A genius is being smart in one certain field, and making advances in that one field. An IQ test is a general knowledge test.

Is this true at all?

im always highly sceptical of IQ tests. the lack of standardisation, subjectivity of the questions and presence randomly occuring factors will warp the true result

there was a documentary ( i think it was from the BBC) and they were researching IQ tests. if i recall, the physicist scored highly in the standard IQ test, yet was not able to solve certain complex problems that some other people of less-than-seemingly-intelligent occupations could do (like navigating a room putting a ball through a hoop while wearing glasses that made everything appear upside down)

though i also think the word genius is also kind of subjective. some people may call a genius someone who knows many things from many fields. others may call people who excel in their own specialised field geniuses. and other people may call people who think of new, creative ideas (from people like einstein, mozart and edison) geniuses

Yeh, a GENERAL knowledge test. It doesnt ask you if you actually know anything that will keep you alive if/when the gov't takes over...

An actual IQ test with real results will cost a lot of money, usually psychologist are certified to proctor them.

Not to derail the thread, but these came to me when I read the title ...

"It's spelled genius, genious ..."

"An IQ over 140 is 'genius', and an IQ below 20 is 'idiot', so what kind of idiot doesn't know he's a genius?"

Thanks folks, you've been a good crowd. I'll be here all week. :)

"An IQ over 140 is 'genius', and an IQ below 20 is 'idiot', so what kind of idiot doesn't know he's a genius?"


*tries to comprehend statement*
http://www.i-mockery.com/halloween/greatest/pics/scanners4.gif

Isn't the term 'genius' entirely relative to everyone elses lower intelligence? Does absolute genius even exist? I mean, in a few thousand years (assuming civilisation still exists and is educated) would Einstein's now seemingly relative genius still be as pronounced as it is today? Maybe it would be a common sight by this time. I mean after all we have come a long way from Neanderthols (sp).

everyone in this thread is confusing intelligence with knowledge.
intelligence is how well your brain works to solve problems, while knowledge is the memorization of facts and patterns.

plus the O.P. probably just took an online test a REAL iq test is given by a pyschologist(sp?) and will take a few days to finish. if the op actualy took an iq test he would know that a score over 140 qualifies as genius also if the op was a genius he would already know this and most likely would not need online gratification.

I mean after all we have come a long way from Neanderthols (sp).


I thought we came from Cro- Magnon... and that Neanderthols were extinct.

Did YOU come from a long line of secret Neanderthols?

Although, as mentioned by other posters, IQ tests are highly sketchy. However, there is a strong correlation between IQ tests and how you perform mentally. Pretty much if you do better on an IQ test and it says that your better than another person at math if you both took a math class you'd be far more likely to do better in that class than the other person. I asked one of my psychology professors what the basis for IQ tests was and how we knew it wasn't just a bunch of bull shit engineered to make him rich. He told me simply that there is an underlying theory for intelligence which is supported by correlation and experimentation. The prevailing theory with statistical support was the basis on which the IQ test was developed, or something like that. Though it must be noted that the IQ test has had a long history in its development since it was originally designed to find school children in need of special education.

Yes, there is a sketchyness to IQ tests but the sketchyness, other wise known as error and uncertainty, is not sufficient enough to throw them out completely. They give you a general idea of where you stand in comparison to the general population. It's like in a physics lab where your numbers are sometimes off by as much as 15% but you can still derive a corellation using the best fit line.

That aside there is the comment on Einstein. Einstein's discovery, general relavtivity, was revolutionary because no one had thought about physics along the lines that he had. Human intelligence has not changed since Einsteins day, today there are very many physicists which completely comprehend Einsteins theories. It was less that he was intelligent enough to understand his theory, though I am not saying he was not probably the smartest person who ever lived, and more that he was such a visionary as to come up with a theory for which there was nothing similar to it at all before. He was truly original.

Einsteins genius will never be down played as long as it is examined in the time frame of time that it occured.

All that aside, from what I've read there seems to be only a mild correlation between IQ and success. Very often those with extremely super high IQ's don't become very notable and those with above average IQ do.

Also, I wouldn't trust those online IQ tests. Usually they tell you what you want to hear so that you'll buy the full profile.

everyone in this thread is confusing intelligence with knowledge.
intelligence is how well your brain works to solve problems, while knowledge is the memorization of facts and patterns.

plus the O.P. probably just took an online test a REAL iq test is given by a pyschologist(sp?) and will take a few days to finish. if the op actualy took an iq test he would know that a score over 140 qualifies as genius also if the op was a genius he would already know this and most likely would not need online gratification.

this, those internet tests also prop ur score up to make u feel better. like i got a 68, and i was like yeah :), but then i was told it was probably too high and i was like oh.... :(

A genius is being smart in one certain field, and making advances in that one field. An IQ test is a general knowledge test.

Is this true at all?did you take an online IQ test? Because whenever you a take a real IQ test with a psychologist you are not given an exact IQ number. You are given an IQ range. So you would be between 135 and 150 for example. if tha tis a real IQ score.

Hi guys. I have an IQ of 74.

I thought we came from Cro- Magnon... and that Neanderthols were extinct.

We're mainly descended from Cro-Magnon, but it's usually accepted that there was some limited interbreeding between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon. The gene that causes ginger hair is thought to be a Neanderthal one.

I have nothing to say on-topic, because internet IQ threads are as big a waste of time as internet penis size threads.

If you score less than 140 on online tests it basically means that you're retarded.

Maybe nobody cares but upon observing the various and captivating geniuses that pockmark our history books, the standard definition of genius that I've come to is the ability to create something from nothing.

Now, I know that matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed and that there is nothing new under the sun. What I mean to say is that genius is the ability to tap into the beyond and reach beyond realities imposed limitations to bring more out of life and existence by transcending the societal and self imposed boundaries we allow to inhibit our potential.

"Ye be like Gods" and all that. Without the actual physical apotheosis. This idea of genius shares parallels with buddhahood and enlightenment as well and frankly I would be so bold to say that at a certain point, where mastery over the mind, body, spirit and thus the self and existence, overcomes the external and arbitrary facets of the material world, genius and buddhahood are ultimately one in the same.

From your horrible grammar it is clear that you do not have an IQ of 142.

I have an IQ off the chart. It cannot be measured by standard tests.

From your horrible grammar it is clear that you do not have an IQ of 142.

I have an IQ off the chart. It cannot be measured by standard tests.

From your horrible reasoning it is clear that that chart is located somewhere between your asshole and your nutsack.

The IQ measures intelligence well. But it is important to understand intelligence is one function of the mind; the ability to discriminate between the knowledge the mind contains; once you know this its obvious an intelligent person with limited knowledge and even more so consciousness is an idiot because the intelegence is insignificant without the other components of being "smart".

it serves its purpose; although i was dissapointed i got 106

Genious.

Online IQ test i got a 167
IRL administered from the doc not over a period of 3 days but over the period of a 6 week live in program he determinded my IQ was in the 145-159 range

and you don't need to have good grammer or neat hand writeing to be exceptionally smart or gifted

A genius is being smart in one certain field, and making advances in that one field. An IQ test is a general knowledge test.

Is this true at all?

Assuming your definition of genius is correct, the test itself doesn't determine whether or not you are a genius but whether you have the potential to be one.

It's aptitude vs achievement, or ability. Your intellectual potential capitalization is dependant on many factors both internal and external. You should research Malcom Gladwell and/or James Flynn. Very interesting stuff.

In Gladwell's new book he uses Canadian hockey players as an example of potential capitalization. Because the cutoff date for registration in the junior leagues is January 1st, the kids who are biggest by then - or the ones born in the first half of the year - are usually selected above the rest (this effect can be proven by the birth dates on Canadian professional hockey rosters) That doesn't necessarily mean that they are better, but just that they are bigger. Those that are selected then are given more training time, better coaching, more playing time, etc. until they actually are better than the ones that weren't selected to begin with. Logically, they have failed to capitalize on 50% of ther potential hockey talent. The same sort of effect exists in all sorts of social institutions. The rules themselves inadvertently determine who succeeds and who fails.

Flynn has done research on trends in intelligence testing and the like. What's interesting to note is that the average IQ in the year 1900 was close to 50. Now it's 100. Does that mean we are all on average smarter than our grandparents were? No. The reason for this trend - called the Flynn Effect - is that our certain psychosocial priorities and methods have directly influenced certain abilities - such as categorization - thus, they have influenced our psychometric test scores in certain regions. The effect becomes perfectly obvious when the particular regions of the test are isolated from one another, and the trends analyzed. We've shown a steady increase in our scores in Raven's Progressive Matrices (which involves categorization) yet have shown almost no increase in other areas, such as vocabulary.

This begs the question: how did our grandparents think differently than us, and how does that difference enable us to score better on progressive matrices than they?

According to Flynn, over the course of the past 100 years we've experienced extreme changes in our categorical knowledge. When asked to explain a hound our grandparents would have said something to the effect of "A hound is good for hunting, good sense of smell." Today we'd be more inclined to say "It's a vertebrate, a mammal, and unlike a chihuahua it has such and such features." They would take the utilitarian approach, we would take the categorical one.

... that is all.

"It's spelled genius, genious ..."

"An IQ over 140 is 'genius', and an IQ below 20 is 'idiot', so what kind of idiot doesn't know he's a genius?"
:)

This.

Also, spellcheck is your best friend.

A genius is being smart in one certain field, and making advances in that one field. An IQ test is a general knowledge test.

Is this true at all?No. Look up the word in a standard dictionary just in case.

Assuming your definition of genius is correct, the test itself doesn't determine whether or not you are a genius but whether you have the potential to be one.

It's aptitude vs achievement, or ability. Your intellectual potential capitalization is dependant on many factors both internal and external. You should research Malcom Gladwell and/or James Flynn. Very interesting stuff.

In Gladwell's new book he uses Canadian hockey players as an example of potential capitalization. Because the cutoff date for registration in the junior leagues is January 1st, the kids who are biggest by then - or the ones born in the first half of the year - are usually selected above the rest (this effect can be proven by the birth dates on Canadian professional hockey rosters) That doesn't necessarily mean that they are better, but just that they are bigger. Those that are selected then are given more training time, better coaching, more playing time, etc. until they actually are better than the ones that weren't selected to begin with. Logically, they have failed to capitalize on 50% of ther potential hockey talent. The same sort of effect exists in all sorts of social institutions. The rules themselves inadvertently determine who succeeds and who fails.

Flynn has done research on trends in intelligence testing and the like. What's interesting to note is that the average IQ in the year 1900 was close to 50. Now it's 100. Does that mean we are all on average smarter than our grandparents were? No. The reason for this trend - called the Flynn Effect - is that our certain psychosocial priorities and methods have directly influenced certain abilities - such as categorization - thus, they have influenced our psychometric test scores in certain regions. The effect becomes perfectly obvious when the particular regions of the test are isolated from one another, and the trends analyzed. We've shown a steady increase in our scores in Raven's Progressive Matrices (which involves categorization) yet have shown almost no increase in other areas, such as vocabulary.

This begs the question: how did our grandparents think differently than us, and how does that difference enable us to score better on progressive matrices than they?

According to Flynn, over the course of the past 100 years we've experienced extreme changes in our categorical knowledge. When asked to explain a hound our grandparents would have said something to the effect of "A hound is good for hunting, good sense of smell." Today we'd be more inclined to say "It's a vertebrate, a mammal, and unlike a chihuahua it has such and such features." They would take the utilitarian approach, we would take the categorical one.

... that is all.



Well ofcourse the grandparents are going to be dummer. Hell, they didn't go to school if they didn't have to. Besides, th ey worked too much back then. And also from 1900 to 2008 is roughly 100 years, so iq is double since then becausee of the 100 year change, duh

Well ofcourse the grandparents are going to be dummer. Hell, they didn't go to school if they didn't have to. Besides, th ey worked too much back then. And also from 1900 to 2008 is roughly 100 years, so iq is double since then becausee of the 100 year change, duh

I didn't say that they're dumber, and I don't think it's fair to.

What's important to notice is the progression from thinking in terms of what you would call "working knowledge" to more orderly forms that movement from labor to schools necessitates. During the same period new fields of science emerged, along with technological breakthroughs that over time changed (and is still changing) the way we think.

Is it reasonable to suggest that we're more intelligent now, given that we're more capable? I don't think so. It's our gradual modifications to our environment and our body of understanding that has in turn modified the way we conceive our perspectives which, when exercised over a hundred years become distinct. Those distinct faculties make us more capable, at least in terms of that which requires said faculties. That explains why our ancestors would, for the most part, mirror all but one of our psychometric gauges.

Well ofcourse the grandparents are going to be dummer. Hell, they didn't go to school if they didn't have to. Besides, th ey worked too much back then. And also from 1900 to 2008 is roughly 100 years, so iq is double since then becausee of the 100 year change, duh

actually, ur iq is probably only about 6 points higher than ur grandparents due to the flynn effect. every generation has a 3 point higher iq than the previous generation, on average of course. and that is with proper schooling and new technology, so actually, ur probably dumber than they are, if it werent for the present advantages we have over them.

actually, ur iq is probably only about 6 points higher than ur grandparents due to the flynn effect. every generation has a 3 point higher iq than the previous generation, on average of course. and that is with proper schooling and new technology, so actually, ur probably dumber than they are, if it werent for the present advantages we have over them.

IQ measures are continually re-scaled so that the average is always 100 points.

http://hem.bredband.net/b153434/Index.htm

Interesting bit here.

in the first grade a psychologist gave me an IQ test because the teacher thought i was mentally retarded

i scored a 132

in the first grade a psychologist gave me an IQ test because the teacher thought i was mentally retarded

i scored a 132

maybe they should have given the teacher an iq test

...no

Online IQ test i got a 167
IRL administered from the doc not over a period of 3 days but over the period of a 6 week live in program he determinded my IQ was in the 145-159 range

and you don't need to have good grammer or neat hand writeing to be exceptionally smart or gifted

where the fuck did you learn to multiply

Oh how I wish I had a number to convey the enormity of my brain...

Oh how I wish I had a number to convey the enormity of my brain...

there is a number and it is 0

A genius is being smart in one certain field, and making advances in that one field. An IQ test is a general knowledge test.

Is this true at all?

If the institute where you took your IQ test told you it's a general knowledge test, I'm sorry you've been had, an IQ test measures your capacity and ability to learn new things not how much you know. If this is the case I'd go get my test re-done somewhere where they actually know what their talking about. And I'm sorry your out the couple of hundred bucks for paying for a crap test but you should have looked into it first to see if the institute is legit.