I tend to believe that there is really something there to measure. Whether current tests measure it accurately is a separate question. Since different people have different heights, eye color, etc., it seems to me implausible that all people have the same intelligence. Certainly, when I talk to different people, some seem smarter than others. I don't believe that environment is the only factor in this. It may be dificult to define intelligence, but I believe that there is something real that corresponds to what we mean when we refer to intelligence, and that it is a consequence of an individual's biology, particularly brain structure. I don't know much about biology, but it does not seem reasonable to me to suppose that if two people have a different density of interconnections between their brain cells, it has no effect on the way their brains work. I don't mean to imply by this that interconnections is the criterion. That is just an example. As at least one person said here, a good measure of the reliability of an IQ test would be its consistency when a person takes it on separate occasions.
According to MSNBC (Jan. 5, 2004): "Mega-Genius has held memberships in all the major high-IQ societies in the world. He has the highest level of intelligence measurable on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Revised, the most modern and accurate intelligence test of the twenty-first century. His intelligence hits the top of the IQ scale and continues to some unknown and immeasurable point."
The same information was also reported the same day by the Yahoo Finance wire service.
Unless MSNBC is wrong (and that respected news service surely checked out its story before reporting it), it looks as if we have the answer to who has the highest IQ. And since MSNBC contends that the IQ of the man they call Mega-Genius is based on "the most modern and accurate intelligence test of the twenty-first century," it seems to me that his IQ would also be the highest that anyone ever has had that was measurable by the most accurate method that psychometrists have developed.
I consider that the intriguing question of who has had the world's highest IQ is answered and that the case is closed. If anyone disagrees, I respectfully think that he or she should debate the matter with MSNBC and Yahoo Finance.
Comments?
Interesting...a forum of supposedly intelligent individuals debating the definition and measurement of intelligence.
Can intelligence be measured? I'm not sure I'm intelligent enough to answer that question as I am not familiar with that particular field of study. I do, however, believe that some individuals "test better" than others regardless of how much knowledge an individual possesses (I have a friend that completely fell apart each time he sat for the CPA exam, but yet performed well in school and is doing very well in his career).
Someone in this forum noted invididuals such as Einstein that performed poorly in school yet were able to accomplish much more than their grades implied. I actually did better in my earlier school years and as I moved on to college, there were many distractions that I allowed to interfere with my work ethic. I do, however, consider myself to be successful. Maybe I haven't turned out to be the next Bill Gates (at least not yet, lol), but I'm doing well.
And after typing all of that and thinking about it, I almost feel silly even entereing into a debate about this topic.
High intelligence does not necessarily mean
high motivation......especially when it comes
to traditional education which can be very
boring for some individuals.....
bigmikesky has brought up an interesting sub-topic here. Has intelligence much to do with eventual success in a non-academic field? Has it anything to do with such success?
I do believe that the recognized IQ tests are a good indicator of natural intelligence. However, without "EQ", I don't think intelligence is a predictor of success at all.
The CBC recently ran a piece on Chris Langan, who is supposedly the smartest person in America. He dropped out of college because he was jealous that athletes got a "walk" academically and they did not care about him as a human being (his words). Now he works as a bouncer and lives in a garage. He threw away his own potential for nothing; his actions didn't affect the college in any way, only himself.
I saw that CBC piece gbcgrl......I wish it had
been longer, it was fascinating to see Chris Langan
in conversation with his neuro surgeon girlfriend!
He is apparently going to be publishing some essays soon, I'll be waiting to see how they
are received.
I strongly disagree there is no such thing as an IQ. While we can measure height and weight of a person more accurately and consistently, we can also measure beauty, although it is a bit subjective and inaccurate. But we know that a beautiful person is beautiful, admit it or not. There are people smarter than us, and they have high IQ scores.
Of course the vagueness in IQ scores means that you cannot generally compare 130 to 120, but you can almost always compare 110 to 160. It is a rough estimate, but it's real.
There is another thing though : unless one deals with math in some way, the IQ score does not tell much about his work capacity. And I mean math in a general sense.
I know a person who has gotten an IQ score about 170 on a mensa supervised test when we were in highschool. This was reported as a highest IQ ever measured in our country.
He is really smart and quick-witted, and he could understand concepts in math at 16 years old I still have trouble with today. He has his down sides also, but since he is working on his PhD in math, his high IQ is of great help.
I think we should go esier on people with high IQ; after all, significatly high IQ (over 150) is so rare that nobody is really in danger personally from those people. Comparing IQ's between 90-110 is meaningless, since a difference of 10 is nothing at all.
On-line tests, taking lots of those is meaningless also since one starts to cheat a bit, and the tests start to repeat. Also a lot of online tests are not well balanced and will show a higher IQ on purpose.
People generally feel frustrated about their IQ score because they feel endangered. Well, to me it seems that height, strength, good looks, weight and wealth can be equally frustrating, and we all learn to cope with that. After all, it is all about achievement, and IQ is only a potential.
One last word : the score itself is a rough indicator, bragging about one's IQ score is as stupid as bragging about one's penis size. The only thing that counts is putting it to some good use.
Relative.
Relative, I notice that the online test for Mensa contains many Math questions but not language......Is Math ability in your view, a strong indicator of intelligence?
shepaints : I don't know what intelligence is. I believe that high IQ (as measured with most standard IQ tests) correlates well with one's math potential (and ability if one develops it).
I know that there are tests that bias one thing or another, but math abilities are the easiest to test I believe so that's why tests tend to measure them.
Any natural language involved tests will sport cultural and knowledge domain specific questions and will therefore measure knowledge instead of just 'ability'.
Geometrical and numerical tests are probably the most used, then analogies, etc.
And I am in no way any reference in these matters.
Gifted students may test in the superior range
of intelligence yet still have very scattered ability...
from well above grade level to well below.....Intelligence scores do
not measure or explain motivation, and application....? The latter seem to
be imponderables....
I've heard of many examples of 'wunderkind' cases where a child at 8 or 10 received a degree at a university and tested above 170 on IQ tests. But I don't know of a single such 'genius wannabe' achieving anything but a circus clown status.
Several studies were cunducted, one of them starting around 1923, which followed children with high IQ throughout their life. Surprising results were obtained (see Terman studies).
On the other hand there are people with Nobel prizes and generally regarded as a 'genius' who have scored relatively poorly at an IQ test.
Richard Feynman is one example - he scored 'barely' 124 on an IQ test, which is surprisingly low for such a great physicist.
Quote:Winning a Nobel Prize is no big deal, but winning it with an IQ of 124 is really something.
--Richard Feynman
Also, Francis Crick of DNA discovery has an IQ rated at 115.
Nobody guarantees that a person with a high IQ will achieve something, but it turns out that most outstanding people have a high IQ. This is just the way it is; most famous actresses in their twenties are very beautiful.
Interesting thoughts, Relative. I think many
genius children suffer socially. I knew
one at about 12 who prefered to stay indoors and sing musical scales than to play outside with us kids. We couldn't understand him! He went on to an
exceptional international career in Music!
The actions of Chris Lagan as noted by gbcgrl
above, seem singularly unintelligent! Supposedly
the smartest man in America he worked as a bouncer instead of going to college.
I don't personally believe in IQ even though in second grade, I scored a 147, which is better than some composers are predicted. I'm in tenth grade now and haven't taken a test (IQ test that is) since. I don't understand how its possible to measure deceased people's IQ. What is the score you have to supposedly get to be classified as genius?
Daner: hello, and welcome to A2K.
I don't believe you can be called a genius based on IQ-tests. A genius is a person that through accomplishment achieves intellectual and personal advances that are considered great for a man, and for humankind.
I further believe that assigning the label 'genius' to certain scores on IQ tests is just to elevate the importance and emotional impact of IQ measurement. Geniuses existed before IQ tests.
I also think that anybody should strive to put himself in the lowest part of the IQ scale in the domain (s)he is working in. I'd rather be a math professor with an IQ of 105 than an insurance salesman with an IQ of 145.
highest I.Q.
I'm not sure where I saw it, but I once read that Aristotle's estimated I.Q. was 400.
Hi Brendan, and welcome......triple
wow on Aristotle!
CodeBorg wrote:I had a theory that everyone has exactly the same intelligence,
but it's just allocated in different ways.
Some people are visual, some emotional, some musical, some experiential. Some people are buried in compassion, while others focus their mind on spatial understandings, or they are taken by their senses rather than abstract ideas. Differences in IQ would then seem to be a function of the test parameters, not the people.
After 20 years, I'm still looking for any evidence that might contradict this hypothesis. Every person I meet is a sheer genius in some way or other.
How would you test someone that had exceptional skills in just about anything? Think of da Vinci.
Daner wrote:I don't personally believe in IQ even though in second grade, I scored a 147, which is better than some composers are predicted. I'm in tenth grade now and haven't taken a test (IQ test that is) since. I don't understand how its possible to measure deceased people's IQ. What is the score you have to supposedly get to be classified as genius?
When I was studying Pre Med psych it was anything over 145.
Regarding how they judge deceased people this below pasted may help.
Quote:Presidential IQ's
Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the educational community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others.
There have been twelve presidents from F.D. Roosevelt to G. W. Bush who were rated based on:
1. Scholarly achievements
2. Writings that they produced without aid of staff
3. Their ability to speak with clarity, and
4. Several other psychological factors which were then scored
using the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking.
The study determined the following IQs of each president as
accurate to within five percentage points. In order by presidential term:
142 - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
132 - Harry S Truman
122 - Dwight David Eisenhower
174 - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
126 - Lyndon Baines Johnson
155 - Richard Milhous Nixon
121 - Gerald R. Ford
175 - James Earle Carter
105 - Ronald Wilson Reagan
098 - George Herbert Walker Bush
182 - William Jefferson Clinton
091 - George Walker Bush
In IQ order:
182 - William Jefferson Clinton
175 - James Earle Carter
174 - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
155 - Richard Milhous Nixon
147 - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
132 - Harry S Truman
126 - Lyndon Baines Johnson
122 - Dwight David Eisenhower
121 - Gerald R. Ford
105 - Ronald Wilson Reagan
098 - George Herbert Walker Bush
091 - George Walker Bush
The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest at 155. President George W. Bush rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91.
The six Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of126.
No president other than Carter [D] has released his actual IQ (176).
Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President G. W. Bush, his low ratings are due to his apparently difficult command of the English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary [6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents], his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis. The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive at these ratings, including depth of
sentence structure and voice stress confidence analysis.
"All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had at least one book under their belt, and most had written several white papers during their education or early careers. Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein said. "He has no published works or writings, which made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We relied more heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking."
By the way, this is a total hoax, but it sure sounds right!
--
Live long and... well just live long the rest will follow.
