spite]

:disappointed: "irregardless"

[Jonathan Brewer]

I have never worked with a student with an IQ over 129 (almost very superior, but not quite), so maybe my perceptions about high IQs are distorted.

An IQ of 146 seems unlikely to me, but that is for the reasons I stated above. Statistically, that is the 99.88 percentile. At this end of the spectrum hundredths of decimals do not represent meaningful differences. The decimals make the measurements seem more precise than they actually are; the assessment tools are not sensitive enough to measure such small differences in scores.

Also, I caution others to be EXTREMELY wary of scores above 155-165. Not only are these scores nearly unheard of, but most every IQ test maxes out at this level. If you ever hear of a score of 175-185 or higher, these are simply extrapolations from statistical analysis. And this also begs the question, what is the point in testing the intelligence of a person who obviously has extraordinary cognitive abilities?

I am a little confused by these suggestions. Obviously the accuracy of such tests is difficult to assess and the higher one scores the less accurate it is likely to be. However, I have known many people who would easily make the second standard deviation. I also do not think it is so preposterous that one have an IQ above 160. I do question the merit of testing this but not necessarily the results obtained.

To clarify that statement, the first two or three standard deviations are pretty much a normal distribution, but the IQs above 145 are more highly represented than one would expect from such a distribution.

It's hard to be certain, since there is a scarcity of data about people in those groups, but more people test at 160, for example, than would be expected.

Could we not attribute that to the continual evolution of our species? Perhaps the density of these regions are increasing so that even when reevaluated the bell curve will be broader and adjusted more to the right.

In other words 130 will eventually become the new 100 but above the new third standard deviation subjects will be less likely to grow in number, as they will in the other direction as well.

:disappointed: "irregardless"

Indeed - regardless.

[Ntwadumela]

I am a little confused by these suggestions. Obviously the accuracy of such tests is difficult to assess and the higher one scores the less accurate it is likely to be. However, I have known many people who would easily make the second standard deviation. I also do not think it is so preposterous that one have an IQ above 160. I do question the merit of testing this but not necessarily the results obtained.



Could we not attribute that to the continual evolution of our species? Perhaps the density of these regions are increasing so that even when reevaluated the bell curve will be broader and adjusted more to the right.

In other words 130 will eventually become the new 100 but above the new third standard deviation subjects will be less likely to grow in number, as they will in the other direction as well.



Indeed - regardless.

1.) Like I said, I am not an expert. I am in graduate school. I have not tested thousands of kids, so it would be pretty rare for me to find such gifted individuals.

2.) It is unlikely that a person would exhibit an IQ over 160 because that is the max score on many IQ tests. People with IQs over 160 have had their scores manipulated because they received a perfect score. Therefore, they project an individual's score from the existing data (in a data analysis I am not familiar with at all).

3.) The bell curve is a human construct. Like I said, intelligence is not normally distributed. Even if it was, the very fact that that the bell curve is a statistic with associated numbers with exact percentiles limits how many people can score in a particular range.

For example: a score of 115 is attached to a person that scores better than or equal to 84.13% of people. The actual value is only indicative of how many people they scored above, not the magnitude at which they are smarter. A score of 115 will always yield the 84th percentile (assuming the SD is the standard 15 points). Just like a score of 160 will always yield the 99.997 percentile.

4.) Irregardless is a word; not a commonly accepted word, but the word I prefer.

[Rudy]

3.) The bell curve is a human construct. Like I said, intelligence is not normally distributed. Even if it was, the very fact that that the bell curve is a statistic with associated numbers with exact percentiles limits how many people can score in a particular range.
Agreed.

4.) Irregardless is a word; not a commonly accepted word, but the word I prefer.
Logical meaning of words > personal preference. Double negative = shameful.

[Ntwadumela]

Logical meaning of words > personal preference. Double negative = shameful.

Meh, this isn't worth arguing over. Minutia, details, rather trivial if you ask me.

I will concede the loss because my grammar and command of the English language is not at such a level that I could turn you all into mindless zealots.

[schwartzie]

1.)
2.) It is unlikely that a person would exhibit an IQ over 160 because that is the max score on many IQ tests. People with IQs over 160 have had their scores manipulated because they received a perfect score. Therefore, they project an individual's score from the existing data....

It is my understanding that, at least until about 1995 or so, virtually all IQ tests other than the Stanford Binet LM capped out at around 135. I haven't kept up with the field. Maybe something new has been written since then.

It is my personal theory that that may be part of the reason why we have rather a lot of people who think they're close to average/norm, but aren't, and they don't understand why they are so alienated and 'different' (and over time, pretty screwed up) and why they can't just make themselves better.

Worse, most mental health professionals haven't a clue about people with higher IQ because they don't have personal experience (which is what draws most mental health professionals to the field) or other relevant facts about that experience, to be able to recognize and appropriately deal w it.

I am the "receptionist" of sorts for the local mensa group and see this too often. But, it's fun to see people open up in that safe setting where they recognize themselves in others, quite often, for the first time in their life.

Mensa members are supposedly the top 2%, which is roughly 135-140. Or, about 1 kid in every third classroom. 2,000 people in a modest city of 100,000. And there is that bump at around 165 that is disproportionately male.

[Zer0]

Logical meaning of words > personal preference. Double negative = shameful.
+1


It is my personal theory that that may be part of the reason why we have rather a lot of people who think they're close to average/norm, but aren't, and they don't understand why they are so alienated and 'different' (and over time, pretty screwed up) and why they can't just make themselves better.
Sounds interesting..

[Ntwadumela]

Worse, most mental health professionals haven't a clue about people with higher IQ because they don't have personal experience (which is what draws most mental health professionals to the field) or other relevant facts about that experience, to be able to recognize and appropriately deal w it.


As a person going into mental health: there are almost 0 people you can directly identify with. Do you think I can identify with someone who has a pervasive developmental disorder, or schizophrenia, or post traumatic stress disorder? People don't manifest their symptoms on the same level; each case is unique, and should be treated as such.

But there are techniques/therapies/treatments and such that have been shown over time to help facilitate positive outcomes for the populations they are intended for, without subscribing to that specific label yourself.

[Spite]

It is my understanding that, at least until about 1995 or so, virtually all IQ tests other than the Stanford Binet LM capped out at around 135. I haven't kept up with the field. Maybe something new has been written since then.

It is my personal theory that that may be part of the reason why we have rather a lot of people who think they're close to average/norm, but aren't, and they don't understand why they are so alienated and 'different' (and over time, pretty screwed up) and why they can't just make themselves better.

Worse, most mental health professionals haven't a clue about people with higher IQ because they don't have personal experience (which is what draws most mental health professionals to the field) or other relevant facts about that experience, to be able to recognize and appropriately deal w it.

I am the "receptionist" of sorts for the local mensa group and see this too often. But, it's fun to see people open up in that safe setting where they recognize themselves in others, quite often, for the first time in their life.

Mensa members are supposedly the top 2%, which is roughly 135-140. Or, about 1 kid in every third classroom. 2,000 people in a modest city of 100,000. And there is that bump at around 165 that is disproportionately male.

1) I am not surprised by the statistics you offer.
2) This post makes me 2nd guess the integrity of the first IQ test that I took now, because it was around 1995 that I took my first test. The person who took me for the test just told me that she had taken me to the Church of Scientology to take my test. I don't know if that makes it any more or less meaningful and I don't know what type/brand the test was either. It seems far-fetched to have scored so high when those scores were not even widely accepted at the time. Perhaps the "church" had a different agenda to woo people so that they would join their organization.
3) I agree with your theories as well.
4) As for Nitwademela, I disagree that "irregardless" is a word. I make up words often, but I don't argue that they have their place in the English language. I know that a lot of people use "irregardless", although it is incorrect. My mother is one of the most ignorant of English speakers. Everyday I have to listen to her talk about what clothes or dishes she is "worshing", or she'll see a starving child on TV and describe them as "emancipated", she thinks my Endocrinologist is called an "Aloecronologist". She refuses to listen to correction. She likes sounding ignorant, but at the same time she is baffled why men don't want to date her. My Dad died in 2003, my mom is widowed. She has no friends and even family avoids conversing with her.

EDTA:
::Fixed "accepted"::

[Ntwadumela]

1)
4) As for Nitwademela, I disagree that "irregardless" is a word. I make up words often, but I don't argue that they have their place in the English language. I know that a lot of people use "irregardless", although it is incorrect.

I hate to be a bastard, but if we are going to split hairs - irregardless is a word.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





Ntwadumela added to this post, 1 minutes and 15 seconds later...

1) It seems far-fetched to have scored so high when those scores were not even widely excepted at the time.

Furthermore, I can ante up my douchebaggery and say the proper word is "accepted" not "excepted".

I hope you know I am teasing.

[Spite]

As a person going into mental health: there are almost 0 people you can directly identify with. Do you think I can identify with someone who has a pervasive developmental disorder, or schizophrenia, or post traumatic stress disorder? People don't manifest their symptoms on the same level; each case is unique, and should be treated as such.

But there are techniques/therapies/treatments and such that have been shown over time to help facilitate positive outcomes for the populations they are intended for, without subscribing to that specific label yourself.

Maybe you are going into the wrong field? I could easily identify (to some extent) with a PDD individual. I was once diagnosed "borderline schizophrenic" (which is complete B.S. in my opinion) and my ex husband now collects SSDI on his diagnosis of being schitzophrenic. PTSD... I have overcome HUGE situations of manic stress at various points in my life and although I have done my ultimate best not to let anything drive me to the breaking point of becoming a true psychotic, I can relate to someone who suffers from this. I am not condoning any illegal actions by any one. I can't comprehend how women can be so stressed that they can kill their own child without stopping to realize what they are doing, but I can understand how that evil can brew.

Professionals that enter fields like this should be able to relate. Text books aren't written by patients. No one really knows what ails them but them. I have many medical issues brought on in the last 2 years of my life and I can tell you first-hand that I am unimpressed with any doctor that I feel is going by text-book to understand my condition. Especially since one of them is so rare that there is hardly any precise text-book direction in handling it. Mine is not a mental ailment, but a physical one. Cushing's Disease, caused by a ACTH producing brain tumor that quickly bore me overweight and weak and caused many other problems to follow.

Of course, it's just a matter of opinion. I think a patient's opinion is more important than a professor's when it's the "end-user" who is the recipient of the way you use of your "EXPERIENCE".





Spite added to this post, 2 minutes and 54 seconds later...



Furthermore, I can ante up my douchebaggery and say the proper word is "accepted" not "excepted".

I hope you know I am teasing.
F! You're right; I slipped there.

[Ntwadumela]

Maybe you are going into the wrong field? I could easily identify (to some extent) with a PDD individual. I was once diagnosed "borderline schizophrenic" (which is complete B.S. in my opinion) and my ex husband now collects SSDI on his diagnosis of being schitzophrenic. PTSD... I have overcome HUGE situations of manic stress at various points in my life and although I have done my ultimate best not to let anything drive me to the breaking point of becoming a true psychotic, I can relate to someone who suffers from this.

Professionals that enter fields like this should be able to relate. Text books aren't written by patients. No one really knows what ails them but them. I have many medical issues brought on in the last 2 years of my life and I can tell you first-hand that I am unimpressed with any doctor that I feel is going by text-book to understand my condition. Especially since one of them is so rare that there is hardly any precise text-book direction in handling it. Mine is not a mental ailment, but a physical one. Cushing's Disease, caused by a ACTH producing brain tumor that quickly bore me overweight and weak and caused many other problems to follow.

Of course, it's just a matter of opinion. I think a patient's opinion is more important than a professor's when it's the "end-user" who is the recipient of the way you use of your "EXPERIENCE".


There is just no way that any person could identify with every type of pathology that exists. For pathology exists on both ends of the spectrum - either too much or too little of a trait- causing substantial impairments on either end.

You simply cannot be everything. However, I can relate to people in many ways for the problems I had as a child and adolescent. I particularly identify with anxiety, depression, AD/HD, and ODD, but on a case by case basis it is imperative that I don't superimpose my experiences on top of the clients' experiences.

I tend to be good at respecting people's individual differences when working in that setting (one-on-one), but am too brash in my judgments when dealing with groups larger than 10 people (I chose 10 arbitrarily).

[Spite]

There is just no way that any person could identify with every type of pathology that exists. For pathology exists on both ends of the spectrum - either too much or too little of a trait- causing substantial impairments on either end.

You simply cannot be everything. However, I can relate to people in many ways for the problems I had as a child and adolescent. I particularly identify with anxiety, depression, AD/HD, and ODD, but on a case by case basis it is imperative that I don't superimpose my experiences on top of the clients' experiences.

I tend to be good at respecting people's individual differences when working in that setting (one-on-one), but am too brash in my judgments when dealing with groups larger than 10 people (I chose 10 arbitrarily).

Hmm.. I don't think I (personally) can agree with you. But, like I said before, it's just my opinion. Maybe I am the only person who can't agree. What you say seems perfectly logical to me, but I just don't believe that other humans are all so different from me that I can't relate to everyone at some level with some "true" understanding of their mentality.

Having read this to my husband, he contends that it is likely that him and I are rare in both of our abilities to tend to understand, mostly, every one. He and I have both said on many occasions (to each other) that given certain circumstances either of us could easily have came into demented lifestyles.

Luckily for me and my husband, the rest of society, and our children, we are above that.

[Jonathan Brewer]

I couldn't resist, as I too am a douche bag. ;D I do agree the debate is meaningless.


Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912

nonstandard : regardless

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

[Ntwadumela]

I couldn't resist, as I too am a douche bag. ;D I do agree the debate is meaningless.


Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912

nonstandard : regardless

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Believe me, I noticed. It actually made me laugh out loud when I read that; even the dictionary is chastising me!

[Spite]

Believe me, I noticed. It actually made me laugh out loud when I read that; even the dictionary is chastising me!

That's because the dictionary has to list it to explain to people that it is indeed used, even though it is not "widely" accepted.

If a particular word is used over time they have to give a definition for it so that other people will know what the person using the ridiculous "word" was talking about.

C'mon.

See "ain't" (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.'t)
See [/URL]
See [URL="To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts."]"irregardless"
Irregardle (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)ss is a word that many people mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. The word was coined in the United States in the early 20th century, probably from a blend of irrespective and regardless. Perhaps this is why some critics insist that there is “no such word” as irregardless, a charge they would not think of leveling at a nonstandard word with a longer history, such as ain’t. Since people use irregardless, it is undoubtedly a word. But it has never been accepted in Standard English and is usually changed by editors to regardless before getting into print.

It is "debatable", it just won't get us any where. I refuse to accept your logic as good reason and you refuse to accept mine.

"IMO" it ain't phat irregardless, even though it is in the dic'ju'nary... itn't it?

I guess none of it is any worse than "worshing your clothes", or starving people looking "emancipated" or someone asking you if you've been to see your "Aloecronologist" lately.

You use words that make other people wince. I usually try to please the ears of my listeners, at least if I want them to actually listen to me.

....

[Jonathan Brewer]

Probably written by some Brit... *looks around for any Red Coats*


Alright... all clear. :suspicious:


This is why I like Mathematics. ;D

[Ntwadumela]

That's because the dictionary has to list it to explain to people that it is indeed used, even though it is not "widely" accepted.

If a particular word is used over time they have to give a definition for it so that other people will know what the person using the ridiculous "word" was talking about.

C'mon.

See "ain't" (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.'t)
See
See [URL="To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts."]"irregardless"


It is "debatable", it just won't get us any where. I refuse to accept your logic as good reason and you refuse to accept mine.

"IMO" it ain't phat irregardless, even though it is in the dic'ju'nary... itn't it?

I guess none of it is any worse than "worshing your clothes", or starving people looking "emancipated" or someone asking you if you've been to see your "Aloecronologist" lately.

You use words that make other people wince. I usually try to please the ears of my listeners, at least if I want them to actually listen to me.

....

I am done commenting on this one word. This has far exceeded any rational person's tolerance for dispute.

[schwartzie]

pfft! THIS 'yere thread's what makes intj intjs. I jus want to huggle all of you!