Actor James Woods is reportedly one of the world's smartest people

[frankcastle]

I prefer the SAT test over the IQ test.

Nah. Tests different things.

 

[frankcastle]

Anyway, back to James Woods. I think my favorite James Woods role was in "The Onion Field" However I would say that his acting range extends to being James Woods, much in the same way Michael Caine's acting is always playing himself. Sean Connery is another. So high IQ doesn't have anything to with acting ability.

My favourite James Woods part was when he played himself in the Simpsons working at the Kwiky Mart for a part.

 

[Rockslinger]

I think it's 160 for the 4 year old.

Is the IQ test age adjusted?

 

[frankcastle]

Is the IQ test age adjusted?

Not sure how it works but they have a way of testing children.

 

[fuji]

Actually I believe that mensa uses IQ, a scale used in psychological assessments and accepted world wide.

It might not be the only type of intelligence but to describe it as narrow seems like sour grapes.

Except that it is narrow, and is widely described as narrow by people who research intelligence. You are wrong in your claim that it is widely accepted--only in popular culture, not among serious people. People who seriously look at this data no longer use a single number to describe intelligence, but rather, measure it over a range of factors some measured through tests dramatically different than an IQ test. Moreover, the demographic factor most correlated with IQ is year of birth, namely, the higher your birth year, the higher your IQ. Nobody seriously believes that people born more recently are smarter than people born historically, so there's some cultural factor that is skewing the test results that is advantaging more modern test takers over historic ones.

But let me ask you: Why don't Mensa members succeed?

No sour grapes here, I scored 5 points less on an IQ score than Mensa requires for membership the last and only time I took an IQ test, but I was 12 years old at the time, so who knows. I'll happily put up my advanced degrees against Mensa membership as a better indicator of intelligence, not to mention I've done better in life than the average Mensa member (i.e., than the average person--Mensa members do no better than average).

My critique of Mensa is in fact not my own, I'm basically repeating to you the standard line of criticism that is applied to IQ tests by people who actually study intelligence.

 

[fuji]

Not sure how it works but they have a way of testing children.

IQ is a relative measure, so children are scored relative to other children their age. If you score exactly as well as other children your age on average, your score is 100. If you do 20% better than other children your age, your score is 120. And so on.

However, what they are testing is essentially puzzle solving ability, primarily word problems, but with a few other sorts thrown in. There's a correlation between IQ scores and academic success, but it's not as strong as some would like to believe, and there is essentially no correlation between scores on that test and life outcomes.

 

[frankcastle]

I wasn't expecting honesty or integrity from you, so I'm not surprised at this cheap rhetoric. Mensa defines intelligence very narrowly as solving particular kinds of problems. Whether you think they are good at measuring "intelligence" depends on whether you agree or disagree with the idea that it is entirely defined by solving a particular kind of word puzzle. It certainly has not translated into anything else--Mensa members are no more, and no less likely to be successful in life than anybody else. You would think if it were actual intelligence that it would show up somewhere other than in the puzzle solving.

I added on top of that my own personal experience of having a met a bunch of these people. Some of them are normal. Some of them I really would consider smart. Some of them are completely inept and incapable people. In the end what they are testing seems to me to be about as meaningful as checking who is really good at doing crossword puzzles. Certainly being good at one sort of mental task MAY mean you have skill elsewhere--but it may not.

If you would like a towel to wipe the egg off your face let me know.

If 50% in the US are college grads they are probably more successsful,

Considering the costs of university in the states financially they are doing okay at the least.

 

[Yoga Face]

You can become good at IQ tests by practicing

This is done by some people so they can brag about how smart they are

 

[frankcastle]

You can become good at IQ tests by practicing

This is done by some people so they can brag about how smart they are

Which is why the first time you write it is probably the best measure of where you sit on the scale.

 

[GG2]

Except that it is narrow, and is widely described as narrow by people who research intelligence. You are wrong in your claim that it is widely accepted--only in popular culture, not among serious people. People who seriously look at this data no longer use a single number to describe intelligence, but rather, measure it over a range of factors some measured through tests dramatically different than an IQ test. Moreover, the demographic factor most correlated with IQ is year of birth, namely, the higher your birth year, the higher your IQ. Nobody seriously believes that people born more recently are smarter than people born historically, so there's some cultural factor that is skewing the test results that is advantaging more modern test takers over historic ones.

But let me ask you: Why don't Mensa members succeed?

No sour grapes here, I scored 5 points less on an IQ score than Mensa requires for membership the last and only time I took an IQ test, but I was 12 years old at the time, so who knows. I'll happily put up my advanced degrees against Mensa membership as a better indicator of intelligence, not to mention I've done better in life than the average Mensa member (i.e., than the average person--Mensa members do no better than average).

My critique of Mensa is in fact not my own, I'm basically repeating to you the standard line of criticism that is applied to IQ tests by people who actually study intelligence.

Most of this critique is wrong.

 

[fuji]

The critique may not be your own, but yet you are quoting it. That's two signs of dumbness right there:

1) You cannot advance your own "critique" - instead you rely on others.

2) You quote something and then say it is really not your own opinion anyhow, so it is OK for you to quote it

I guess I can't be very intelligent either, I keep getting drawn like a fly to shit whenever fuji posts. I somehow feel the need to respond to someone who actually will never listen. Good god fuji, you are indeed a master-baiter.

Who gives a shit whether Mensa members are successful or not - they are more intelligent than you. Respect it.

Here are the facts:

1. Mensa members cannot be more intelligent than average because that would imply higher success but we know their median incomes are average.

2. People who research intelligence dispute the value of IQ tests as measures of intelligence, instead preferring multi factor scales that include factors the Mensa IQ test omits

3. The IQ of the 1912 population as a whole would be about 80 versus the 2012 test which implies whatever it is measuring is some cultural factor unrelated to intelligence, one theory is it measures aptitude on test taking, and the modern population simply has had more practice.

4. My personal experience (for whatever it's worth) is that there are an unexpectedly high number of Mensa members who struggle with basic social skills, to the point of having obvious self inflicted hygiene problems in some cases, and therefore cannot be described as socially intelligent, and perhaps not intelligent at anything other than isolated problem solving.

Here is a prediction for which I currently have no data, maybe we can go looking for some: Mensa members will score below average on measures of social intelligence and on measures of emotional intelligence, and this explains their failure to translate IQ into success.

 

[shack]

See here's the thing... intelligence may not equate to "success" because there are people like you in the world fuji - closed-minded louts who think they know everything, but don't. Part of intelligence is having an open mind about everything - including what it means to be intelligent.

How do people like fuji, who are supposedly close minded, prevent other from achieving success? Some people think they are not smart, hence their intelligence is nullified?

 

[fuji]

All useless... They have scored higher than you on intelligence. Respect it and stop refuting it.

Every post you make shows why you would score low on ALL the tests you cite - emotional, social and brain power.

Yeah that's right 4tees, after everything you wrote is refuted, just repeat it, and add on a personal attack. I have a word for that: Inept.

No, it's not a measure of intelligence. I've shown you in several points why it is not, but you just want to ignore all that, and sputter out this garbage, instead of responding with an actual argument.

You also haven't much basis for claiming they would score higher than me, I scored 5 points lower when I was 12. What would I score today? Do you now? I don't. I don't care to find out either. What I do know is that I have advanced degrees, a career, and a reputation all of which are better indicators of both success and intelligence than success at puzzle solving. I am sure you will compensate for your lack of information with another personal attack...

 

[diehard]

 

[fuji]

yawn!

Thanks for conceding.

 

[frankcastle]

Here are the facts:

1. Mensa members cannot be more intelligent than average because that would imply higher success but we know their median incomes are average.

2. People who research intelligence dispute the value of IQ tests as measures of intelligence, instead preferring multi factor scales that include factors the Mensa IQ test omits

3. The IQ of the 1912 population as a whole would be about 80 versus the 2012 test which implies whatever it is measuring is some cultural factor unrelated to intelligence, one theory is it measures aptitude on test taking, and the modern population simply has had more practice.

4. My personal experience (for whatever it's worth) is that there are an unexpectedly high number of Mensa members who struggle with basic social skills, to the point of having obvious self inflicted hygiene problems in some cases, and therefore cannot be described as socially intelligent, and perhaps not intelligent at anything other than isolated problem solving.

Here is a prediction for which I currently have no data, maybe we can go looking for some: Mensa members will score below average on measures of social intelligence and on measures of emotional intelligence, and this explains their failure to translate IQ into success.

Fuck i provided a link showing half of us members went to college that means the median income is likely higher than the gen pop. Otherwise show stats to prove your claim. This is again you pulling stuff out of York aass

 

[frankcastle]

Btw your sample size of mensa members you have met us not statistically significant. More to he point the way you denigrate them suggests you probably viewed them with a bias.

And you know what people are taller, faster so why not smarter.

I could sit here and tell you about how i scored on various tests and academic achievements but that would be pointless..... It doesn't make my argument more valid. Telling us you missed by five points still means you failed. Close doesn't count except to those who are sensitive.

The way you shit on mensa shows more about your insecurities than anything else

 

[fuji]

Fuck i provided a link showing half of us members went to college that means the median income is likely higher than the gen pop. Otherwise show stats to prove your claim. This is again you pulling stuff out of York aass

When I post the link showing data that mensa members have roughly average salaries, are you going to apologize?

I think what the mensa IQ test is measuring is an ability to do well on tests. Thus it's not surprising that people who do well on tests get into college. However, doing well on tests isn't necessarily associated with real world performance--actual intelligence determines that. Hence the discrepancy between the higher than average college enrollment and the merely average salaries.

 

[GG2]

When I post the link showing data that mensa members have roughly average salaries, are you going to apologize?

I think what the mensa IQ test is measuring is an ability to do well on tests. Thus it's not surprising that people who do well on tests get into college. However, doing well on tests isn't necessarily associated with real world performance--actual intelligence determines that. Hence the discrepancy between the higher than average college enrollment and the merely average salaries.

There you go believing geniuses should be wealthy (because that's your definition of 'performance' or 'success') when this has already been addressed in this thread.

You're clearly out of your depth, and entirely unfamiliar with intelligence testing, research, and anything remotely related to the subject.

 

[fuji]

There you go believing geniuses should be wealthy (because that's your definition of 'performance' or 'success') when this has already been addressed in this thread.

You're clearly out of your depth, and entirely unfamiliar with intelligence testing, research, and anything remotely related to the subject.

Yes, I would certainly expect greater intelligence to translate into greater success, on average. And while it's true that some more intelligent people could pursue and be successful at things that have nothing to do with wealth, it seems likely that a higher percentage of them should end up being successful on conventional measures of success.

In fact I think intelligence IS correlated with success, I just don't think that intelligence is measured very well by measuring how well people solve a particular kind of puzzle. Calling that narrow ability "intelligence" is flat out wrong. People who are good at those puzzles MAY be intelligent, or they may not be.

Do you think rapidly solving a Rubik's cube should be correlated with high income? I don't.