what I am trying to say in the most simple terms possible is that IQ is suposed to be the measure of your ability to learn not your actual intellegence. IQ is really a lie based on math, you can not increase your ability to learn is what I am saying.
I know. But I disagree. I DO think we can increase our ability to learn. I'll discuss this on another thread someday. It's a controversial subject.
there may be ways I guess it depends on the factors we are against.
safecracker,
I'm with Craven de Kere on this one.
Bear in mind that I don't believe "IQ" exists.
But if IQ did exist, we would be measuring the ability to reason and abiity to learn. This would remain fixed because a person's IQ is something measurable, like our shoe size.
Fortunately, IQ does not exist and , therefore, is not measurable. That is why, so many C grade students in high school change course and become A students in college and even scholars. Not all, of course, but enough
to dsicredit the concept of IQ.
Wasn't Einstein a failure in his early years of school?
yes he was he failed 9th grade about 3 times and look at him he became one of the well known geniuses i mean it's all about the will to learn i believe. You can do anything your heart desires.
billy craven was the 1 saying it is not fixed lol we all agree it does not really exist
Not to be anti-feminist, but Marilyn's ranked 2nd
I've seen more than one person insist that Marilyn vos Savant has the highest tested IQ of all time. This is incorrect. That honor belongs to William James Sidis, now deceased. His tested IQ was higher than even Goethe's estimated IQ. Marilyn has the highest tested IQ score for anyone living.
Sidis is an interesting character who managed to accomplish very little - either academically or professionally in his life, despite huge expectations from those who witnessed his exceptional raw intelligence first-hand.
Sidis' lack of accomplishment is in itself a very controversial topic. Some take this to mean that IQ is an ineffective predictor of one's potential (some say emotional intelligence, or EQ, predicts this better). Others argue that Sidis was not required to live up to his gifts, and applaud his decision to do as much or as little with his mind as made him happy.
Welcome to A2K, Mr. Jones!
Mr. Jones, welcome.
Some attribute the highest IQ to Marilyn vos Savant.
Others, like you, attribute the highest IQ to William James Sidis.
Since the IQ is a metaphysical construct and does not exist,
they are honored for nothing.
It's strange that no one has responded to my comments about the spurious concept of the "IQ".
Once again, let me state that there are tests to see how much a person has learned about some things, but they are not "Intelligence Quotients."
Ditto. Intellectual achievement has precious little to do with 'intelligence', however you define that.
Jared Diamond, in Guns, Germs and Steel makes the point that, as a group, so-called primitive peoples which have achieved no technological advances and are still living in a stone-age setting are probably far more intelligent than most members of a technically 'advanced' society. His reasoning is that it takes a good deal of native intelligence to merely survive in such a setting, intelligence for which the modern technological man no longer has any need.
Estimating what the IQs would be for people like Mozart and Shakespeare is a bit like guessing how many home runs Goliath would have hit if they had baseball back then.
An interesting parlor game, but not terribly meaningful!
As for Marilyn Vos Savant, if she's really the person with highest IQ, it's kind of sad if a column in Parade Magazine is the best she can do...
Totally agree with you, d'Art.
Not sad at all since IQ is bogus and just a way to please the modern human with yet another mathamatical equasion. It just proves our point, the theory of IQ is majorly flawed.
My thanks to safecracker, Merry Andrew (labas), and D'Artagnan for your efforts at debunking the concept of IQ.
Many times I tried to explain what to reify or reification is.
"To treat an abastraction as substantialy existing, or as a concrete, material obejct" This can occur culturally by endless repitition, millions of times, over a long period of time.
I think to some people our flag has been reified into our country. Not "represents" our country, but is our country. To burn or deface the flag is not a symoblic act, but is an attack on the country. Likewise Hamlet. Over three thousand books have been written about Hamlet.
He is treated as though he really existed rather than as a character in a play who serves a dramatic purpose.
I looked in this "catchy" headline... to see who all the intellects are in A2K.
Surprised of the limited answerors and number of responses.
Could it be... that IQ's are a subject people are afraid of or is it... no-one knows instead of Able 2 know?
My vote is for..... hmmmm.....maybe....hmmm Gezzy?
Maybe.... a Gemini?
Everyone has some talents. Some find taking tests easy, but are unable to easily put together a child's bicycle. One loves to read and retains significant portions of what is in the text, others can hear something once and repeat it, or variations on it, years later. We all have visual, aural, and tactile senses, but our ability to use them varies quite allot. A person whose talent is for the abstract may do exceedingly well in mathematics, but be a complete idiot when it comes to understanding human interactions.
IQ tests aren't bogus, but the public's expectations and interpretation of those tests almost always are. IQ tests, and there are a lot of them, each try to quantify some skill set, or set of potentials. They measure a subject at one point in time, and may not necessarily predict what that individual will later accomplish. Some skill sets are if not essential, at least important to success withing certain occupational fields. Surgeons should have really good spatial perception and control over the minute movement of their hands. Blind folks rarely make good painters, or photographers. Don't make more of any test than it is capable of.
IQ, birth, wealth, power, nor fame reveal anything at all about a person's character. I would far rather be associated with a person of limited intellectual capability/promise who is honest and caring than a genius whose mere presence is enough to excite homicidal urges. I've known very bright criminals, and people with advanced degrees who should never have been graduated from high school. Whatever natural resources a person is lucky enough to possess, they still must make good choices. Output is dependant on Input. The brilliant child prodigy may choose to become a railroad bum and never fulfill the world's hopes that they will discover the cure for cancer. A child of only middling talent, but with great desire and dedication, can overcome great hurdles and surprise everyone with their accomplishments. A person's character and what they do with their potential isn't measured by IQ, and those traits are far more important in most cases.
What is most maddening of all is to deal with willful ignorance. The naturally stupid may make terrible mistakes, but in my experience most folks with limited intellectual talent make up for it by trying really hard. Personally, I'm lazy. I try not to be too ignorant, but who knows?
Hi Asherman. Cogent, thoughtful and humane comments.
