I would expect David is smarter than that.

id argue this, on the basis that some of the most intelligent people i've ever met are computer illiterate. i had two teachers, one a philosophy PhD from harvard and one an astrophysics PhD from caltech, both were absolutely computer illiterate. they could check email and use google but that was just about it. i think for people born in the last 20 years it is easy mistakenly judge intelligence by certain technological abilities because stupid people in our age group tend to be bad with computers etc. but a lot of people who didn't grow up with computers can be very intelligent but technologically inept

Instead of sitting around quoting IQ scores at each other (which is, let's face it, a barely disguised 'size' comparison of another sort), I suggest we do something more interesting, and design an 'improved' intelligence scoring system. I confess my suggestion is motivated by me coming to the conclusion that these online multi choice tests are [censored] - I just did four chosen at random and scored 131, 138, 140 and 152. I then did another where I just went through randomly clicking... and scored 128. Hmmmm.

Some initial ideas:

1 - There should be no time limit. Take it home and work on it for a week if you like.

2 - There should be 'essay' type questions and 'calculation' type questions, but no multiple choice questions. Some questions should have open ended answers, and some should be very specific.

3 - Free access to any book in a well stocked library AND to the internet.

So, sample questions could be something like:

"What makes most of the dust that exists now?"

"Which of these numbers is higher; a 5 in a hexagon in a hexagon, or a g with a little 64 just to the right of it?"

??

This isn't a bad idea. I suggest that since David Sklansky is the self-anointed point of reference as it relates to logical soundness, he draws up the test. I strongly doubt he would actually do it though. But he'd probably make a good test.

"What makes most of the dust that exists now?"

"Which of these numbers is higher; a 5 in a hexagon in a hexagon, or a g with a little 64 just to the right of it?"


the first one tests random knowledge, you could be the most intelligent person here and not have read this particular snapple fact

the second one, wtf are you even trying to say?

1) You don't think that more intelligent people solve problems faster?

2) Open ended answer questions are too subjective and therefore impossible to mark for this purpose. Who decides how points are scored?

3) Why?

Also I don't like the questions for the reason's furryshade has allready mentioned.

I like the idea of attempting it though, and would happily be involved in any work involved if a few of us decided to give it a go.

I think the discussion around it would be good in any event.

__________________

Scrap that, the only thing it would do is start a 'define intelligence' thread that would go nowhere. (Read above, or the other thread currently running on the subject.)

Well, that's pretty much what I was getting at What I really hate about IQ tests is that they're virtually all a case of "turn the handle and the answer pops out", where some have a more difficult handle than others. But in nearly all cases the handle is obvious. To me, a better test of intelligence is finding the right handle to begin with.

Both questions (which in fairness I just made up) appear random and, perhaps, even nonsensical, because they're deliberately written so as to not make the 'path' to the answer obvious, even though both questions have specific and unique 'correct' answers.

They're designed to be answered with the help of any book you like, and with complete access to the internet, so as to remove the random knowledge angle. The trick is using those tools correctly.

I wasn't however looking to get into the details of these questions, but rather the broader principles they embody - I can post the solutions if that would help...?

For the record, I have always tested at 135-140 on various internet tests (which I admit I find enjoyable). But since:

1) I have never been "officially" tested, and
2) I have always suspected that those internet tests are designed to give inflated, i.e. flattering, scores,

I can't really say, and would not be at all surprised if it were actually lower. Although, I am surprised by the consistency of the scores over maybe half a dozen such tests. Maybe they tell everyone they score 135-140.

I would like to say that while I believe "IQ" tests (at least real ones) measure something, it is not exactly clear what that is, and that I believe something like "intelligence" is a highly dimensional thing that cannot be reduced except in a completely crude way to a single number.

My SAT score was 1470 ([censored] up a math question that prevented me from scoring perfect in math, damnit), and I know for a fact that there are many, many posters on 2+2 who scored perfect on their SATs.

If I had to, I would venture to guess that my IQ is greater than maybe 2 out of 3 2+2 posters, but significantly less than that against SMP hardcores. Perhaps only 50%.

some of the highest intelligence groups do this, the giga society gives you and untimed take home IQ test simply because you need to do so well on the test to get in that there is no book/person you could consult to give you the answers

1 - To a small extent, yes, but I dislike 'timed' tests generally as I think far too much weight is given to how fast someone can solve a purely computational problem. Certain autistic savants could pretty much destroy anyone on this forum in timed numeracy tests, but I would not rate them as particularly intelligent because of this.

2 - Open ended questions are harder to mark, certainly, but test thinking on a completely different level to 'specific goal' type questions. And they're not that much harder to mark, as they essentially test what overall 'level' of problem solving you can attain.

3 - Because I'm not convinced that random knowledge is in any way a good arbiter, and giving free access to google levels that playing field. There was one question I saw on some test that struck me as insanely stupid: "what is the national sport of Afghanistan?" Ok, I happen to remember reading somewhere that its called Buzkashi, but how does that test how clever I am?

I happen to think that speed of problem solving is a big intelligence indicator. The people you mention would not score highly in a current IQ test overall so I don't really see your point.

I cannot sy anything but repeat what I said last time. I think you need to post a couple of examples, where you state the Q, A and marking criteria explicitly.

Exhibit A.

Furyshade -

i don't think this is true, this is why most schools have extended time test taking now, some people just cannot manage in timed constraint but are very intelligent. sometimes this is due to OCD, dyslexia, ADD, etc. but it doesn't make them stupid.

the problem with the argument about timed test taking is that you could find someone that could answer 80 of 100 questions right in an hour, but if you give him 3 hours he'd still get 80 of 100; or you could have someone that would get 60 out of 100 right in an hour but in 3 hours would get 100 out of 100 every time.

1 - Speed: ok, its a debatable one. I would argue for more weight on 'what problems can you solve' rather than 'how fast can you solve a problem, assuming that you can solve it to begin with'

2 - A good example would be the first of the questions I gave as examples. It's very open ended, but there are distinct 'levels' to it. So, for example, you could mark it out of ten, with one point given for a 'first level' thinking answer with no explanation, two points for such an answer with explanation, and so on. So you might get one point for saying 'human skin cells', two points for 'human skin cells because...', three points for 'list of specific human activities' and so on (in the way I've phrased it, there is a ten point answer, which someone with no background could get to within a few hours using a library, or google).

3 - It doesn't have to be google. A nice big library would serve just as well for the less computer literate, especially as there would be no time limit.

Just out of interest - who was the caltech astrophysics phd? I might know him/her...

No way DS is a 125-135. I turned out a 135 on an online IQ test a few years back and I suck at math. DS is way smarter. He's easily over 150 maybe ranging up to 170. Then again online IQ tests probably aren't all they are cracked up to be.

yeah, you really cant base yourself against someone in an online IQ test, they simply aren't accurate as has been argued on this forum ad naseum

I was going to avoid this thread. But intelligence and high IQ scores does not equal capability to succeed. The metrics are too narrow and don't accurately gauge an individual's potential contributions to society. You can lack in quite a few scoring criteria and be quite successful in life.

Autistic savants wouldn't score high overall in a correctly administered test that allowed for a wide range of criteria. Such a test hasn't been developed yet, I don't think, but a person's success should be the barometer in a semi-meritocracy. And there are far more successful people with average IQ and more well-rounded skillsets than there are people with freakish IQs who aren't as balanced overall.

I scored high enough to make a mockery of academics and get anything I wanted from a school administration. These days I tend towards philosophy in-between periods of creative lunacy. I contribute nothing to society or the advancement of general knowledge despite my potential.

Probably useful for SMP averages but nothing more than that.

True. I think it's definitely a good general guide, in distinguishing the very stupid from the average, etc. But the higher you go, it's hard for the test to mean much, since the test is just created by other people anyways.

It's just impossible to accurately "test" for the many layers and nuances of intelligence. It would be like trying to test for who is the best poker player. You couldn't do it justice. Only cards, chips, and repetition could do it justice.

IQ still really interests me though, probably because I sometimes get compulsive about psycho analyzing my friends and trying to figure out how people think. And "IQ" provides some sort of label for comparison.

why is it we need a metric for intelligence anyway? surely those who are of superior intelligence know they are, and people tend to be pretty good at gauging the charteristics they believe to be valuable in other people anyway so what is the point? things like GRE and SAT tests make sense because they base how well one does in an educational environment, but an IQ test seems to be nothing but a bragging right

Well there's a couple of weird things about intelligence. One we'll never know how much intelligence is affected by personality type and people's natural tendencies. Does one side of the brain take over at some point? It seems like people with the best communication skills have an earlier language skill set, e.g. women speak at earlier ages than men and read better in kindergarten and men do better at math as a group then women do. Its something programmed in us, but at the same time society needs all the different skill types to flourish.

The second weird thing about intelligence is as humans evolve the skill that is currently of the greatest value might actually have less value and the currently devalued skills might gain greater value but that will be dependent on the actual culture that humanity has evolved into and the objectives/needs of that culture.

It's worth noting that a lot of Internet tests cap at 130-140. Scoring in this range online pretty much means 130+. Could be 130, could be 250.

Because us intelligent people need some way to quickly explain to idiots how smart we are. The other smart people can just figure it out on their own but the dummies might never realize how brilliant we are if we didnt break it down into a nice palatable number for them.

I'll take the over for $$$.

FWIW ~150