Problem is, Int didn't take into account that I'm a dropout that held a professional certification, Charisma didn't really take into account that I'm about as anti-social as (in)humably possible in person (I stood alone during my mother's wedding... I was with family) and Constitution didn't even think to factor in the ability to digest things that normal people won't eat.

quote:

---

From the book of ImNotTrent, chapter 3, verse 16:
WTF, rez from what page 30 or later?

Damn.

---

quote:

---

Str: 11
Int: 17
Wis: 14
Dex: 14
Con: 12
Chr: 18

---

Not sure what that makes me, but prolly not a fighter!

quote:

---

Bloodsage painfully thought these words up:
Not sure what that makes me, but prolly not a fighter!

---

Damned Bards.

Your results:

Str: 9
Int: 10
Wis: 12
Dex: 11
Con: 9
Chr: 15

quote:

---

So quoth Bloodsage:
Not sure what that makes me, but prolly not a fighter!

---

I'd say a bard or wizard of some fashion.

Ozius

My guess would be a Paladin maybe. I find it odd though that if I had my IQ tested at 175, why is my Int score only a 12 when someone with a lower IQ gets a 14 ?

Oh yeah!

When I GMed it was always IQ/10 = INT rounding down only. **shrugs**

Everything from 134 to 166 gives you a base INT of 7, then for each level of schooling you have completed your base modifier increases by 1. Nothing is awarded for No schooling.

I would venture to guess that the majority of people on these boards fall into this IQ range.

And I have to say honestly... if a person has a natural IQ of 150 and has never been schooled in any manner... then their intelligence score should be higher than mine if my IQ is only 150 and I have a degree. Their intelligence is natural, part of my intelligence has been 'taught' to me. So I don't really agree with their method of assigning an INT score.

[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: Woody ]

After all, would you rather have a partner whose potential is good, or someone who's demonstrated their ability at the highest level?

But... given the parameters of their test...

A person with a 170 IQ with no schooling will have the same INT score as a person with 70 that made it through highschool.

In my opinion that's wrong. The scale is broken. It is inacurate.

But the point was to show UBT why his 175 got him a lower INT score than someone with a lower IQ.

Being that this is all opinion and conjecture I'm just going to have to stick to my opinion (that's mine... not yours) that someone with more 'potential' without schooling is inherently more intelligent than a person with the same 'potential' who's had answers handed to him by his education.

It's one thing to be able to figure out the area of a circle on your own, it's quite another to be able to figure out the area of a circle when someone gave you the formula to plug value in to.

They call me Spindlyarms the Great.

quote:

---

Ferret was naked while typing this:
Str: 15
Int: 13
Wis: 17
Dex: 17
Con: 16
Chr: 16

---

omg!! minmax!!!!!1

quote:

---

ACES! Another post by Woody:
Yes. I'd much rather have proven intelligence.

But... given the parameters of their test...

A person with a 170 IQ with no schooling will have the same INT score as a person with 70 that made it through highschool.

In my opinion that's wrong. The scale is broken. It is inacurate.

But the point was to show UBT why his 175 got him a lower INT score than someone with a lower IQ.

Being that this is all opinion and conjecture I'm just going to have to stick to my opinion (that's mine... not yours) that someone with more 'potential' without schooling is inherently more intelligent than a person with the same 'potential' who's had answers handed to him by his education.

It's one thing to be able to figure out the area of a circle on your own, it's quite another to be able to figure out the area of a circle when someone gave you the formula to plug value in to.

---

I'll take proven ability, anytime, over an estimate of someone's potential. Too many people rest on their "IQ laurels" as if they had any meaning, rather than making anything of themselves.

IQ is a meaningless stat, unless combined with education, which I think is the point of the weighting. Very few people, to use your example, regardless of IQ, would be able to derive the area of a circle from basic principles.

You may be correct in that the weighting is off, but I think you overstate the value of IQ as a number. It's just a mental wang size to comfort people with no real accomplishments about which they can brag.

Uh, IMNSHO, and all.

I feel there's a difference between being intelligent and being well-learned is with one, you're trained--if you're absolutely fucking moronic but you have a bunch of facts punched into your brain, I personally don't feel you really have the space to be creative with your solutions. And while that isn't required, going by the book doesn't always work.

But that's being taught--trained?--and not really learning. One with intelligence will...learn. One with intelligence has the ability to take one fact and conclude another from it. And while the intelligent person may or may not have the level of education that the unintelligent person may possess, they have a few huge, huge advantages: adaptability. Understanding. Ease of learning; the ability to not seperate apples and oranges but find the common bond between them.

But that's just me. I'd take a person with intelligence over a really well-learned man who doesn't know how to use his knowledge. Now, however, I'm going to bed.

You can't take somebody's intelligence and give it a number. You can try, and people do, but it's nothing but a "knowledge" test, essentially. And if you're really, really obsessed you can get an understanding of the IQ test format and get good scores; very biased in your favor over somebody twice as intelligent as you are.

Save your dexterity, fool.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about pies:
Not sure what that makes me, but prolly not a fighter!

---

Sorcerer.

quote:

---

Suddar Williams had this to say about the Spice Girls:
omg!! minmax!!!!!1

---

quote:

---

Verily, Bajah doth proclaim:
Str: 13
Int: 11
Wis: 17
Dex: 14
Con: 9
Chr: 15

---

Str: 13
Int: 11
Wis: 17
Dex: 14
Con: 11
Chr: 16

Only a few minor changes

I'm not sure if you're hearing what I'm saying about an equal 'potential' of a person who has never been taught and a person who has, but I believe it's one of those things where a message board can never do the discussion justice?

I just don't feel like trying to write it all out. **laughs**

At any rate...
Here's an example of what you and I both are talking about, I believe.

I was tested at 148, professionally so... not one of those stupid little booklets that are as much subjective as objective.

Anyway... while I was in college I had the misfortune of accidentally insulting a girls intelligence based on an incident in her life that I had NO idea about.

It seems me saying "anyone who can't figure out how to change the tire on a car must either be really stupid or REALLY drunk" (keep in mind this was me speaking with an incredibly slurred tongue as I was REALLY drunk) touched a nerve with the girl.

Apparently she had failed miserably in one such attempt and had done considerable monetary damage to her rust bucket. I didn't find that part out until AFTER she cursed me up one side and down the other and even threw a beer coozie at me, ranting and raving about her 180 IQ and no small amount of profanity in regard to "the damn car falling off the jack".

To this day I'll put my 148 worth of Common Sense against 180 worth of Intelligence Quotient in any circumstance. (spelling optional)

Edit: I mispelled threw. **sighs**

[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: Woody ]

No. Way. In. HELL my Charisma is THAT high.

quote:

---

Eisuye thought about the meaning of life:

No. Way. In. HELL my Charisma is THAT high.

---

Cha also meens force of personalty...

Str 7
int 10
wis 15
dex 11
con 11
cha 11

But I think that IQ is all but useless without a corresponding education. And that education can also go a long way toward "teaching" IQ-like skills to those with lesser raw talent.

That's why I agree, in principle, with the weighting of education over IQ.

I would almost guarantee, for example, that a person of average intelligence with a PhD in a relevant discipline would be much more useful on a D&D adventure than someone with loads of raw talent, but no education at all (with respect to INT skills).

Where your observations are probably most valid, however, is at the lower end of the education scale: a very bright person may, indeed, be just as good at problem-solving as someone with a high school education.

Nor is there anything scandalous, as you implied, about a person of average intelligence learning. If solving problems is the desired real-world outcome, what does it matter if the person simply remembers the formula to find a circle's area, then measures and plugs in the numbers? Is it somehow better if they must first re-invent pi, and derive the basic principles of geometry?

I think the former is the better person, for making use of what potential he or she has.

Even look at your example with your college friend. She used her alleged IQ as simply a mental wang to wave about when threatened, just as I said IQ tends to be used.

So I guess the real question is, "What use is IQ in the absence of education." How many people do you really think are capable of rediscovering the sum total of human experience, from Newton to Hawking, or Homer to Angelou, or Hippocrates to Salk?

Just as a good Rennaissance education can substitute for raw natural talent, raw natural talent is next to useless without one.

Str: 15
Int: 11
Wis: 17
Dex: 15
Con: 16
Chr: 8

GO FOR ME CHARISMA!!!

Uhm... i don't know what class that would be... guessing a theif.

Jack of all trades master of none?
*shrugs

So... we'll agree to disagree on some points; and, that's cool, 'cause disagreeing is at the heart of all problem solving and forward thinking. Goooo smart people.

Woody Opinion: Any dumbass can get a degree and not know anymore than they knew in middle school. And, any genius can be so bored with the limits of traditional schooling that they drop out of the education system entirely.

So, in a scale where human intelligence is being measured and that scale is capped at 20, 6 points being awarded based on where a person got to in the education system is too much.

So let's move on to proposals as to how we might properly gauge human intelligence on a scale of 1 to 20.

I think FIRST we have to start from 'average' NOT from zero like the test we're using here.

Now, because only 1% of the world's populace has IQ scores above 135, we can't logically start at 10. We have to scoot that number back a bit to make room for the trully gifted. So we'll start from 8.

Completing high school IS average, so no points awarded. College should get you 1 point. Masters and/or PhD should give you another point. If you have disproved popular mathematical or scientific theories, OR have developed a theory that changes the way man thinks... then you should definately award yourself yet another point. Oh and... anything below highschool should deduct 1 point.

Knowing 1 language fluently is average. Knowing 2 languages fluently is moderately common add 1 point. Knowing more than 2 languages fluently add 2 points. The word FLUENTLY is important, basically read this as: 'if you could serve as an interpretor in that language'.

Using the Standford-Binet as a trusted source for reporting IQ (mostly because they don't agree with Marilyn vos Savant's 226 either). I'd like to use their scale for determining points awarded for IQ score. They consider 85-114 to be average. They consider average high schooler to be 124. So using their comparative table (http://home8.swipnet.se/~w-80790/Index.htm#TableI), give your self 1 point per Intelligence interval (the first column) for each interval above 124 (sinc we decided high school was average). To keep what you believe your score is in perspective, look at the scores they have estimated for some of the world's greatst brains (http://home8.swipnet.se/~w-80790/Index.htm#TableII).

So I'll use myself as an example:
Base: 8
College degree: +1
Can read and speak French to a degree, but am in no way fluent: 0
I tested at 148 on the Weschler in junior high. That's 151 on the Standford-Binet. That's in the 145 to 154 Intelligence Interval: +3

So INT: 12

Agree with the system? Disagree with the system? Figuring out a better system would be good.

Additionally, and part of what prompts your misunderstanding of the value of education, is that a Bachelor's degree is fast becoming the new norm--the minimum necessary to function at an "average" level in modern society--whereas high school used to be the standard.

Your argument is also faulty in that you don't penalize the supposedly smart people--morons, if you ask me--who fuck up, but use the excuse, "Oh, I'm just so far beyond the program it bores me." Manifest intelligence that ain't.

It's also exactly the mental wang-waving of which I disapproved earlier.

You've also successfully--so far--avoided the real question: of what use is IQ without education?

The way you've re-written the test weights IQ far too heavily. I would propose an IQ value weighted by age: younger people would get credit for potential, where older people would get credit for accomplishments. IQ would cease having input at about age 25 or so.

If you're 40, and you've got a high school education, then that vaunted 400 IQ means exactly dick, because you've not realized your potential. Whether that's through poor choice (low wisdom, perhaps?) or because the potential never really existed amounts to the same thing.

But unless you explain why you value the IQ number so highly, it's hard to have a meaningful discussion regarding change to the scale. I know a lot of PhDs--and none of them are stupid, by any stretch. They may be stubborn, or highly specialized, or naive, or politically distasteful, but not stupid. Slightly less so with Master's level work--few people with Master's degrees are stupid, but it doesn't require the same depth of knowledge and ability to contribute to a field as a PhD.

So the notion that stupid people routinely end up highly educated just doesn't wash.

So . . . what do you think of my counter-proposal?