Does IQ change anything?

If the test is accurate, i.e. if it measures what it purports to measure, the man with the higher I.Q. should exist in a more complex world than the lower scoring man. He likely also lives in a colder world, one farther removed from immediate sensation; he spends less time in the present.

Q: Is this a problem?
A: No, that's what alchohol is for.

You must drink. :shifty:

Are you saying if i drink more i will become more intelligent...what a brilliant idea...i should be a genius already..

No, I say that the more you drinnk, or debauch in whatever way you prefer, the more you can escape the horse lattitudes of intelligence, the more you will find yourself in the present, as opposed to the timeless land of thought.

"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom."

"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."

So one who is of a higher IQ will be somewhat detached from the reality of the present and exist, instead, in another place which views reality but does not necessarily interact?

Icon, those are very high numbers. Einstein was 176 I believe. What was involved with the experiments? What actually happened to increase the numbers and what were the suggestions? Just curious.

Quite. You are what you experience, which, in the case of the more intelligent person, is more thought and less sensation. The more complex the thought, the further detached it is from sensation, which alone is in the present. In other words, the more intelligent you are, the less time you spend where your body is.

...I am more than a little jealous of monkeys.

Get a bottle of red a few nuts settle back, oh collect a few flees on your person to distract your thoughts and be happy...its when your neighbour wants to pick tasties out of your hair.. thats when it gets sublime..

Whereas I often do experience a sense of sublime detachment from the world around me I am pretty sure it has nothing to do with IQ.
It's more a matter of internal neural impulse control I think.

Studying for an IQ test will change your results, so it's no surprise that someone repeatedly tested would have an improved score. The IQ test evaluates speed, which obviously improves with familiarity.

MENSA probably has tests designed to evaluate higher IQ, i.e. weighted towards harder questions -- though there is no way their test has been formally validated on a population level. And that's the problem with reporting scores above ~140 -- they represent people who are more than 3 standard deviations above the national mean (which is 100), i.e. these scores would be in the top fraction of a percent of the total.

The upshot of that is that it's statistically not possible to differentiate people with 170 versus 180 versus 190. Even the regular IQ test is full of flaws and biases.

That's the irony. People in MENSA should know this. It's fairly basic distribution statistics, and in fact they could have a question on their entrance exam about why reporting a 214 doesn't make sense. But knowing some MENSA members as I do, they like to brag about their MENSA membership and IQ scores. Good for them. I like to do their puzzles on airplanes.

The experiments all very in complexity and execution. Some were rather ineffective so I will exclude those from conversation. The experiments which did work, however, were based mostly off of the ability to obtain, maintain, and sort data.

For example: One of the experiments requires a series of images. Picture of regular size. It is quite easy as you begin but as you move on to the higher stages it gets far mor difficult.

You take an image and flash the image before your eyes quickly, less than 1 second. Then you write down as many details as you can about the image. If it is a flower then write how many petals it has, how many leaves it had, the color of each, the details of the background and so forth. You begin with one image at a time for one hour. The next day, the break is important, you do another hour with two images at a time. The next you do three, then four and so on until you can no longer recall the images. Once you reach that point, you continue on with that number until you can recal specific details of all of the images. I wrote a program which flashed the images for about .5 seconds and then allowed me to review them later. I added an element to the experiment in that I reached 13 images and could no longer recall all of them so, instead of increasing the number of images, I shortened the time which they were displayed until I had them down to .07 seconds. The images were different each time of course.

Second Experiment which yeilded results: Similar to the first, take a single page of written text. Hold it in front of you but do not look at it. Open your eyes and scan the document in under one second. See how far you can get and still retain 90% of the information. Repeat until the entire page can be scanned at once and then reviewed in your mind. Once you have made that step, at random, write down a list of character locations.

Example:
23
175
48
249
1004
571
366
789
984
685

Start with 3 and move up as you get them. As you read the text in under a second, attempt to recall what letter, number, character was in the character space of each random character location.

Experiment 3: This was one of my favorites. Read an entire book upside down and then write a report on it the same way.

Experiment 4: build a 3d puzzle. This one was difficult and requires some craftmanship. I used wood. I can't really explain this one as there are very few criteria. It only require you to build a 3d puzzle which cannot be solved in under 20 moves. Mine was a 3d chess game on a rubiks cube. Is was a rubiks cube design with chess peices attached and the point was to take turns with someone to force checkmate with one move per turn. Only rule is that you cannot undo the persons previous move. It is rather fun actually though it had to be 4X4 instead of 3X3.

Icon,
Not sure if you read my post, but again the complexity of the question completely misses the point -- and anyone smart enough for MENSA should be able to understand this:

The IQ is a statistical score, and scores are more or less normally distributed (not entirely normally, though, which I can explain). A normal distribution, as I'm sure you know, is a "bell curve", like with a Gaussian or a Poisson distribution.

Thus, the extremes, i.e. the upper and lower tails of the curve, represent tiny tiny tiny fractions of the population. For normally distributed data, three standard deviations will encompass more than 99% of the population, and an IQ of 140 is roughly three standard deviations above the mean.

What this means is that to differentiate people within that top 0.5% and to assign meaningful scores among them would require 1) a sample set of hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of people at this extreme level of intelligence, and 2) thousands or tens of thousands of questions.

There's simply no other way to generate a score that has any meaning. And it would be very nice if people who are interested in this stuff would actually take the time to understand intelligence testing (useful and complicated) rather than writing upside down book reports (not useful, and a testimony only to concentration and not intelligence).

That's not to say that I doubt the extreme intelligence of many people or you in particular. But there is virtually no utility in designing tests to assign a score to it, because the tests will have very little meaning or predictive value.

Remember that there are many ways in which one can be intelligent. Mozart and Mendelssohn and Shoenberg were incomparable geniuses at music. James Joyce was an incomparable genius at language. Newton was a mathematical virtuoso. Einstein's genius wasn't rote intelligence, but it was an almost savant-like ability to visualize spatial relationships and understand them mathematically.

Furthermore, their accomplishments were not the sole product of intelligence. There are probably lots of people with extreme intelligence who never make a mark on history. There is the critical matter of context: recognizing and cultivating skills, and living in an environment in which one's skills have the greatest opportunity to change the world. Einstein might not have been a great physicist in the 17th century, and Newton might not have been a great physicist in the 20th century.

I'd love to see the blueprint for this, I love puzzles, and since you probably can't buy this in stores, I'd like to make one myself...but I can't figure out how to do it.
Can you provide instructions how to make one?
And rules to play of course.

Thanks! :a-ok: