Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Calling out people with low IQs Watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    How do so many of you know your IQ?

    But even on those online tests I generally only managed around 120 each time, so I'm probably more average on a real test. I think people with unusually high IQs generally have it worse, I knew a guy at school who had an IQ of 168 (actually legit) and he was an autist in more ways than one.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dinasaurus)
    How do so many of you know your IQ?

    But even on those online tests I generally only managed around 120 each time, so I'm probably more average on a real test. I think people with unusually high IQs generally have it worse, I knew a guy at school who had an IQ of 168 (actually legit) and he was an autist in more ways than one.
    lol
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mrdisgruntled)
    Right, so I think that IQ is a poor way of measuring intelligence. That means that I am highly likely to have taken an IQ test and scored poorly and I am bitter about it?

    It's this kind of one-dimensional thinking that brought about the pathetic IQ tests in the first place. IQ tries to measure intelligence but it actually measures your score on a test focused on a few puzzles, nothing more.
    If the best scientists have the highest IQs and most of the developed countries have the highest IQs, I think it must be a fairly decent measure of intelligence rather than a fluke
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    If only everyone was smart, we'd all have gigantic IQs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kieran12321LFC)
    If the best scientists have the highest IQs and most of the developed countries have the highest IQs, I think it must be a fairly decent measure of intelligence rather than a fluke
    You're taking, what, between 500 and 10,000 of the smartest people out of a developed world population of approximately 5 billion people and saying that the fact that they generally have high IQs means that it is a good test of intelligence?

    That is called extrapolation my little friend, something we're taught to avoid in any mathematical-related degree. Just because some scientists (note not all) have high IQs, it doesn't mean there's a correlation. There can be low IQ scientists and high IQ homeless people. You're making annoyingly frustrating assumptions.

    Look up Ben Carson, he is a skilled neurosurgeon with years and years of expertise medical training, yet he doesn't believe in global warming, he says all kinds of stupid things.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mrdisgruntled)
    You're taking, what, between 500 and 10,000 of the smartest people out of a developed world population of approximately 5 billion people and saying that the fact that they generally have high IQs means that it is a good test of intelligence?

    That is called extrapolation my little friend, something we're taught to avoid in any mathematical-related degree.

    Look up Ben Carson, he is a skilled neurosurgeon with years and years of expertise medical training, yet he doesn't believe in global warming, he says all kinds of stupid things.
    **** me, there's no winning here, you can believe IQ isn't a measure of intelligence if you want, I'm not gonna change that
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kieran12321LFC)
    **** me, there's no winning here, you can believe IQ isn't a measure of intelligence if you want, I'm not gonna change that
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie...elligence.html

    is it really that hard to spell out?

    Read this, you might learn something

    You can't measure intelligence, you can measure memory and thinking skills, but we haven't actually defined intelligence.


    If you really want some more proof, Richard Feynman, considered the smartest physicist of all time, apparently scored 123.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mrdisgruntled)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie...elligence.html

    is it really that hard to spell out?

    Read this, you might learn something

    You can't measure intelligence, you can measure memory and thinking skills, but we haven't actually defined intelligence.


    If you really want some more proof, Richard Feynman, considered the smartest physicist of all time, apparently scored 123.
    News articles aren't really a decent source as they spout loads of shite anyway. It's an undeniable truth that countries with higher national IQs are generally more developed, the average STEM student beats the average Arts/Humanities student and the greatest minds have had the highest IQs. What more do you need
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by kieran12321LFC)
    the average STEM student beats the average Arts/Humanities student
    In what?
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    Mine is higher than that and I'm a habitual self-saboteur and general failure.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    In what?
    IQ tests
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    In what?
    In science.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by kieran12321LFC)
    IQ tests
    Well obviously, since they're training the exact skills that IQ tests test for? That's just as meaningless a statement as saying that fine arts students are better at art exams than STEM students. It tells us nothing of value.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Well obviously, since they're training the exact skills that IQ tests test for? That's just as meaningless a statement as saying that fine arts students are better at art exams than STEM students. It tells us nothing of value.
    The people making major technological advances for us in the future won't be former Arts students but will have studied one of the Sciences. I suppose "Everyone's intelligent in their own way".
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CantGainWeight)
    If your IQ is lower than 130, how do you carry on living a normal life?
    I don't. :no:
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by kieran12321LFC)
    The people making major technological advances for us in the future won't be former Arts students but will have studied one of the Sciences.
    Well obviously... technology is not the only valuable thing that humans do though.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kieran12321LFC)
    The people making major technological advances for us in the future won't be former Arts students but will have studied one of the Sciences. I suppose "Everyone's intelligent in their own way".
    yeh but the majority of former science students are pretty average folk who teach in schools, work in finance, maybe have an average academic career in a uni if they're lucky.

    just as the majority of former art students are pretty average folk, but you get the odd one who makes really great art that enriches people's lives.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samharrison)
    yeh but the majority of former science students are pretty average folk who teach in schools, work in finance, maybe have an average academic career in a uni if they're lucky.

    just as the majority of former art students are pretty average folk, but you get the odd one who makes really great art that enriches people's lives.
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Well obviously... technology is not the only valuable thing that humans do though.
    Art is simply for entertainment but science is for development
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kieran12321LFC)
    Art is simply for entertainment but science is for development
    right sure

    i value art more.

    scientists are more replaceable than artists imo
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by kieran12321LFC)
    The people making major technological advances for us in the future won't be former Arts students but will have studied one of the Sciences. I suppose "Everyone's intelligent in their own way".
    To be fair, there may be some truth to that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory..._intelligences.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.