IQ is too highly rated as a human attribute. c.i.
Hi, i'm new, but i know some stuff on this subject.
The part genetics plays in intelligence is determining how many neurons will be made, how many neurons will be placed in the frontal lobe, and how many connections will be made between them. An infant is usually designed to grow up to have an intelligence somewhere between mom and dad, almost always wavering slightly toward one end.
the genetic freak accidents that cause "super geniuses":
The current estimate is there are 129,769 genes in the human genome. The current theory is that there are not just one, but several genes that determine the base intelligence of a human being(base intelligence is how advanced it will be without special stimulation to the frontal lobe throughout developement). Just as an example, let's say that 4 genes control it, and only 1 gene has to mutate to create a "super genius". The reason "super geniuses" are so rare, is there are thousands of different ways a gene can mutate, and billions of people on earth, each with a unique genetic code. I don't have my calculator with me, but the probability that a certain gene will mutate the exact right way to create a whopper IQ is at least 1 in a gigantic number(assuming that my example is accurate).
As far as wondering if you're "smart enough" and if your IQ matters or not, think of it this way. Intelligence is life's ultimate ability to adapt. To contract and apply knowledge. If you think about anything, in any way, you'll get quicker at it until it's easy. If you don't like not being able to understand everything as soon as you see it, write a good novel or compose some good music or paint a moving piece and every person with a galactic IQ on earth will be envious of you.
Azuma, WELCOME to A2K. Happy to see another "Asian" face on A2K. According to the thesis of your post, it's a good thing our children got their IQ from their mother. LOL
c.i.
hehe
actually i'm only half asian, but i got good grammers and typins so i'll be able to contribute.
Half is better than none.
c.i.
It is my understanding that the gentleman pictured below had the highest I.Q. ever recorded.
Hey, that's my uncle Max.
c.i.
CodeBorg wrote:
... Differences in IQ would then seem to be a function of the test parameters, not the people.
This is also my view.
As far as I'm concerned I'm just good at IQ tests. The tests don't really mean anything. They are certainly not a complete measure of intellect and are biased towards some potentially misleading functions.
Jerry, I get a "page cannot be found" message from your link. ;(
some iq tests lean towards mathematical thinking and others are more varied - they can give wildly different answers. Maths is not my 'thing'! so i don't score as high if that is a large proportion of the test. Other people sometimes don't score as high if the spatial/visual element is high - then i do really well - so testing can be biased.
Vivien, All tests are biased. c.i.
there are 3 potential problems I see with IQ tests Culture bias, Gender bias, Learning disabilities. Some tests are more accurate then others but never base too much emphasis on IQ because it truely can not cover every question in the world to give a complete answer to who is smarter then who. We all learn at our own pace and we all are better in some areas then others.
And I've heard that it would be a tie between Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.
It's amazing to me how many intelligent people blieve in the concept of I. Q. For a belief it is. The late Steven Jay Gould in "The Mis-Measurement of Man" put to rest once and for all the concept of I.Q.
I can't think of a better example of reification - treating an abstraction as a concrete object. We describe a person as 5' 8", 140 lbs, blue eyes, brown hair and an IQ of 130.
We are a quanitifying culture/society. We aren't comfortable
with an assertion or a belief unless it is put into numbers. The ultimate obsession with data, IMHO, is in the Olympics.
I don't remember exact figures, but the winner frequently wins by hundredths of a second. Then, the announcers tell us a little gust of wind helped him win by three-hundredths of a second.
We believe we can discover the IQ of long dead figures! We cannot even agree on great historical events.
The concept of IQ is no more concrete than the concept of a religious soul. How would one who beleives we have a soul go about measuring it?
It's amazing to me how many intelligent people blieve in the concept of I. Q. For a belief it is. The late Steven Jay Gould in "The Mis-Measurement of Man" put to rest once and for all the concept of I.Q.
I can't think of a better example of reification - treating an abstraction as a concrete object. We describe a person as 5' 8", 140 lbs, blue eyes, brown hair and an IQ of 130.
We are a quanitifying culture/society. We aren't comfortable
with an assertion or a belief unless it is put into numbers. The ultimate obsession with data, IMHO, is in the Olympics.
I don't remember exact figures, but the winner frequently wins by hundredths of a second. Then, the announcers tell us a little gust of wind helped him win by three-hundredths of a second.
We believe we can discover the IQ of long dead figures! We cannot even agree on great historical events.
The concept of IQ is no more concrete than the concept of a religious soul. How would one who beleives we have a soul go about measuring it?
AMERICA is a quantifying stat obsessed country. It's one of the things I love about this place.
I've heard some time ago that college grads have a IQ of over 125. Is that true? I'm wondering, because I graduated from college, but my IQ isn't even close to that number.
c.i.
