[gestalt]

	Originally Posted by Knighthkm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes I think IQ directly has to do with intellect but nothing to do with wisdom which I think is much more valuable.

Why do you think people keep getting themselves into situations where they have to make mistakes or learn from their experience? Isn't wisdom opposed somewhat to creating new knowledge? Isn't wisdom a form of cached thought? Culturally or otherwise? If we want to sound deep, can we never say anything that is more than a single step of inferential distance away from our listener's current mental state?

"Do not believe on the strength of traditions even if they have been held
in honour for many generations and in many places; do not believe anything
because many people speak of it; do not believe on the strength of sages of old
times; do not believe that which you have yourselves imagined, thinking that
a god has inspired you. Believe nothing which depends only on the authority
of your masters or priests. After investigation, believe that which you have
yourselves tested and found reasonable, and which is for your good and that of
others."

Perhaps a Question Quotient would be more better for anyone who doesn't score more good on Intelligence Quotient, eh?

[jamierod91]

There are a multitude of aspects to take into account with regards to measuring one's intelligence, however, I think that someone's IQ does count in some respect. IQ is just a measure of how much logical and rational based intelligence someone has, it seems. But what do I know. I'm only 20 years of age.

[Faux hawk]

Absolutely not! It's a rough estimate of what could be possible with one's current processing capacities. It is not a clear measure of intellect. It's a measure of where you are starting from sort of... From there you have an SD of 15 points either way depending on the test and it still in many cases doesn't account for socio-cultural variations.

[Kisai]

	Originally Posted by Atamagahen To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No. If so, I'd be in the top 0.0001%.

That would put you 4.89 standard deviations away from the mean. You're literally one in a million.

[Knighthkm]

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

Why do you think people keep getting themselves into situations where they have to make mistakes or learn from their experience? Isn't wisdom opposed somewhat to creating new knowledge? Isn't wisdom a form of cached thought? Culturally or otherwise? If we want to sound deep, can we never say anything that is more than a single step of inferential distance away from our listener's current mental state?

Wisdom is simply making the smart choice based off what u know. Its what the wise person does. Intellect is just your ability to figure out what those smart choices are. There are lots of intelligent people out there how don't make wise choices. Intellect is great, if you use it right.

[Arnold86]

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

i think the To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. is an important advancement, but i think it tends to apply what intelligence is into domains instead of breaking down the basic components that compose mental abilities. three examples: pattern matching, abstraction, and memory. all of those can be considered underlaying abilities applied within several types of the eight model theory.

INTJs have Ni, which is for looking pattern. But not all INTJs are good in math, and I think they are good finding pattern in other intelligences.

[Eyedears]

	Originally Posted by TheStranger To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do you believe IQ is a true measure of intelligence?

No, because I don't think something as non-material and elusive as intelligence can be quantified. Plus, the first and only time I took an IQ test (age 35), I was appalled at how much it had to do with acquired knowledge: you could be highly intelligent but unschooled and unread (I've known a few folks like that), which then would cause you to score poorly on the IQ test.

[lancelot]

IQ is definitely a good measure of intelligence, it is however, not the only way to measure intelligence.

Intellgence can be demonstrated by personal achievement, and contributions in various fields.

Many great people have done wonderful things yet never took an IQ test. Later people assign them an enormous IQ, if given an actual test perhaps they would have scored a moderate IQ.

[MrMastermind]

Speaking of a measure of succes, i value these quotients the most in descending order:

SQ
EQ
IQ

There is a misconception of the intelligence of the IQ and intelligence in general, in life which is the potential for succes. Intelligence of the IQ idicates being skilled with numbers, words, etc. People relate IQ to succes, which is defined by a lot more and more important factors.

[Shinganist]

LOL... no. IQ only measures potential. I do stupid shit all the time and I have an IQ of 155ish.

[PTD]

Intelligence is too broad a term to be definable by a single IQ test that doesn't even take into consideration all the types of intelligence.

[Purgatid]

	Originally Posted by TheStranger
	Do you believe IQ is a true measure of intelligence?

Of course not, that would be very silly of me. IQ-tests do not handle all sorts of problems, and intelligence is the ability to understand and solve problems.

[rbc]

Achievement is lognormally distributed, not normally distributed. Roughly speaking, achievement = intelligence times effort times opportunity.

As a result, achievement is strongly correlated with intelligence. Within a particular group (say, students within a particular class), the less variation there is in opportunity and effort, the stronger will be the correlation.

The same observation holds for nonacademic achievement as well (athletics, for example), with the appropriate other measurement of inherent talent substituted for intelligence.

[Idiotes]

I don't regard myself as having any sort of IQ. I have a reasonable level of insightfulness and wisdom for someone of my own age, that's about it. This is not something that I posses in any form that can be measured by someone and called an IQ or intelligence. My conscious state is formed of an acute awareness, open-minded observation of my surroundings and constant thinking. As a result, I am consciously constantly changing and adapting to the tasks I am doing based on the required level of attentiveness. The thought of taking a ridiculous test to measure my brains dick really does not interest me at all, hence why I think I would probably score about 90?

What bothers me the most is that this world continues to place emphasis on measuring and testing intelligence through education to determine our leaders and 'high-flyers', yet it evidently fails on every level to produce intelligent discourse in modern societies. Intelligence is completely ignored because money and connections have replaced it. Only those who're prepared to exercise greed and ruthlessness will succeed - no-one cares for intelligence, because most of the time it tells people what they don't want to hear. I just really hope I don't ever come back to this place, what ever happens once I am gone. Reality of this time as far as I am concerned is hell, nothing I could encounter after death scares me more than the prospect of a lasting existence here.

Lol.

[Cacao]

I wouldn’t consider IQ a bad way to measure intellectual capacity. But there are indeed many factors that must be considered along side. Also negative factors like depression, even temporary bad mood can reduce the focus of person ergo reduce the IQ. Also one may get hit in the head few times in a life time and some connection may be lost
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. Lets not consider that as an excuse to wacky and odd behavior for we should make effort to find more intelligent excuse for such deviation, but lets not forget even such things can happen and effect us.

A nice analogy was used by Issac Asimov who compared our mental output to physical output. I don’t remember exactly how he said it. But on some level we might consider good thinkers same way as we consider good athletes.

Just to use the Olympic stadium as analogy. We have high jumpers. Long jumpers. Sprinters. Long distance runners and many more sports. Could it be then that there is some type of person that has general predisposition to be a good sports man what ever sport he chooses? Sure why not. Can it be that some people due to their physical constitution may be talented at throwing javelin? Sure. So it must be also considering the brain. Elasticity of muscle, size, length, endurance as well as the overall capacity to develop muscle is imprinted in our DNA. So is the capacity to develop our brain connections inside our brain imprinted in our DNA. Many parts of the brain need too communicate to work out the problem and so one might think that in general people who score higher on these IQ test might have bigger and better amount of connections.

+ I would not consider judgement of other people given that they are less reliable than any test. Most people judge me by the mood not by what I really did. Been called genius and been called idiot so many times.

[Casanova]

While an IQ test does measure one's intellectual aptitude, I believe a person's intelligence could be more accurately determined by a combination of that "score" along with a few other subcategories including, but not limited to, the measure of creative capacity and social competency. After all, the "thinkers" of the world would accomplish very little without creative implementation and proper interpretation of their genius ideas - *cough* INTJ's *cough-cough*

[Plausible]

I don't think IQ is worthless, there is a positive correlation with IQ and grades and job income, but I wouldn't say that it is a flawless measure of intelligence. I think intelligence goes deeper than what standardized testing ever will.

[absolutezero]

There are many kinds of "intelligence", I recommend you read "multiple intelligences" by howard gardner.

[INFTPJ]

Of course I don not believe.
Becoz my IQ is very low. LOL.

[Jenuel]

I've read the Cambridge handbook of intelligence. The book contains the latest theories and news about intelligence.The researchers and intelligence theorists all agree that IQ is not an indicator of intelligence but it can measure some cognitive functions. they said that there is no test (right now) that can quantify intelligence. They should change the name IQ to avoid quandary.

[Light92]

Not at all, in my opinion it only measures logic and associative intelligence. The one that every student of any scientific subject is more likely to develop.

I scored 144 once. I could even join MENSA!

One of my uncles is a psychologist, and he gave me the test. He thinks I'm a quite adaptable and fast person, but sometimes I lack social intelligence. I got better at that in the latest years.

[baghira1981]

The term intelligence as it is used in society is very blurry.
If you are asking if IQ reflects the ability to combine known facts to a new insight, yes I think IQ does reflect that.
If it is about how often people act intelligent in day to day life, IQ does not have a significant meaning. "intelligent" behaviour seems to depend on many other things. I think intelligent behaviour usually is linked:
- to make decisions based on long term thoughts rather than short term thoughts(willpower is the better indicator for that)
- putting the societies needs over the needs of individuals(also putting ratio above emotion), small versus big, short versus longterm, direct versus indirect consequences, it all seems to be the same principle
- having made the right experience in life

[Tahiti]

Intelligence is polymorphic and therefore is easy to describe because it's hard to go wrong. Just look at all the definitions. True intelligence isn't polymorphic and thus is not only hard to predict almost impossible to understand. Do we look towards DNA or the Brain, or both? Is it the wiring of the brain, glia cells, size of and a million and one extra details etc..?

Is it a true measure? Obviously not but it is a damn good one. It's only in the extreme ranges where we are a bit clueless. If anyone here doubts their proctored scores I'd advise to take an untimed test. They are much more difficult.

[phil88]

In short, no I do not at all.

[9272]

No i don't. Ability can't be measured as far as human potential, only performance can be measured.